..
NUMU VIEWS OF NUMU CULTURES AND mSTORY: CULTURAL
STEWARDSHIP ISSUES AND A PUNOWN VIEW OF GOSillTE AND
SHOSHONE ARCHAEOLOGY IN THE NORTHEAST GREAT BASIN
by
MELYIN G. BREWSTER
A DISSERTATION
Presented to the Department ofAnthropology
and the Graduate School ofthe University of Oregon
in partial fulfillment ofthe requirements
for the degree of
Doctor ofPhilosophy
December 2003
11
"Numu Views ofNumu Cultures and History: Cultural Stewardship Issues and a Punown
View of Gosiute and Shoshone Archaeology in the Northeast Great Basin," a dissertation
prepared by Melvin G. Brewster in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor
ofPhilosophy degree in the Department ofAnthropology. This dissertation has been
approved and accepted by:
Committee in Charge:
Accepted by:
Dr. C. Melvin Aikens, Chair
Dr. Jon Erlandson
Dr. Lawrence Sugiyama
Dr. Scott DeLancey
Dean of the Graduate School
----------- F
© 2003 Melvin G. Brewster
111
FIV
An Abstract ofthe Dissertation of
Melvin G. Brewster for the degree of
in the Department ofAnthropology to be taken
Doctor ofPhilosophy
December 2003
Title: NUMU VIEWS OF NTJMU CULTURES AND HISTORY: CULTURAL
STEWARDSHIP ISSUES AND A PUNOWN VIEW OF GOSIUTE AND
SHOSHONE ARCHAEOLOGY IN THE NORTHEAST GREAT BASIN
Approved: - '----------
Dr. C. Melvin Aikens
The culture history ofthe northeastern Great Basin, as currently written by the
archaeological profession, is silent as to the view ofGosiute and Shoshone natives about
their own ancestors. The goal ofthis dissertation is the infusion ofPunown (interrelated
Numic speaking peoples) epistemology into mainstream anthropological interpretation, as
provided through North American Desert West prehistory. The hypothesized Numic
expansion into the Northeast Great Basin, according to which the Punown natives now
resident throughout the region are very recent immigrants, is problematic on several
grounds. In the dissertation I show that late population movement into this region by
Numic ancestors has not been demonstrated. After a hundred years ofresearch no
consensus yet exists as to the origins ofthe Northern Uto-Aztecan speaking Numic peoples
(Punown). In spite ofthat, and in spite ofthef~ that it takes no account of the natives'
own view oftheir origins, the Numic Expansion Hypothesis is being used in a way by
.. r
----
some archaeologists and cultural resource managers that denies to the Punown their
cultural heritage. The archaeological record of the region, extending back into deep time, is
rich in the similarities it shows with the native Punown cultures ofthe contact-historic
period. The epistemology and spiritual beliefs ofthe Punown also assert their cultural
continuity with the ancient traditions documented in that archaeological recoret;It is not
acceptable that a scientific hypothesis impedes native people's role in the care and
stewardship ofsites and places throughout the region that their own spiritual traditions tell
them they are responsible for.
The mainstream anthropological concept of science and the epistemology ofthe
Punown are opposed diametrically. Punown view the world and its people as
interconnected through the Sacred Earth Matrix, while anthropologists see the human
world as bifurcated from nature. Punown understand archaeology and relatedness
spiritually, while archaeologists see dead objects in an "objectified" way. Conformity to the
existing paradigm, with its persistent building and rebuilding of earlier untenable
Euroamerican views ofNumic origins, makes the Punown outsiders to the region in which
they live. This goes on even though many scholars, reviewing the case for a Numic
Expansion, find it seriously lacking. Infusion ofPunown epistemology into current
archaeological practice offers a basis for pooling Punown and mainstream anthropological
approaches to the prehistory ofthe Desert West. A mutually enhancing research partnership
based on beneficial objectives is advocated; this will go far to repair a strained relationship
that now exists between Punown and archaeological researchers, and result in a fuller and
richer history for all to contemplate.
v
qVI
CURRICULUM VITAE
NAME OF AUTHOR: Melvin G. Brewster
PLACE OF BIRTH: Walker River Paiute Reservation, Schurz, Nevada
DATE OF BIRTH: Apri113, 1960
GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOLS ATTENDED:
University of Oregon
Sonoma State University
University ofNevada-Reno
Truckee Meadows Community College
DEGREES AWARDED:
Doctor ofPhilosophy in Anthropology, 2003, University of Oregon
Master of Arts in Cultural Resource Management, 1994, Sonoma State University
Bachelor of Arts, 1988, University ofNevada Reno
Associate of Arts, 1984, Truckee Meadows Community College
AREAS OF SPECIAL INTEREST:
Applied Archaeology
Northern Uto-Aztecan Prehistory and Patrimony Issues
Cultural Resource Management
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:
Tribal Historic Preservation Office Director, Skull Valley Band of Gosiute
Indians. Salt Lake City, Utah, 2002-2003
Anthropological and Psychological, Instructor. Western Nevada Community
College. Hawthorne and Yerington, Nevada, 2000-2001.
T*
Vll
Principal Investigator, Internal Indian Affairs. Schurz, Nevada, 1997-2003
Archaeologist, Bureau ofLand Management, Salt Lake City, Utah. 1992-1996
Archaeologist, Bureau OfLand Management, Elko, Reno, Nevada 1990-1992
Archaeologist, United States Forest Service, Eureka, California 1989-1990
GRANTS, AWARDS AND HONORS:
Undergraduate Scholarship, Bureau ofIndian Affairs, 1982-1987
Employee Excellence Award, Bureau ofLand Management, 1996
Roy Jones Scholarship, Oregon Archaeological Society, 1997-1998
Laurel Award, University of Oregon, 1998-2003
PUBLICATIONS AND REPORTS:
Brewster, Melvin G.
1989a Six Rivers National Forest Mineral Withdrawal Relinquishments.
Supervisors Office, USFS, Eureka, California.
1989b Subsurface Investigation Report for Site 05-10-54-321.
Supervisors Office, USFS, Eureka, California.
1990a Rinehart Well and Pipeline. Elko Field Office, BLM, Nevada.
1990b Susie Creek Riparian Enclosure. Elko Field Office, BLM, Nevada
1991a Midas, Emergency Fire Rehabilitation, Electric Fence, and Seeding.
Elko Field Office, BLM, Nevada.
1991b Native American or City ofElko Expansion. Elko Field Office,
BLM, Nevada.
1992a Stony Point Weather Station and Access Road. Elko Field Office,
BLM, Nevada.
1992b Huntsman Spring Pipeline. Elko Field Office, BLM, Nevada.
1
,
-
V111
1992c Highway 40 Power line. Elko Field Office, BLM, Nevada.
1992d The Archaeological Reconnaissance ofFour Well Pad Locations
on BehalfofForeland Corporation. Contract report, for D.L.
Zerga and Associates, Elko Field Office, BLM. Nevada.
1993a The Larson Exchange. Salt Lake Field Office, BLM, Salt Lake
City.
1993b Horseshoe Springs Dikes. Salt Lake Field Office, BLM, Salt Lake
City.
1993c The Oquirr Exchange. Salt Lake Field Office, BLM, Salt Lake
City.
1994a Planning for Cultural Resources on Walker River Paiute Tribal
Lands. Masters degree thesis, Department of Anthropology,
Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California.
1994b The Boyd War Exchange. Salt Lake Field Office, BLM, Salt Lake
City.
1994c High Country Estates. Salt Lake Field Office, BLM, Salt Lake
City.
1995a Emergency Fire Rehabilitation. Salt Lake Field
Office, BLM, Salt Lake City.
1995b Terra Emergency Fire Rehabilitation. Salt Lake Field Office, BLM,
Salt Lake City.
1996a Archaeology, Conformity, and the Numic Alternative in the
Eastern Great Basin. 25th Annual Great Basin Anthropology
Conference, in Method and Theory Symposia. Kings Beach,
Nevada.
1996b Puddle Valley Emergency Fire Rehabilitation. Salt Lake Field
Office, BLM, Salt Lake City.
1997 Predictive Model for u.s. Highway 395 Corridor from California
to Washington Border. Oregon State Museum of Anthropology,
Eugene.
• --,-
I
-
lX
1998a Numu Views on Numu Culture History. Paper presented at the
26th Annual Great Basin Conference, Bend Oregon.
1998b An Interim Assessment ofRepatriation Concerning Numu and
Federal and State Agency Native American Consultation
Compliance with NAGPRA. Confidential NAGPRA report
submitted to Pyramid Lake Paiute and Fallon Paiute/Shoshone
Tribes. Internal Indian Affairs, Schurz, Nevada.
1998c An Archaeological Inventory Along the Lower Walker River,
Mineral County, Nevada. Internal Indian Affairs, Schurz, Nevada.
1998c An ARPA Assessment of the Northern Marble Bluff Cave Locality.
Bureau ofIndian Affairs, Phoenix, Arizona.
1999a Planningfor Repatriation ofNumu Ancestors. Confidential
NAGPRA document, for the Pyramid Lake and Fallon
Paiute/Shoshone Tribes. Internal Indian Affairs, Schurz, Nevada.
1999b Archaeological Inventory of Proposed High School, Washoe
County, Nevada. Bureau ofIndian Affairs, Phoenix Area Office.
2000a An Archaeological Inventory of Well and Pipeline Sites, Washoe
County, Nevada. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland,
Oregon.
2000b Sub-Surface Probe of Inadvertent Discovery at Walker River
Paiute-Housing and Urban Development Pipeline Site. Internal
Indian Affairs, Schurz, Nevada.
2003a Class III Cultural Resources Inventory of 1500 Acres, on the
Confederated Goshute Indian Reservation, Ibapah, Utah. Internal
Indian Affairs, Schurz, Nevada.
2003b Ute (Nutsiyu), Southern Paiute (Nuwuvi), Punown (related Numic
speaking people): Cultural Affiliation of the Pectol Shields.
Confidential NAGPRA document, Band Skull Valley Band of
Gosiute Indians, Salt Lake City.
2003c Tribal Historic Preservation Program Planfor the Assumption of
State Historic Preservation Office Functions. Skull Valley Band of
Gosiute Indians, Salt Lake City
TBrewster, Melvin G. and Scott Carpenter
2000 An Archaeological Investigation at site CA-MRP-749, Yosemite
National Park, California. Yosemite Archaeology Office
Technical Report No 10. El Portal.
x
T
Xl
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to express respect and honor to Professors Aikens, Erlandson, Sugiyama, and
DeLancey for their assistance in the preparation of this dissertation. Special thanks go to
the University of Oregon Graduate School and Dr. Toby Deemer and Dr. Steadman Upham
for the Laurel Award I received. The University ofOregon is to be commended for
allowing me to argue for the right to state residence by "Aboriginal Right". Further, the
Anthropology Department is to be commended for its recruitment and retention ofNative
American graduate students, in fact, it is the best in the U.S. I want to thank Grandpa Vine
Deloria for writing "Custer Died for your Sins," and "God is Red"; if! had not read these
books as a child, I would never have become an archaeologist. I thank Ms. Melissa Zito for
compelling me to pursue a Ph.D., and for introducing me to trans-cultural "qualitative"
studies. Another thanks goes to Mrs. Heather Atsidis, who provided support, nurture, and
encouragement. A sincere thanks goes to my "Red Road," Numic-Punown mentors: Mr.
Clifford Duncan, Mr. Ellison McMasters, Mr. Myron Smart, Mr. Mervyn Wright, Mr.
Clifford Jake, Mr. Lacey Harris, Mr. Sam Gardapie, Mr. Frank Shoyo, Mr. Jay Johnson,
and Mr. Marshall Jack. More thanks are due to my family and friends, Tribal Elders, and
Governments ofthe Great Basin and beyond who encouraged me to work in the field. I
acknowledge Mr. Leland Pubigee, Mrs. Patty Timbimboo Madsen, and Ms. Gwen
Timbimboo Davis ofthe Northwest Band Shoshone who offered support and
encouragement. Without the mutual trust, honesty, and respect ofthe traditional Skull
Valley Band of Gosiute Indians, this dissertation would never have been accomplished.
-xu
Notably, Mr. Leon Bear, Chair, and Mrs. Lori Skibby, Vice Chair, and Shareen Wash, who
has passed to the other side, and the General Council. These are all wonderful Native
people! This dissertation is dedicated to the Numakinat (Ancient Ancestors), without their
help and direction this work could not have been accomplished. This dissertation is also
dedicated to my baby-girl Beatrice "Hootsiba" Brewster and to the other Punown children,
the present generation, and to those ofthe future. AllMy Relations.
.. F
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
I. mlRODUCTION 1
The Great Basin 1
Goals ofthe Dissertation 5
Punown (Related Numic speaking People) 7
Key Historic Preservation Laws 12
Executive Orders and Memoranda 13
Conclusion 13
n. APUNOWNVIEWOFGREATBASINCULTUREANDHISTORY.. 17
Reflections of a Professionally Trained Punown Archaeologist 18
Punown: Interrelated Numic Speaking Peoples 31
Ancestors, Spirituality, and Archaeology 32
A Path Toward Balancing Scientific and Punown Thought in '
the Conduct ofGreat Basin Archaeology 40
Numakinat 41
In Conclusion 43
m. ARCHAEOLOGICAL VIEWS OF NORTHEASTERN GREAT
BASIN CULTURE AND HISTORy 44
Theoretical Context 46
Cultural Sequence in Northeastern Great Basin 51
Bonneville Period (11,000-9,500 B.P.) 53
Wendover Period (9,500-6,000 B.P.) 61
Black Rock Period (6,000-1,500 B.P.) 65
Fremont Period (1,600-200 B.P.) 68
Late Prehistoric Period (600-200B.P.) 71
Historic Period (AD. 1776-Contemporary Nuwe) 72
Conclusion 78
IV. COLLISION: THE NUMIC EXPAJ~SIONHYPOTHESIS 80
Previous Numic Expansion Research 84
Additional Perspectives on Numic Expansion 98
What do Punown think ofthe Numic ~xpansion: How do we
Reprove this Attack on our Ethnicity 103
X111
po
Chapter Page
XIV
Some Concluding Questions: Would American Anthropologists
do Destructive Analysis on the Skeletal Remains ofFamous
Americans or Clergy 115
V. EPISTEMOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES AND WHERE THE
TRADITIONAL AND SCIENTIFIC mSTORIES MEET 121
Projection 122
Unconscious Collective 123
Can an "Etic" Social Science be Objective 128
Scientific Values orPunown Worldview 129
Neocolonialism 132
Conformity 135
Conclusion 138
VI. TOWARD INCREASING PRODUCTIVE INDIAN
ARCHAEOLOGIST RELATIONSillPS 140
Infusing a Punown Worldview into the Conduct ofGreat Basin
Archaeological Anthropology 141
The Archaeology is Alive 150
A Personal Reflection 152
BIBLIOGRAPHY 163
pLIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Historic Punown distribution. Shaded areas show extent ofNumic
speakers outside of Great Basin 2
2. Eastern Great Basin area, Showing locations of some Archaic sites 4
3. Tribal homeland distributions and specific language areas in the
Great Basin and adjacent areas 8
4. Key to Great Basin Projectile Point Sequence 53
5. Late Prehistoric and Archaic Projectile Points 54
6. Late and Middle Archaic Projectile Points 55
7. Early Archaic Projectile Points 56
8. The Punown area within the Intermountain West, showing source and
direction ofproposed Numic Expansion, after Rhode and •
Madsen (1994:214. fig. 24.1) 79
9. Macro-Penutian Dialect Area about 7,000 Years or more B.P 96
xv
• -- ---,-
LIST OF TABLES
T~k P~e
1. Cultural Chronology for the Eastern Great Basin area 51
XVI
.psz-------------------------------------------- ---------- r
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
"You have gone too far Melvin, to turn back now. "
Leland Pupigee
Northwest Band Shoshone Elder (September 1999)
In this dissertation, I offer a Native American Indian view of issues pertaining to
prehistoric archaeology in the Great Basin ofwestern North America. My discussion
focuses particularly on the northeastern Great Basin area (Fig. 1), although many points
relate to the entire region. A brief overview will orient the reader to the environmental
and cultural landscape involved.
The Great Basin
The Great Basin covers 165,00 square miles and is so called because none of its
water escapes to the sea (Grayson 1993:11). A tourist passing along a lonesome highway
could wish that the barren area slhe is viewing would soon be left behind. But the Great
Basin that is largely hidden from the view of a casual passerby is in reality a variable
patchwork of microenvironments. The same tourist, leaving the modern superhighway,
could be surprised at the plants and animals to be seen in well-watered areas, and perhaps
depart with quite a different view.
... T
.•
r
'. .
.....-.......~---.,.... ..........
".
[lOO)
Miles
i
I
---:
r-·
!
2
Figure 1. Historic Punown distribution. Shaded areas show extent ofNumic
speakers outside of the Great Basin. After Madsen 1994).
Massive mountain ranges with alternating valleys run north and south. Canyons
and valleys that have perennial streams or springs can be lush with riparian vegetation
and cottonwood trees, with pinyon and juniper forests or species like ponderosa pine,
quaking aspen, and mountain mahogany at higher elevations. Where rivers or other
3streams are present a scenic green belt makes its way across a barren desert. Marshlands
are located in some valleys where intermittent and perennial streams empty. In some
instances cottonwood forests occupy the green belt. (Grayson 1993:11).
In the northeast Great Basin (Fig. 2), the Deep Creek Range rises to over 12,087
ft. above sea level, with the Ibapah valley floor below at 4,600 ft. The Oquirrh Mountains
rise to 10,614ft. from a base on the valley floor at 4,200 ft above sea level near the Great
Salt Lake. The annual precipitation comes from Pacific fronts, which bring as little as 1"
of water to some dry valley bottoms and upward of 15" atop some mountain ranges. On
occasion Gulf ofMexico fronts bring welcome moisture to the area. A weather pattern
which seems to have been present during Fremont Culture time, prior to 1,200 RP.
The northeast Great Basin has numerous marsh areas along the shores ofthe Great Salt
Lake, and within desert islands such as Fish Springs and Horseshoe Springs. Perennial
streams emanate from the Deep Creek, Wasatch, Oquirrh, Stansbury, and Pilot
Mountains, amongst others. Much of this area was covered, between roughly 25,000 and
10,000 years ago, by Pleistocene Lake Bonneville. The old beach lines ofreceding lake
levels can be observed along the lower elevations of many mountain ranges. Since the
end ofthe Pleistocene the area has undergone variable weather patterns where drought
can make it quite thirsty, while different atmospheric flows can present it with much
needed moisture. The floristic Great Basin we know today came into being about 4,500
years ago Grayson (1993:41). The current floristic Great Basin has variable vegetation
zones including: Lower Sonoran life zone below 4,000 f1.; Upper Sonoran life zone
between 4,000 and 7,000 feet; Canadian life zone 7,500 to 8,000 ft.; and Arctic/Alpine
4above 11,000 feet above sea level. The fluctuating climate did not induce native peoples
to abandon it, however, and human use of the area stretches back more than 11,000 years.
WYOMING
COLO.
'-
(
,
,
I
J
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
50 100
I IMi'es
'---~I--""f Kilometers
50 100
Figure 2. Eastern Great Basin area, showing locations of some Archaic sites. After
Aikens and Madsen (1986).
y
J
5
The overall biotic diversity ofthe region is considerable, reflecting the generally
alternating basin-and range topography that is characteristic ofthe Great Basin as a
whole. The Great Salt Lake desert, at about 4200 ft. elevation, is dominated by salt
grasses and desert scrub, while elevations at 4500 ft. or so support robust stands of
sagebrush, greasewood, and Great Basin Wild Rye. Pinyon pine and Juniper forest
appears in many areas above 4,700 ft.. Willow, tule, tubers, and many seed bearing plants
grow in well-watered areas in valley bottoms and at high elevations in the mountains.
Overall, if one understands the biological system within the eastern Great Basin, as the
native peoples surely did, the area can be a "Garden ofEden." For some early
Euroamerican explorers this Garden became the "Gates ofHell," reflecting the limited
vision ofthose who were unfamiliar with its terrain Grayson (1993).
Goals of the Dissertation
This dissertation is based on my experience ofworking for fifteen years in the
field of Cultural Resource Management, and observing first hand the issues involved in
dealing with the archaeological record. Being the first Great Basin Native American
(Numu) to have reached the educational qualifications and professional experience
necessary to work qualitatively with inter-cultural issues concerning Indian and White
relationships to the archaeological record, I needed to write this dissertation. I felt an
imperative to produce a document that would take steps to bridge the strained
relationships that exist between Native and non-native people who are responsible for
dealing with this record. As I discuss at length below, there is great need for an infusion
..
6
of Gosiute and Shoshone (Nuwe) ideology, and the inclusion ofthe native voice, into our
accounts ofnortheastem Great Basin culture and history. To date, there is vanishingly
little of either. Accomplishing such an infusion requires a personal commitment from
professionals who work with tribes, a willingness by federal, state and public agencies to
fund such work, and a willingness among all concerned to comply with both the letter
and the spirit of historic preservation law. The exclusion of the Native American voice
that I refer to is not intentional, but it is a fact, one that in this dissertation will be looked
at historically, psychologically, and archaeologically.
A persistent theory ofcontemporary Americanist archaeology places the arrival ofthe
Nuwe in the northeast Great Basin just 650 years ago. The contemporary Nuwe are thus
"disconnected" from earlier people they consider to be their own ancestors, who left an
archaeological record ofsome 12,000 years ofcultural history and development in the region.
This idea, generally known as the Numic Expansion hypothesis, is discussed in detail later.
However, after working in the Great Basin for many years and the eastern Great Basin area
for ten years, I find reasons scientifically to support the claim ofthe Nuwe that they have
occupied this region for millennia. Nuwe oral tradition instructs that their ancestors were
created in situ in this area and that the Nuwe are its native occupants ofancient standing
(Miller 1972,37,38,42; Clifford Duncan [Northern Ute and Gosiute spiritual leader]
personal communication 1996,2003; Leon Bear [Skull Valley Gosiute] personal
communication 1999; Rosie Pabweena [Ibapah Gosiute and Ruby Valley Shoshone],
interviewed by Miller (1972); Clifford Jake [Southern Paiute Spiritual Leader], personal
communication 2003; Margene Bull Creek [Skull Valley Gosiute], (1999).
7My goal in this dissertation is to infuse Nuwe thought into the conduct and
expression of Northeast Great Basin culture history, and to provide Nuwe tribal
governments, Euroamerican academic researchers, cultural resource managers, and the
general public with a Nuwe voice. My personal experiences as a Numu (Northern Paiute)
who was raised on a Great Basin Indian reservation (Walker River Paiute Reservation)
inform this discussion through the interpretive "emics" of a cultural insider. My
professional experiences as a Great Basin federal agency archaeologist, and my
experiences in the mainstream American educational system, as a Tribal archaeological
consultant, and as a Native American liaison serve as an "etic" analytical perspective
with reference to contemporary Euroamerican archaeological practice. Also, I may be a
professional archaeologist by training and experience, but I have continued to develop
my knowledge and spiritual ties to Native American teachings and values, as taught
through the oral tradition of Great Basin Punown.
Punown (Related Numic Speaking People)
I use the word "Punown" to evoke the past-present-future-relationship among all
Numic speaking peoples. It reflects the connection of all life, as seen through the
perspective of a related people. It is a term inclusive of all Numic speaking peoples and
related Uto-Aztecan speakers such as the Hopi (Clifford Duncan 2003 personal
communication; Lacee Harris, personal communication 2003; Goss 1998; Brewster 1996,
1998, 2003). This connection is that we (Numu, Nuwuvi, Numa, Nutsiyu, and Nuwe, or
Punown) are the people here now, connected to those of the past and those of the future.
It is this interconnectedness that leads the Punown to claim responsibility for the
...
8
archaeological record, ancestral lands, skeletal remains, and sacred geography of our
traditional country (personal communication with Clifford Duncan [Northern Ute "Indian
Doctor"] 2003).
N
:
· .....
-..
: Nev - ••
• Mex:f.co
•
•,
I
·
Figure 3. Tribal homeland distributions and specific language areas in the Great Basin
and adjacent areas (after Myers 1987).
Numic speaking people, and to some extent all Uto-Aztecan speaking peoples,
consider themselves a People first and an ethnic group second. In general, the Punown
include Northern Paiute, Mono, Monache, Yosemite, Owens Valley Paiute, Western,
Eastern, and Northern Shoshone, Comanche, Northern and Southern Ute, Gosiute, Hopi
and so on. Punown are related peoples who are divided into different ethnic groupings
p 1
I
9
(bands, tribes, and so on) but all nonetheless one people. Circumscription did naturally
foster ethnically defined social cohesion in each group's territory, and it is a well-known
fact that each such group has a name for itself. The word for the people in general is
Numu (the People), or a variant thereof (Goss 1998:6). The Gosiute, for example, are the
"Dusty People," my Numu tribe in Western Nevada are the Agai-Ticutta (Trout Eaters),
the interrelated people of the Salt Lake Valley are Weber Ute (or Cumumba =Rabbit
Fish Eaters), and the North West Band Shoshone are now a mixed band of Nuwe that
came from various food-named ethnic groups (Fig. 3).
The prehistoric archaeology of the Nuwe area has been conducted and described
primarily in terms of explanatory "etics." That is, through the materialistic approaches of
professional archaeologists concerning the time and space continuum, as seen through
adaptation to environment, technology, and economics (cf. Myers 1997).
Bioanthropological models have been proposed of the origins ofPunown and Nuwe and
promulgated without the informed consent of those most directly concerned. The
accounts are etic, as gleaned through Euroamerican scientific analysis, based on the
premise that archaeology is objective, scientific, behavioral, materialistic, and
explanatory (Thomas 1998:40). Native ideation, symbolism, humanism, subjectivism,
and interpretation, as seen through the ernie views of the Natives themselves, has
generally not been infused into the archaeological interpretation, although Jennings
(1957; Jennings and Norbeck 1955) did put forth a Desert Archaic model based on
analogy to the Gosiute way of life that he saw as extending back 10,000 years. This
model of long-term adaptation within the Intermountain West is supported by subsequent
p T
10
work by Swanson (1972) in the Birch Creek area ofIdaho's high desert. With the
infusion ofNuwe ideology that I advocate, we can find meaning, include the people, and
weave human actors into the tapestry woven through archaeological discourse. Without
the pertinent oral tradition and view ofprehistory from the Nuwe and Punown
perspectives, the archaeological record is an outsider's "etic" account that is void ofthe
accumulated wisdom ofthose natives who claim a primeval history.
Thus, so far the voice of the northeastern Great Basin Nuwe is silent in
archaeological documents pertaining to their homeland. Nuwe and archaeologists ofall
backgrounds need to pool and share their collective knowledge ofGreat Basin culture
and history. The task appears daunting, but it is a task that is an intellectual and legal
necessity. Cultural Resource Management researchers who are funded by federal dollars,
and who expect to reach compliance with Historic Preservation Law, must work with the
tribes. With the arrival ofHistoric Preservation laws that seek to protect and preserve the
archaeological record, sacred sites, burials, and religious values of all Americans, and the
intellectual property rights and cultural patrimony of Native Americans, the need to re-
examine the process by which archaeological history has been written is before us. As a
starting point, this paper offers a Punown perspective on northeastern Great Basin
archaeology. Such Native American perspectives are important because without them
federal, state, and local agencies often lack the expertise necessary to write their heritage
preservation plans and research designs in an "emic" form acceptable to the native people
concerned. From a Nuwe point ofview, scientific analysis of archaeology is a barren
waste without the voices of themselves and other Punown. Nuwe are also suspicious of
ps T
11
findings when there is a lack ofprofessionals who work well with the tribes. In the Great
Basin the Nuwe, and more broadly the Punown, often lack the professional training as
archaeological researchers to assert their position within a context where they will be
taken seriously. So one important factor in presenting a Punown view is the ability ofthe
Punown themselves to write such a view.
Historic preservation law requires federal agencies that manage public lands to
consult with recognized tribes regularly. The potential effects an undertaking (a land
disturbing activity) can have on sacred sites, religious freedom, human burials and
funerary objects, sacred objects, gathering areas, archaeological sites, food and medicine
gathering areas, and so on must be considered from the point ofview of tribal interests.
Historic preservation laws are intended to foster preservation and conservation of the
American archaeological record, and they seek to protect religious freedom for Native
American Indians. Thus, Native intellectual property rights, cultural patrimony, and
treaty rights are each important components to consider when archaeology is conducted.
Before the licensing or permitting of any federally funded project on federal managed
public land, or any project where federal dollars are used, compliance with the historic
preservation law must be assured, and Native American Indian consultation is required.
It is my professional opinion that the bulk of archaeology done in the Great Basin
fails to fully comply with the applicable law. Much effort has been expended on arguing
that Nuwe and other Punown are newcomers to the area, contrary to archaeological and
other scientific evidence that shows their presence there to be long-standing. Although
universities do an excellent job of training cultural resources managers, often consultation
p ---yw
I
12
is conducted in a way that allows federal, state, and other public agencies to comply with
the archaeological aspect of the law only. In reality this failure comes about because
researchers lack adequate background to understand how to fuse the Native view with the
archaeological record. The ignoring of this historic preservation responsibility stems from
the idea of "progress," as historically developed through the idea ofobjectivity in western
social science. A siege mentality often exists where managers and some archaeologists
try to avoid communications with recognized tribes, and seek out only those Indians who
will go along with them. My immediate goal is to give the Nuwe ofthe northeastern
Great Basin a tool whereby they can have an equal voice, and to give non-American
Indians a tool they can use to work effectively with the Nuwe on matters of Cultural
Resource Management.
Key Historic Preservation Laws
The following historic preservation laws, executive orders, memoranda, and
regulations require Native American consultations and compliance with their legal
provisions before the licensing and permitting of any federally funded projects (USDI, et
al,2002):
American Indian Religious Freedom Act [42 U.S.c. 1996 and 1996a]
Archaeological Resources Protection Act [16 U.S.C. 470aa] National Historic
Preservation Act, with amendments [16 U.S.c. 470, et. seq.]
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act [25 U.S.c. 3001]
p13
Regulations
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act: Final Rule [43 CFR Part 10]
"Protection of Historic Properties" [36 CFR Part 800] ofNational Historic Preservation
Act [16 U.S.C. 470]
Executive Orders and Memoranda
Executive Order 13007 "Indian Sacred Sites" [61 FR 26771] Executive Order 13084
"Consultation with Native American Tribes" [63 FR 27655]
Executive Order 13175 "Consultation and Coordination in Native American Tribal
Governments" [65 FR 67249]
Memorandum on the "Government-to-Government Relationship" [59 FR 22951]
Conclusion
The Nuwe are in a position now where they can have an equal voice, under law,
but still this voice does not come without a struggle. As I have learned as a Native
American Indian, as a professional archaeologist working for Tribes, and as an agency
ar~haeologist, some responsible people are not amenable to fully observing historic
preservation law requirements. In the early 1970's the federal agencies were not favorable
to hiring archaeologists, and in contemporary times, conservative managers are not
comfortable with consultation with Native Americans. In 1995, I personally heard a local
F14
federal agency manager say that "the Indians have already lost; we do not need to consult
with them. I am waiting for the new [Republican] administration to come in." Another
such statement was reported by Smith (1998):
BLM officials say they have bent over backward to accommodate the
Indians, but now the law ofthe land -- Uncle Sam's land -- must be
enforced. "We do not consider this to be an Indian issue; it is a grazing
issue," says Stout. "This is a rough deal because a lot of what they base
their arguments on are the policies ofconquest of the federal government,
policies that every emerging nation used. Conquest is how the Shoshone
got their lands in the first place."
In the 1990's some archaeologists have gone as far as to claim they are "under
siege" (Simms and Raymond 1999). Other archaeologists feel that "they will be put out
of business" by laws for the protection ofNative American rights (Shafer and Stang
1996).
An equal voice will give the American Public a realistic and informed balanced
view of the first Americans.
I argue in this dissertation that the "truth can set you free" (Jung 1933). Nuwe
traditional knowledge is of a sacred nature. Certain prayers, ceremonies, and songs have
been intentionally withheld from the anthropological, historical, and archaeological
communities, and this privacy will likely continue into the future. The primary reason is
that Nuwe cannot divulge such spiritual information to non-trained, nor non-Indian
researchers for their protection. This is in line with reasoning about self-reflection, as has
been described in western terms by Jung (1932:35). However, relying on my personal
experience, and values that I am free to communicate, I will suggest in this dissertation
p15
how to accomplish cultural resources management goals and academic research that will
bridge the "etic-emic gap" in the prehistoric archaeology of the northeastern Great Basin,
and the gap in productive mutual Indian/non-Indian collaboration on future work.
Chapter II, presents a Punown view of Great Basin culture and history (my
personal view as a Punown person and archaeologist), setting out the Punown
understanding of their relationship to the archaeological record (Brewster 2003a). In
Chapter III, a standard Euroamerican archaeological view of northeast Great Basin
culture history is presented. In Chapter IV, the Numic Expansion hypothesis is reviewed
and deconstructed, to show the collision between Euroamerican theory and traditional
Nuwe views of their own ancestors. Chapter V, discusses epistemological differences and
where traditional and scientific histories meet, and makes recommendations for future
research. Chapter VI, offers suggestions for improving the working relationships between
Indians and archaeologists, by stressing the importance of infusing the Punown
worldview into the conduct of archaeology and anthropology, and pleading for mutual
respect among all concerned in archaeological and cultural heritage preservation work.
The method I have chosen for writing this dissertation is simple. I employ a
culture historical analysis that is informed by my being a Native Great Basin American
Indian. Writing in this mode, writing is a picture because true objectivity when it comes
to writing history cannot be attained. Yet, each individual draws a picture with words.
Natural phenomena can be explained scientifically through an objective science mode but
history cannot hope to reach such a state. Through understanding my own culture as an
inside member, I feel that an "emic" understanding of the prehistoric actors who
p
~ -~---_.__ .-----------------------
16
produced the archaeological record is possible. In 1998 at the Great Basin
Anthropological Conference in Bend, Oregon, I concluded my presentation at the
"Rethinking Numu Antiquity Symposium" with my idea of how to go about conducting
Great Basin American Indian research. I summarize that here as a conclusion to this
chapter:
"Numucentricity" can help solve the communication problems between some
anthropologists and the Numu. First, a "Numucentric Position" calls for the avoidance of
purely etic analysis that disallows the voices of contemporary Numu, and of research that
relies solely on opinions expressed in terms of Western ideas, of what the historic
ethnographic notes imply. Analysis must take into account Numu ideology and state all
relative positions of both Natives and Euroamericans. Numucentricity also implies that
everything is written from a perspective, which benefits the Numu and is constructed
qualitatively from the views of the people. It looks from all angles and is eclectic,
considering all previous models, and it changes as new data are generated. Research in
the Numucentric mode does not ordinarily start from a simple hypothesis but grows from
itself and strives toward a conceptual whole. The archaeological record, if looked at as a
continuum through time and space-with modulation, and not dominated by theorizing
about ethnic replacements-:-ean tell us more about the orientations of a Native people.
Theories about a great exodus tell perhaps too much about the individual researchers who
constructed them, primarily showing their own heritage as Euroamericans subjected to a
recent history of Manifest Destiny, and a more ancient history ofmigrations and
movements reaching back into the histories of their European homelands.
FCHAPTER II
A PUNOWN VIEW OF GREAT BASIN CULTURE AND HISTORY
To walk the Red Road is to know sacrifice and suffering. It is to
understand humility. It is the ability to stand naked before God in all
things for your wrong doings, for your lack ofstrength, for your non-
compassionate ways andfor your arrogance. Because to walk the Red
Road, you always know you can do better. Andyou know when you do
good things it is through Creator andyou are grateful. To walk the Red
Road is to know you stand on equal ground with all living things. It is to
know that because you were born human, it gives you superiority over
nothing. It is to know that every creation carries a spirit and the river
knows more than you do. The wind is wiser then you are. Animalpeople
carry wisdom and YOU can learn from every one ofthem because they
have something you do not. They are void ofevil thoughts. They wish
vengeance on no one and seekjustice. To walk the Red Road, you have
God given rights. You have the right to pray, you have the right to dance,
you have the right to think, you have the right to protect, you have the
right to know Mother, you have the right to dream, you have the right to
vision, you have the right to teach, you have the right to learn, you have a
right to grieve, you have a right to happiness, you have the right to fix
wrongs, you have the right to truth and you have a right to the Spirit
World. To Walk the Red Road is to know your Ancestors; to call to them
for assistance. It is to know that there is good medicine and there is bad
medicine. It is to know that Evil exists but is cowardly as it is often in
disguise. It is to know there are evil spirits who are in constant watch for a
way to gain strength for themselves at the expense ofyou. To Walk the Red
Road, you havefar less fear at being wrong because you know that life is
ajourney, a continuous circle, a sacred hoop. Mistakes will be made and
mistakes can be corrected ifyou will be humble, for ifyou cannot be
humble you will never know when you have made a mistake. Ifyou walk
the Red Road you know that every sorrow leads to a better understanding.
Every horror cannot be explained but can offer growth. To Walk the Red
Road is to lookfor beauty in all things. To Walk the Red Road is to know
you will one day cross to the Spirit World and you will be not afraid.
(Author unknown)
17
18
Reflections of a Professionally Trained Punown Archaeologist
A Native American Indian perspective on Great Basin archaeology has not
previously been offered (but see Stoffle et al. 1990: 86, 103, 104, 134). There has been a
lack of interest within the professional community, and a lack ofresources and
professional expertise in the Native community. The sensitive issues surrounding this
subject, as it pertains to the spiritual, also contribute. In this dissertation I offer a
qualitative Punown perspective on northeast Great Basin archaeology. As explained
further below, Punown is a northern Ute [NutsiyuJ word for all related Numic speaking
people or ancestors. The paradigms and interpretations of a Punown (in my case,
Northern Paiute) archaeologist are different than those of Euroamerican researchers
(Hodder 1992:3; Swidler et al. 1997:12), but not wholly different. Some aspects of
scientific inquiry are similar to some spiritual values. As will be discussed later, culture
history is an art form as much as a science, and as each individual artist paints his or her
picture on the canvas, so does each individual archaeologist paint an individual picture of
culture history. The following emerges from my own painting ofthe culture and history
in the northeast Great Basin.
I was raised on the Walker River Paiute reservation in western Nevada (fig. 1). I
have an "emic" perspective on the origins ofmy people (in a Punown sense all Numic
speaking people are my people), which is not shared by many other researchers (Swindler
et al.1997: 17). The work done by a Punown, or any Native archaeologist, is strongly
influenced by beliefs and early inculcation ofvalues provided by his or her people. It is
$..
19
the traditional job of an "interpreter." Lacee Harris, a Nutsiyu (Ute) and Numu spiritual
leader, recently said to me, "You see these five fingers (pointing to his hand). One is a
Chiefor head man, one is a hunter, one is a medicine man, one is a warrior, and one is an
interpreter." He said, "that without even one ofthose traditional roles the Tribe or Band
could not function". At this point Lacee held up one finger and said, "this is easy to
break, isn't it?" Then he held up two, saying "this is stronger" and then he eventually
held up three, four, and five. Lacee continued:
"Without these roles the people are weak. The interpreter is the role where
understanding of other tribes and traditions needs to be interpreted to
promote relations with other people. You are an interpreter. Your job is to
figure out what other people are doing, what scientists are writing about
the People, and to report to the People so decisions can be made for the
best ofthe People. Sitting Bull had more then one role. He was a hunter, a
warrior, interpreter, medicine man, and chief. He only wore one feather
because people knew who he was. He did not wear his full headdress of
hundreds of eagle feathers because he was one of the people and did not
brag nor think he was better. Today you might see some unknown
individual with a headdress with hundreds of feathers and no one knows
who the person was. As an interpreter it is your job to figure out things for
the leadership so the people can be protected. So that man who is sitting
by himself, wearing one broken feather on his head, who does not have
much, who sacrifices for the people, is well known, he is respected, but he
gives of himself for the people. That is your role. There is a balance of
how much to give of yourself and then leave it at that. You can only do
what you can do" (Lacee Harris, personal communication, March 2003).
I have taken Lacee's injunctions seriously, and what he outlined are the
personal responsibilities I am pursuing in this dissertation. A Native archaeologist
must be acutely aware of the spirituality ofher/his people and s/he must be
familiar with the teachings of the elders and the oral traditions of the people. S/he
must realize that we still know very little and must be mentored by elders,
$ T
20
traditional healers, and those who are deeper into the Red Road then we. S/he can
understand archaeological and anthropological social science theory and s/he can
withstand unfair criticisms and all the inimical situations those who are biased can
throw at her/him. S/he can withstand jealousy from some of her/his own people
and can survive even when s/he cannot find work because ofbeing "biased
toward herlhis own people." If s/he is a mixed-blood, s/he needs to withstand the
accusations and prejudice projected at her/him from both directions concerning
her/his heritage and s/he must be humble to a certain degree yet make sure s/he is
paid for herlhis work. In my career, when I had almost quit archaeology and
stopped my education, a Northwest Band Shoshone elder told me, "You have
gone too far and you cannot give up now."
The interpretations I offer are informed by Numu oral traditions, and what my
elders have instructed me about where Numu come from and our relationship to Punown.
I take responsibility for my opinions, which constitute a qualitative interpretation of
Punown views on archaeology at the present time, even though some may agree with the
meanings I have assigned and some may not. The Punown perspective is important for all
archaeologists to know about, however imperfectly I may have rendered it. My goals and
aspirations, within the American conception ofwhat is success and how researchers go
about attaining their personal goals, may be contrary to the expectations of the
profession. On a personal level, Some Native professionals find it easy to tum their heads
on indigenous tradition and do work which is contrary to values of their own people
while attaining a certain amount ofmaterial freedom for doing so. The ideal Native
$21
archaeologist is required to walk the Red Road (above), and to only seek material gain for
him or her self is to prostitute the spiritual beliefs ofhis or her people.
I use the methods and scientific paradigms available to me for the benefit of the
Punown that I work for, as a means by which to protect, preserve, and interpret the
archaeological data concerning our Great Basin homeland. I am one of the first Numu
archaeologists. Diana Yupe, a Shoshone Bannock, has now worked in the field for
several years, and Harriet Brady, Pyramid Lake Paiute, followed me in an Anthropology
degree at University of Nevada-Reno. Diane Teeman, Bums Paiute, is another
archaeologist who follows me in the Doctoral program at the University of Oregon.
Bruce Crespin has worked for the Bureau of Land Management as an archaeologist for
many years. We all follow Sarah Winnemucca Hopkins and Gilbert Natchez as the first
Numu anthropologists, who provided early insight into Numu ways.
My work and experience have been derived from professional Cultural Resource
Management experience working within federal agencies, as a private tribal
archaeological consultant, and as a participant in Punown ceremonies. My participation
in Punown ceremonies has taught me ofprehistoric ancestors, and helped me in reaching
catharsis as a traditional Numu living in the modem world. My work is informed by the
views of the Punown, elders, tribal governments, and spiritual leaders. Without this
direction it would be much more difficult to arrive at satisfactory methodology on dealing
with sensitive Punown interests within mainstream Cultural Resource Management.
However, catharsis is part ofthe everyday process for all people who choose that
path. Like my Numu predecessors, my research paradigm begins with my own Numu
22
knowledge, handed down to me from wise spiritual teachers and elders. Deconstruction
of the thought ofothers is best guided by allowing the voices of the Punown to be heard.
With the understanding of basic behavioral principles we can arrive at diverse and open-
minded views of the Punown. It was in my agency work that I began to view some ideas I
received as a student from the University ofNevada-Reno, and Sonoma State University,
in Rohnert Park, California, as questionable. As I learned more clearly, I saw that those
standard mainstream interpretations ofmy people's history were contrary to our own
thousands of years ofancient knowledge, which Numu and Punown revere (cf. Goss
1999:78; Hodder 1992:3). An Arapaho/Shoshone interlocutor related to me (personal
communication 2003) that,
"The Taibou [non-Indians] are transient wanderers with no connection to
ancestral North American people. They must define everything, but when
they do this, they miss the understanding that can only come from
traditional ceremonies where we learn from our anCestors. This traditional
knowledge tells us where we come from, and we were created right here.
How long will it take them to understand?"
The above words were uttered with extreme concern and sorrow because there
was an understanding that we must have faith in the way prayers are answered by the
Spirit. Sorrow also because without the right understanding of the power inherent in
material culture and skeletal remains, such insight into understanding the past, and the
spiritual connection it has for the people, would only lead to bad medicine. He showed
concern that in the final analysis, the non-Indians would continueto misunderstand, and
therefore misinterpret the truth about Native genesis and possibly suffer spiritual
maladies as a result. However, there was also a positive ring to his voice, suggesting he
pIl!!lJ----------------------------------
23
felt that in the future, the non-Indians would learn. For many Punown and other Native
American Indians, the future holds great promise for eventual change.
It is important for readers to understand that without the activities of
Euroamerican anthropologists, much important material on Numu culture would no
longer exist, and that their work is exceptionally valuable (but see Deloria 1997:214 for
another take on this). The dominant perception Punown have of archaeologists and
anthropologists, however, is that they want to curate our ancestral artifacts, take our
knowledge, pontificate about who we are, and make money off us while we are not
reimbursed (e.g., Miller 1972b). One ofmy objectives is to work for a more balanced
appreciation, on both sides, of the contributions and value of the "other" in this situation
(cf. Goss 1999:79). To me, with an advanced University education specializing in arid
Intermountain West prehistory and anthropology, the hidden meanings in the twisted web
woven by mainstream researchers are apparent. It is up to Native archaeologists
(interpreters) to work from within their own culture(s) to unwind the tapestries woven by
"etic" researchers, where they are misleading, and weave in the Native perspective as
well.
How those material objects of the archaeological and ethnographic records are
thought ofby the Punown (and other Native peoples) is extremely important. While our
descriptions of the material culture, site delineations, homeland area studies, vegetations,
flora and fauna, settlement and subsistence patterns are valuable data for us in seeking to
understand the prehistory of an area, it is essential to provide a baseline Native view of
the area. Without the ideology of the Native people to go along with measurements and
p'
24
descriptions and models ofhow items were used, we are stuck with a silent
archaeological record. An archaeological record that has been looked at from outside of
the culture whose residue it is that archaeologists seek to Distil.
The goals and perspectives of a Native archaeologist are much different from
those of archaeologists who do not share the same inculcation of culture or the same great
ancestral time depth on the continent. In one instance I visited a summer field school
conducted by a local university at the request of the Field School director (1995). We
were looking at ceramics and other artifacts in a midden. The students were oveIjoyed
that local Southern Paiute (Nuwuvi) interlocutors were excavating with them at the site.
The interlocutors and I shared oral traditions with the students and one evening the
Nuwuvi showed the hunting and cooking preparation involved in a traditional Kuub
(ground-hog) feast. The Nuwuvi put on, the traditional feast, for the Field School. This
was very positive and the University was making a film of the event. However, a visiting
professor from a California University, within hearing distance ofthe Nuwuvi, looked at
some ceramic sherds and stated flatly, "No Numic person could have made this." His
nose was crunched up and his voice had a higher pitch; his negative feelings were very
evident. The Nuwuvi on the site did not say anything but looked at me and pretended to
kick this individual as he bent over in front of them, and laughed humorously. They later
expressed their own view that "we are descendants of the makers of those things and we
are related to the people who lived here in the past. We were created here." A few
minutes after this incident, the excavation revealed some bone pieces that were of a good
size to fit in the hand. The Field School director showed them to the Nuwuvi
,-;------------------------------
25
interlocutors, saying, "I have no idea what these are for." The interlocutors took one look
at them and said, "These were hand game bones."
I have found that much ofmy work, including questions about interpretation and
suggestions about working with Great Basin Punown, is considered threatening and
biased by many non-native archaeologists. Simple questions, asked in good faith, are
sometimes met with rage by otherwise congenial Euroamericans. From these inimical
encounters, I have learned that my work is primarily written for other Native American
Indians and that my analyses are done to illuminate issues that are important to the
society in which I originated. Weare not yet at the point, I believe, that Great Basin
anthropology can satisfy the needs ofPunown archaeology within the dominant paradigm
(Biolsi and Zimmerman 1997; Deloria 1969, 1972, 1975, 1995, 1997,2003; Churchill
1995; lung 1932; Means 1995; Mihesuach 1996; Swidler et a1.1997; Watkins 2000). In
Chapter Five, I offer a model of how objectivity can become biased through cognitive
dissonance.
In a counseling session in which I asked a personal mentor, who is a psychologist,
why this is so, I learned an important element ofwhat some psychologists think about the
"collective unconscious" of Euroamericans. I asked my mentor, "why do some
anthropologists, especially those who wear moccasins and other Native material objects,
react with rage when a Native American does not agree with their interpretations ofwho
they (the Native Americans) are? My mentor replied that Karl lung believed "Americans
probably cannot deal with the guilt they feel about their own ancestors committing
genocide on American Indians until they themselves become Indians" (William Hughes
p•.-----------------------------~ - - - -----------
26
Ph.D., personal communication 1996; Deloria 1993). A cognitive dissonance model of
Great Basin research, presented later in the dissertation, says more about this problem.
I ask the reader to appreciate my assailing ofEuroamerican conceptual bias and
''National Mythology" as an honest effort to understand, and to consider seriously-and
hopefully adopt-some of the key ideas presented in this paper (McGuire 1997:86).
''National Mythology" is a tenn coined by D. Fowler (1987) to refer to examples of
propaganda created by the fonner Soviet Union, and by China in Tibet, to explain an
archaeological record in a way that bolsters national identity. As an Indian archaeologist, I
feel no compulsion to confonn to Euroamerican constructs ofManifest Destiny, and I feel
sure that other Native Americans feel the same. Similarly, it is not our way to behave in
confonnance to ideas ofprogressive Christian purpose, or rugged individualism, or to behave
as dutiful students using their data to design and bolster theories that support the dominant
ideology oftheir profession (Biolsi and Zimmennan 1997:1; Deloria 1969:98-99, 1997:211,
2003; Dwyer 1976; McGuire 1997:63,64, 77, 80, 83, Zimmennan 1997:93, 97, 103). It is
my presumption that ethnic identities "seen" in the archaeological record by some
Euroamerican archaeologists are constructed on weak foundations (Deloria 1997:214). I
believe that Punown ideology arises from the essence ofthousands of years of ancestral
experience, living within the core ofthe Great Basin. Surely as scientists, skeptical
archaeologists can agree that alternative hypotheses or explanations ofthe past are worth
testing or examining. With reference to the Numic Expansion hypothesis, for example, why
not objectively examine the possibility that Punown peoples have occupied the Great Basin
for millennia (Aikens 1994, 2000; Aikens and Witherspoon 1986)?
$S
27
The uses made of anthropological and archeological data within federal agencies,
and in educational texts from which American school children learn about the Punown
and other Native peoples, have often fostered bias against the natives (e.g., Mihesuah
1996). Some Native school children feel they are treated differently than others when
American Indian history and prehistory are taught at schools. One Gosiute Junior High
student recently was told "you are not Fremont," and that her people were "also
immigrants to the Skull Valley area, just like white people" (personal communication
with Gosiute teenager 2003). Another example is of a Western Shoshone elder who was
told "we know where your people come from" (Western Shoshone interlocutor 1998,
personal communication).
Research interpretations ofscientists have threatened the "Cultural Patrimony" of
indigenous Great Basin people (e.g., Barker and Pinto 1994; Madsen and Rhode 1994).
They have given young children (both Indian and others) ideological perceptions of Great
Basin peoples that have served to reinforce stereotypes about inferiority, seemingly derived
from natural processes ofcultural evolution (Mihesua 1996:20-79; Deloria 1997:214;
Steward 1955). But these messages stem in fact from prejudicial interpretation. Punown
and their prehistoric ancestors are not portrayed, for example, as eclectic biologists who
were natural scientists in their own right, but rather as endlessly ''wandering,'' "simple"
hunters and gatherers, who had the lowest fonn of social organization on earth (e.g. Steven
Powers (1977), John C. Fremont (1887), Mark Twain ([187lreport] 1959), Julian Steward
(1955), and those who have followed the traditionalist Numic Expansion archaeological
camp; cf. various papers in Madsen and Rhode (1994).
• T
28
Readers are referred to Alley (1986:379-381) for some ofthe most grotesque and
vicious stereotypical racism applied to the Gosiute and Shoshone that can "still be found
here and there [in] scholarly literature." In 1996, as a federal Area Archaeologist, one of
my written comments concerning a locally written contract archaeology report chastised
the contractor for allowing the racist description ofthe Gosiute provided by Mark Twain
to be quoted as a reliable description. The particular quote (is not repeated here) was used
to justify the researcher's mental picture of the harsh environment and extreme poverty of
the ancestral Gosiute.
An historic trajectory is traceable. For Alley (1986:407), many ofthe stereotypes
come from the "surviving residue of trappers." According to Alley, "when the white man
spoke so insistently ofthe barren Great Basin and its impoverished inhabitants he was, in
truth, only describing his own inadequacies". The media have portrayed Native people
negatively, and the educational system has inculcated American youth with negative
stereotypes about them (cf. Alley 1987; Churchill 1998; Mihesuah 1996). Often
stereotypes are bolstered by archaeology and anthropology, the facts interpreted in
accordance with long-standing bias or "theory." During my undergraduate years another
student once ignorantly said to me, "if it were not for us white folk you [Indians] would
be starving to death and cold because you would be wearing skins and living in a
wigwam."
Vine Deloria (1995) cogently observed that Americans view scientists much like
high priests, and the respect granted a bishop or reverend in the historic past is now
granted the findings of these scientists. The history taught to American children for
,.
29
decades in schools is a "feel good" history that steers away from matters such as
genocide, rape, torture, murder, theft, slavery, and dishonored treaty rights, and is
justified and rationalized with cognitive dissonance (Loewen 1995).
As Vine Deloria (1995:1), Russell Means and Wolf(1995), and Ward Churchill
(1995) have pointed out, the view ofwhere their people originated from, as theorized by
Euroamerican scientists and as told in their own people's accounts, is quite different.
Like Deloria, Means and Churchill, I grew up trusting western science, with my Mother
telling me "respect those [Taibou] people, they know more than you." Like the dutiful
Numu I am, I respected my Mother's wisdom. Origin stories between tribes differ
markedly and it can be confusing, but the truth of these sacred accounts is that they tell of
how the people came to be. In some instances the stories are quite revealing and
archaeology in a material sense can verify some details, much the same as when
historical linguistics offers language "age area and home land" studies in conjunction
with a firmly studied archaeological record. We must proceed very carefully and realize
that Native accounts in some instances could be quite esoteric and impossible to verify
with the archaeological record. Yet, ifwe understand the underlying structures of
Punown thought, and the thought ofother Native American Indian people, our
conceptions ofmyth and fact and stories can be both objective (sensu Western tradition)
and respectful ofthe traditional view.
All truth is relative to individual experience; when we do archaeology, however,
we are providing a view for others, based on our own vision. When individual experience
is narrowed by tunnel vision and the lens is unclean, the result is chaos. We as
P-.--------------------------
30
archaeologists must strive for objectivity, but it is beyond the ethical treatment ofNative
American Indian people to use descriptive facts of archaeological sites and artifacts to
theorize solely on the grounds of our interests alone. I can make no claim to whose
collective truth is more valid, or deny that each individual has the right to think as s/he
chooses. Certainly it is a delicate balance to temper objective thoughts with those of
spirituality. The most common thread of spirituality in Native creation accounts is that
these stories were told to the people by the Spirit, and orally transmitted through
millennia. It is no attack on objective scientists or on Native people to understand and
respect one another's views. As is the case with modem Biblical archaeology, much of
the research is done with a particular amount offaith. The faith in objectivity is similar to
the faith in the Spirit. An archaeologist can provide a picture from all angles that
represents both without appearing to be non-objective. A sense of objectivity is lost when
the scientific truth of a hypothetical argument is used in a negative sense.
As my early career as a federal agency archaeologist drew to an end, I observed
the use of anthropological and archaeological data to support attempts to withhold the
repatriation ofNumu ancestors. For example, in the Great Basin, Spirit Cave Mummy
and Wizard Beach Man are still under the control of the federal government. I also
observed cases ofnoncompliance with federal historic preservation law, and found little
support for the idea of being sensitive to the needs ofthe tribes. The tribes rarely have the
funding or expertise to challenge the agencies on legal grounds, and it is my observation
that being sensitive is a legal issue. My current employment as Director of the Tribal
Historic Preservation Office for the Skull Valley Band of Gosiute Indians is not an easy
p.J-----------------------------
31
job. Most of the responsibility I am assigned is to correct historical injustices, and I have
found that my education from the Euroamerican world about my people has serious gaps.
Ironic consensuses tenned "facts" which I was taught in college or university are actually
theories, based on the "etic" interests of some rugged individualists who have no stake in
the needs of contemporary Nuwe and Punown (cf. Madsen and Rhode 1994).
The Punown: Interrelated Numic Speaking Peoples
To explain the relationship between, for example, the Gosiute and Shoshone
Nuwe and other Numic speaking people, the past-present-future connection among the
Punown is important. That is, the connection of all life, as seen through the perspective of
an inter-related people. This is what I call the Punown perspective, which I have learned
personally from my elders, including Clifford Duncan (personal communication 2003),
Clifford Jake (personal communication 2003), Lacee Harris (personal communication
2003), James Goss (1999:75, 76,77), and other citations in Brewster (1996, 1998, 2003b).
I have introduced this perspective already in the foregoing discussion, but here it is
important to say a little more about it.
The point ofthe Punown perspective is that the Punown are the interior western
people here now, connected to those ofthe past and those of the future. For the Punown
this connection is realized through ceremony, including song, dance, and prayer. This
understanding is only available to those who are spiritually sanctified to know it.
Culturally, those who understand this ancient relationship have been inculcated with the
ceremonial knowledge surrounding it (cf., Deloria 1997). Numic speakers, and to some
extent all Uto-Aztecan speakers, consider themselves to be one people. They recognize
po
...
32
one another through their language, and in other ways (Goss 1999). For this great
interrelated people I use the Ute word Punown. The local groups mostly share similar
names (Numu or a related word: Nutsiyu, Nuwuvi, Numa, Nuwe, Newe). Among the
Punown are: Northern Paiute, Mono, Monache (Yosemite), Owens Valley Paiute,
Western, Eastern, and Northern Shoshone, Comanche, Northern and Southern Ute,
Gosiute, Kawaiisu, and others. Punown are related people ofdifferent local ethnic
groupings but nonetheless all belonging to the People. To recognize this larger unity is
not to claim that geographical or social circumscription did not allow for ethnically
defined social cohesion within each group's territory. It is well known that each local
ethnic group has a name for itself. The name Gosiute means the "dusty people," who are
also the Kumamba, "rabbit eating people". Various Shoshone groups call themselves the
Fish Eaters, Rabbit Eaters, Pine nut Eaters, Fish Eaters, and Buffalo Eaters, Mountain
Sheep eaters, Seed Eaters and so on.
Ancestors, Spirituality, and Archaeology
Numakinat is the name I have heard for "ancient animal progenitor ancestors and
earliest humans," who were also described as Numwad by the early ethnographer John
Wesley Powell (Fowler and Fowler 1971). This concept speaks to an ancient time, and
the Nuwe understanding that all life is interconnected. It is linked to the "Great Mystery,"
or part of Grandfather's creation. As stated earlier about how the Punown view their
prehistory, it is unthinkable to them that others cannot understand. Earlier I quoted a
Native interlocutor, "when are the non-Indians going to understand?" For the Nuwe and
other Punown, the understanding of ancient ancestors is a "sentient" part of life.
33
Nevertheless, for some Great Basin anthropological professionals, the ancient ancestors
of the Gosiute and Shoshone are mythological, and the contemporary Nuwe are not
anciently from the Great Basin at all (Hultkrantz 1986; Madsen and Rhode (1994). This
proposed invisibility prohibits some researchers from gaining needed insight from
contemporary Punown and leads some to view hunters and gatherers from foreign lands
as models by which to describe the ideological and material culture present in the Great
Basin.
Vine Deloria, in his book "God is Red," identifies a spiritual crisis in America as
the reason why an understanding cannot be reached with professionals who study Native
American Indians (1975):
It is doubtful ifAmerican society can move very far or very significantly
without a major revolution in theological concepts. In a very real sense
religious doctrines define the brooding sense of identity without which
societies appear helpless to function. The present theological vacuum is
being filled to a great degree by efforts to establish exotic religions in
America. The great appeal of oriental religions that appear to provide a
meaningful answer to contemporary questions, demonism and fascination
with Satanic cults, and the rejection of traditional mainline denominations
for the simplicity of fundamentalism all seem to indicate that a
comprehensive effort to derive a new religious conception of the world is
badly needed. Before we can have any new theological understanding of
our situation, however, the tools ofanalysis of religious ideas must be
changed. This will require a tremendous reversal of ideas that have been
held by western peoples, particularly Christians, for many centuries.
For the spiritually knowledgeable Punown the archaeological researcher's
mysteries are not mysteries. They are knowable; but sacred ceremonial secrets are not to
be told to anthropologists (cf. Goss 1999:83). Some contemporary physicists claim that
modem science is lacking, even with all of its power and richness. It cannot possibly
p T
-----~---
34
account for that ultimate mystery of existence, human consciousness (Horgan 1996:1).
The origin ofthe Nuwe is "tentative" to mainstream archaeological researchers (cf.
Madsen and Rhode 1994). On the other hand, science writer John Horgan (1996:118)
pointed out "There are still some rather large biological mysteries left, such as the origin
of life, of sex, and of human consciousness." In my opinion, despite the ironic views that
archaeology currently presents on the ethnogenesis of the Gosiute, no factual approach is
available to prove that the Nuwe only recently replaced an earlier a population.
The Nuwe view oftheir ancient tenure in the lands they occupy today has an
internal consistency and validity of its own. Who better then, to orient and modulate
current archaeological theories and cultural resource management practices in the Nuwe
country, than those who the first Euroamerican interlopers found already living there?
Punown thought has its own repertoire of ideas and symbolic processes that can help us
to understand the archaeological record (Myers 1987:156).
The Nuwe (and Punown) ideology ofcreation, life, and consciousness is valid in its
own right. The Nuwe world-view is holistic in that it understands all life and accounts for
each element within a single creation. This creation is constantly transforming through time
and space and is realized in prehistoric, historic, and future time as one continuum ofbeing,
all within the same creation. Knowledge is preserved through oral (spiritual and
ceremonial) tradition and hidden from change. A comfortable and healthy view which the
Nuwe maintain of their ancestry is in conflict with some archaeologists' views about the
''Numic Expansion". To "privilege" the archaeological view is ethnocentric. Forcing on
w----------------------
35
others a view that is not factually demonstrable is unethical for anyone and has no genuine
benefit for society as a whole, only serving selfish needs of the moment.
While the earth is a living being and Punown are part of that being, many who
practice within the western science tradition view human beings and the earth as
separable from one another. While the Nuwe and Punown view the world as a
Grandmother and respond accordingly, some archaeologists and anthropologists view the
adaptation of these people quite differently: as economic, manipulative ofthe
environment, and gastrically tied to a battle for their lives in a harsh environment not very
suitable to their form of existence (Myers 1999). What a dissonance! The time of the
Numakinat, Buuveyunuwena, Nuwenucyou, and Nuwe offers us a starting point to share
Native ideology about Punown origins. This conflict is qualitative, and until
archaeologists learn to ceremonialize their connection to prehistory, the Nuwe will
ritually understand where they came from and the archaeologists will continue to
theorize. A Nuwuvi interlocutor told me in Arizona inl997 that "the Taibou are
wanderers; they do not stay in one place, and because of this they want to make us be like
them. We know where we come from." In 1995 Wil Numkena, a Hopi who is also
Punown, said the following about the importance ofburials to Native American people:
Burials have high spiritual and sacred significance to American Indian
Tribes across the United States. This is deeply rooted in the holistic
philosophies of the Tribes. At birth, Indian newborn are received into this
world with blessing and ceremony for the purpose of bonding with all
creation. Burials of the deceased are especially provided sacred
ceremonies for their journey into the next dimension oflife; to be with the
Creator and the family. American Indian burials are sacred, as the
deceased, grave, and funerary objects are'blessed, consecrated and
dedicated to the care and the keeping of the Creator. The burial site then
becomes "Holy Ground," never to be disturbed. Disturbance of Indian
¥36
burials is an extremely sensitive issue with American Indian people. Let it
be understood that American Indian people have never surrendered the
spirits and remains of their ancestors. There can be no distinction placed
on past, present, and future Indian burials for convenience of discovery,
research, and exploitation. Every Indian burial is sacred, therefore,
remains and funerary objects must be re-interred to their rightful place
with honor and respect ...
Spirituality among the Punown is individual. It is learned from elders, inculcated
within each separate group and from family to family. It can be learned spiritually from
ceremonies such as a Warriors Dance (similar to the Sun Dance), Bear Dance, Ghost
Dance, Women's Dance (or Round Dance) or Burial Dance (Cry Dance), from Native
American Church ceremonies, and so on. Ceremony can take place during an antelope or
buffalo hunt, rain ceremony, or any social event that requires spiritual protection or
benevolence. According to Punown interlocutors, the spiritual aspects ofthe people are
held among those who have been trained as holders of them (Brewster 2003b; personal
communication with Clifford Duncan March 2003). Sometimes, elders can be contacted
for historical purposes while spiritual issues are held close by those individuals in the
tribe(s) who have the special training, connection, and knowledge of their requirements.
Spirituality is transmitted from the Creator to the people and traditional healers work as
homing devices where medicine from him can be used in a "good way" to help others.
The Puha (power or spiritual knowledge) can appear in dreams, visions, quests,
ceremonies, or can come from an inheritance through time from familial traditional
healers. Some chase shamanism but for Punown, Puha comes to individuals as an
inheritance and it is not usually sought. However, sometimes a guardian spirit can be
known to an individual, who receives spiritual protection and guidance from it.
¥ T
37
The web of life is similar to basketry weaving. The web reaches into the sky and
connects with Grandfather in the continuously developing framework of life and birth
and death in all. Centers from which power emanates from Grandmother (Wicipamapici)
are cave openings, rockshelters, caves, springs, ponds, streams, lakes, rock overhangs,
outcrops, canyons, mountain tops, volcanic vents, hot springs, geologic hoodoos, large
trees, ancient trees, and other striking natural features. Though Puha (power) is connected
through the web oflife in its netlike space (matrix), other material culture, thoughts,
vegetation, and animals can have a special puissance. Puha is a separate yet connected
part of the overall continuing creation process. Our earth Grandmother is thought of as a
living being who is revered. Grandmother has a "web of life" that extends from the
subterranean underworld to an interconnected world on which we walk.
When plants are gathered, when water is drank, when food is eaten, when an
animal is killed, prayers are offered. One of the primary distinctive offerings is made to
Grandmother. When·a Native American Indian prays, as in the Punown case, attendant
prayers are used to ask for protection and to show respect for the ancestors. However, in
modem American culture the spirituality ofthe Punown is not always respected. It is
confusing for the Punown, all the more since western science ideas ofprogress and the
basic structural meanings which are attached to interpretations of research subjects had
their roots in Christian theologies. It is not understandable for the Punown that an
objective science would disallow them their respect for the Creator in favor of an
undetermined objective science that is void of the spirit. Psychologically, it is a
problematic issue for a quasi-objective or "ironic" science like anthropology to get at
:I
!
I
I
!
, I
I
u38
Punown spirituality. Respect is a matter of faith and a matter ofbeing able to see the
"burning bush," and for the Nuwe and Punown it is attained through spiritual practices.
As a Nuwe interlocutor quoted earlier said, anthropologists need to define things.
Marvin Minsky (1985), in "The Society ofMind" described the "Ghost" in modem social
sCIence:
It often does more harm than good to force definitions on things we don't
understand. Besides, only in logic and mathematics do definitions ever
capture concepts perfectly. The things we deal with in practical life are
usually too complicated to be represented by neat, compact expressi(;ms.
Especially when it comes to understanding minds, we still know so little
that we can't be sure our ideas about psychology are even aimed in the
right directions. In any case, one must not mistake defining things for
knowing what they are.
The Punown view of their ancestral interconnectedness is as valid as current
scientific theory on the subject, in that who better to understand the creative power of the
Great Basin and Intermountain West than those who maintain ancient ties to the land
through the practice ofceremonies? The Punown are responsible for their sacred ties to
the land.
The Punown rely on a ceremonial process where songs, chants, prayers, and ritual
reveal the past through the singing of songs, reciting of prayer, and proper ordering of
ceremonial process. The exact order and process cannot be divulged to anyone other than
traditional healers (Puhakantu), and rock writers (Puhatimbimbu), who create rock art as
part ofvarious ceremonies. This process is similar throughout the Great Basin and in
surrounding geographic areas (Whitley 2000). Native ideology shares some links with
theoretical mainstream constructs like "culture history." Culture historical reconstruction
'3
39
is the bread and butter of archaeology and will continue as a central focus. Punown also
take history very seriously. But without an infusion of Native American ideology into
archaeological interpretation of ancestral archaeological manifestations, the record of
such events seems to conform too much to archaeologists own culturally-influenced ideas
of relationships (law-like generalizations) between "all" people (cf. Trigger 1989). In
gross cases, the archaeology ends up looking like "manifest destiny" and ideology, traced
to "divine progress" as filtered through "cognitive dissonance." When cognitive
dissonance is used to facilitate rationalizations, then serious control issues abound and
ego, as seen through pride (pathological self serving), biases the archaeological records
(Trigger 1989:302). Conversely, the archaeology of the future will be an open-ended
research similar to the outlook of spirituality in that we always have new things to learn.
The "privilege" presumed by some researchers and managers in accessing and
interpreting American prehistory is not real, it is a useless artifact of the dominant
paradigm of conqueror archaeology. My hope for the future is for a balanced archaeology
of the Great Basin that is informed by Punown mental constructs.
»40
A Path Toward Balancing Scientific and Punown Thought in the Conduct
of Great Basin Archaeology
The type of purification ofarchaeology suggested by Nuwe and Punown has led
some local researchers to feel "besieged" (Simms and Raymond 1999). In Punown
thought if an individual feels besieged about the archaeological record it is the result of
"ghost sickness". Ghost sickness comes primarily from misconduct relating to ancestral
burials and sacred ground. When skeletal remains are removed and the uniqueness of
important geographical features is compromised by researchers, a number of spiritual
issues arise. Punown observe the influence of disturbed ancestor spirits filtering into the
behavior of some researchers who behave in selfish, controlling, unreasonable ways, and
with obvious irritation. To purify an individual who has awakened ancestral spirits
involves a lengthy process ofpurification. The siege alluded to above involved managing
access to Native American burials exposed by erosion along the Great Salt Lake at
Willard Bay. The siege mentality is grounded in "cognitive dissonance" over how burials
are to be treated, and the Nuwe understand this. However, while the Nuwe, and the
Punown more generally, realize that some researchers' behavior is unconscious it
nonetheless is disturbing to them as reflecting ghost sickness.
This conflict can be corrected by infusing native ideological constructs, into
existing paradigms. One primary reason the Punown have not spoken out on ethical
issues in the past stems from a form of respect unique to their social etiquette. It is
considered unkind to correct others, especially those we are taught to respect, such as
academic researchers. Simply, resolution of the conflict is a matter of according respect
$41
to the views and beliefs of other people, whether or not you agree with them. This
cultural relativism is one of the basic foundations of anthropology. And, of course, such
respect must go both ways if it is to work well. It is, or should be, an everyday occurrence
in a country that enshrines religious freedom and tolerance, as we do in the United States.
My simple proposal will not bring about a major revolution, but it can foster a sincere
alliance that will go far in enabling archaeologists not to be under siege, and Native
people to partIcipate in an informed, responsible, academic, and professional manner.
Mutual respect will enable a joint understanding ofthe "ironic-ness" of archaeology and
provide responsible and improved interpretation of America's past. This, I think, is the
goal of archaeology.
Numakinat
The Nuwe oral tradition teaches of a time when animals and people could talk.
These ancestors are called Numakinat. The time ofNumakinat is accepted by the Punown
as a time ofcreation and a time when people appeared, and when animals taught the
people how to live upon the earth (e.g., Hulkrantz 1986). This creation process involved
the connection of all life to a divine benefactor, Nuwunanna: Grandfather, or Creator, or
Our Father (Hulkrantz 1986:631). The creation and its life-giving process are analogous
to the transformation processes envisioned by natural selection, and are common
knowledge for the Nuwe as well as evidence of the Nuwe connection to all life. Water is
usually a component of Nuwe origin oral tradition. Water is used in most ceremonies
(Smith 1993). Nuwunanna encompasses life, and its material, male, and female
manifestations. The Numakinat were a part ofNuwunanna's creation and thus similar to
$ ~ ...
I
42
spiritual beings in Christian theology as described in the Judeo-Christian Bible. However,
the spirits of some Numakinat are thought to have been human in the past. These spirits
can become guardians for Punown.
The Gosiute origin starts with water, and creation stories usually involve water
and the first people, Numakinat. Daniel Myers (1997:38) encapsulates the beginning:
"first, the earth is covered with water and so the women playa dominant role. When
Coyote breaks the vagina dentata, the roles shift and it is Coyote and land that are
dominant." Prayers can be offered to all ofNuwunanna's creation. Care and respect,
proper order of songs and prayer are required in the ceremonial process. Native
Americans such as the Nuwe are frequently asked questions about their creation or arrival
in their homeland and the answer is "we were created right here." Creation is that
connected process that changes but remains the same, like the essence of light. Creation
is ever changing, and the transfonnational processes we glean from archaeological
research provide researchers with an opportunity to understand it. We can understand
archaeological data objectively and respect the faith ofPunown and other Native peoples.
We can also try and learn how the deep structure of the Punown symbological sytstem
operates and how it is applied in the archaeological record. The complex ceremonial
process practiced by traditional healers expresses spiritual "high knowledge." High
knowledge transcends time and space and provides an intersection between the people
now and divinely inspired knowledge ofthe past and future via a spirit guardian complex.
Spiritual knowledge is based on a creative process that is manifest in all energy through
$43
time and space. In essence the "divine" is progressive in its ever remaining and changing
(transformative) form in all.
In Conclusion
To return in closing to the point of this discussion for the field of archaeology, it
is essential for "scientific" archaeologists and cultural resource managers in the Great
Basin to understand the Punown view of the "archaeological record," and to accord that
view due respect in their interpretations, negotiations, and management decisions.
Through expression of that respect, and respect of the right of Indian people to playa role
in managing and interpreting their past, I believe the conflicts encountered by some
archaeologists, physical anthropologists, and resource managers in working with Native
Americans will be resolved.
• ---r---
I
44
CHAPTER III
ARCHAEOLOGICAL VIEWS OF THE NORTHEASTERN GREAT BASIN
CULTURE AND HISTORY
"Until Native Americans can start digging up their ancestors like white
people, they cannot become archaeologists. "
Public communication (1997) by a well-known Great Basin archaeologist
whose name is intentionally withheld.
In this chapter I tum to an account of culture and culture history in the country of
the Nuwe, as generated by Euroamerican scholars. I begin with the earliest times
documented archaeologically, and bring the account up to the present relying on
historical accounts and contemporary events. I conclude with a brief statement of where
the Nuwe are now. The purpose of this chapter is to show what has been learned through
the archaeological and historical disciplines about life, time, and change in the Nuwe
region, to identify areas where interpretations have not reached consensus, and-most
importantly-to illustrate the thoroughly Euroamerican concerns and questions that have
dominated the research and writing of the story. It provides a striking contrast with the
Numu views discussed in the preceding chapter, and it sets the stage for the
confrontation, described in the next chapter, that has been created by the so-called Numic
Expansion hypothesis. According to the Numic Expansion concept, prior to just a few
hundred years ago, Nuwe ancestors had no part at all in the history of the region that
contemporary Nuwe deeply identify with as their primordial homeland.
..---------------------~
45
The prehistory ofthe northeast Great Basin area (Figure 2) has been the object of
inquiry since the first encounters of Native people with Euroamericans (Alley 1987).
Several guiding archaeological references have been relied upon in this chapter (Aikens
1978a; Aikens and Madsen 1986; d'Azevedo 1986; Grayson 1994; Jennings 1986, 1978,
1957; and Steward 1938). However, other many other primary sources have also been
consulted, among them the following: (Aikens 2000, 1994; Aikens and Witherspoon
1986; Brewster 1998, 2003a, 2003b; Crum 1997; DeLancey 1996; Dean 1992; Gruhn
1988; James, Janetski, and Vlasich 1981; Fawcett and Simms 1994; Nichols 1981;
Madsen and O'Connell 1982; Shaul 2001).
Archaeological ruins and artifacts, village sites, and rock art were reported by
Euroamerican investigators between 1850 and 1874 (Fowler and Jennings 1982). Some
sites to the south ofthe Nuwe area were excavated in 1875, primarily to retrieve display
collections for the Smithsonian Institution and Harvard University. Many ofthese
artifacts and sites were attributed to the Southwest, and to "ill-defined Aztec and Mexican
empires." Between the 1870s and 1915, topographic surveys noted artifacts and sites, and
University ofUtah naturalists noted more archaeological sites and dug some ofthem for
artifacts. Beginning in 1915, Neil Judd led excavations in the area for the Smithsonian
Institution, initiating the first systematic attempt at archaeological excavation in Utah
along the Wasatch Front, in Nuwe territory. In 1930 the University ofUtah Anthropology
Department hired Julian Steward and he subsequently undertook a program of research at
the Promontory Caves near Great Salt Lake, which is discussed further below. During the
1940's research was undertaken in the Deep Creek region of Gosiute territory by Carling
II
46
Malouf (1940) and Elmer Smith (1941) dug at Deadman Cave west of Salt Lake City.
Since the 1950's literally hundreds ofarchaeological investigations----reconnaissance,
subsurface testing, and data recovery excavations--have been conducted within the
traditional homelands of the Nuwe (Aikens 1970; Aikens and Madsen 1986; Jennings
1957, 1978; Fowler and Jennings 1982; James, Janetski, and Vlasich 1981; Madsen
1982).
Theoretical Context
Before and during the 1940s, Great Basin cultures were generally seen as
peripherally derived from the Southwest. The interpretation was guided by the
assumptions of the culture area and age/area hypotheses (Wissler 1923), whereby an
archaeological trait complex known spatially and temporally is thought to have diffused
outward from a center of invention and highest complexity into adjacent "peripheral"
areas. Kidder (1924:78-82) viewed the Great Basin, north of the Anasazi area, as
peripheral to the Southwest due to similarities it shared with the Pueblo area in house
types, ceramics and other artifact types. As Fowler and Jennings (1982:109-110) noted,
''this provided the interpretation that the archaeology of the Great Basin was derivative
and that the center of invention and development was to be found elsewhere."
In the northeastern Great Basin, Julian Steward (1937) excavated several caves
around the Great Salt Lake, in which he found evidence of considerable antiquity. At the
top of the sequence he identified a Promontory Culture, which he interpreted as separate
from the historic-period Gosiute and Shoshone cultures of the same area (Steward 1937,
1940). At about the same time, Steward (1938) also published an ecological model of
•47
ethnographic Shoshone life, which Fowler and Jennings (1982: 109-110) sum up as
follows:
Steward credited ecological factors with regulating population density and
structuring the size, mobility, and distribution of settlement units and the
nature of sociopolitical organization. He recorded a subsistence pattern
geared to the exploitation of a series of micro-environments in a well-
defined seasonal round. The primary socioeconomic unit was the family.
The distribution and characteristics of the staple food resources, all vegetal
(roots, pinyon nuts, grass seeds), required wide dispersal of small family
groups for most of the year. The overall picture is one of a sparse
population moving through a seasonal round in a harsh, arid environment .
With Jennings' excavation ofDanger Cave (Jennings 1957; Jennings and Norbeck
1955), and the age determinations provided by the then-new method of radiocarbon
dating, the high antiquity of the Great Basin culture was firmly established. Jennings'
work, along with the previous research of Cressman (1942, 1951) in the northern Great
Basin, vitiated the idea that Great Basin culture was derived from Southwestern
developments (Jennings and Fowler 1982: 110). In fact, the reverse was shown to be true:
that the Southwest culture pattern had developed out of a pre-existing Desert Culture that
was ancient throughout the Great Basin and adjacent regions. Jennings (1957) proposed
his Desert Culture concept based on the Danger Cave archaeological record, which he
interpreted with reference to ethnographic descriptions of the Gosiute people who lived in
the same area, and to Steward's (1938) ecological model, which was based on Great
Basin ethnography generally. The Desert Culture concept, rendered in subsequent
iterations as the Desert Archaic or Western Archaic, has provided the intellectual focus
for much of the archaeology done in the Far West ever since it was published (Jennings
and Fowler 1982:109).
~----------------------
48
In 1957, Lamb published what has become known as the Numic Expansion
hypothesis, according to which Numic-speaking peoples fanned out of the far
southwestern comer of the Great Basin only about 1,000 years ago, completely replacing
everyone who had lived in the Great Basin before then. Lamb's hypothesis will be
explored in detail later, but I note here that it became a great focus ofinvestigation and
debate among researchers, continuing up to the present (Madsen and Rhode 1994).
During much of the same period, the Desert Culture concept was criticized as too simple
an idea to account for local and regional culture variation (Heizer and Krieger 1956;
Baumhoffand Heizer 1965; but cf. Aikens 1978b). Studies in processual archaeology
were initiated after 1970 that did show a clear-cut "variety of area-specific and eco10gy-
specific" adaptation systems (Fowler and Jennings 1982:110). Research on the Western
Pluvial Lakes Tradition and lacustrine adaptations at Humboldt Sink, Carson Sink, and
the Winnemucca-Pyramid Lake areas, as well as in Surprise Valley, northeastern
California, also showed that the presence ofdiverse resources had in many places and
times allowed significant residential stability (Jennings and Fowler 1982; Wingard 2001),
an idea that Jennings' original account had downplayed.
Paleo-environmental archaeology became a focus in Great Basin studies after the
Danger Cave excavations, and reflections on the post-Pleistocene paleoclimatic model of
the Anathermal (9,000 to 7,000 B.P.), Altithermal (7,000 to 4,500 RP.), and Medithermal
(4,500 to present), provided by Antevs (1948, 1955). The Anathermal climate was
characterized as being at first cooler and wetter than the present, but with the climate
steadily becoming warmer. The Altithermal continued the warming trend until the Great
..,.--------------------
49
Basin was wanner and more arid than today. The Medithermal climate became much like
that of today. Although the Danger Cave archaeological and environmental records
appeared to show that the environment had remained relatively stable through time, the
Antevs model, for some researchers, ran counter to the model provided by Danger Cave
(Fowler and Jennings 1982). Some scholars considered the Altithermal too dry for human
occupation of the Great Basin (e.g., Heizer and Baumhoff 1965), and the controversy
stimulated many paleo-environmental studies (cf., Fagan (1974). Since these early
debates over "Altithermal abandonment," a great deal ofpaleo-environmental research
has been conducted, and the rather simplistic arguments have given way to a general
recognition that Great Basin climatic history has been complex and varied across both
space and time. Climatic fluctuation has indeed significantly affected human occupation,
but in more complex and varied ways than previously imagined (Grayson 1993).
A related focus in Great Basin research has involved settlement and subsistence
studies that shifted the purview of research from single sites to a focus on regions. David
Hurst Thomas' (1972, 1973) research in the Reese River Valley, for example, included
research design, sampling strategy, and simulation studies at the regional level, and much
similar work followed (e.g., Aikens and Jenkins 1994; Jennings and Folwer 1982; Zenah
1996). In fact, cultural resources management investigations today are routinely begun by
collecting a wide range of inventory data, with which to place particular site locations in
a regional context based on the above Thomas type of strategy.
The cultural history of the Great Basin asknown today is constructed from
excavations in caves and open sites, broad-scale regional surveys, and related settlement
..----------------------
50
and subsistence studies. These studies have provided vast amounts of typological,
chronological, and subsistence data. A large amount of data for the Nuwe area in the
northeastern Great Basin comes from lake-margin sites such as Danger, Smith Creek, and
Hogup caves (Jennings 1957; Bryan 1979; Aikens 1970). Some other excavated sites in
the area include Scribble Rock Shelter (Lindsay and Sargent 1979); Bam Owl, Crab, and
Deadman caves (Madsen 1982; Madsen and Schmidt 1998), Bonneville Estates Rock
Shelter (Schroedl and Coulam 1989), Deadman Cave (Smith 1941), and the Promontory
Caves (Steward 1937). Hundreds of additional cultural resources management
investigations have been performed in the northeastern area that also contribute to our
understanding of settlement and subsistence patterns in varying ecological zones (Aikens
and Madsen 1986; Brewster 2003a; Carter 1998; Grayson 1993; Janetski 1994; James
and Singer 1980; James, Janetski, and Vlasich 1981; Jennings 1978). Synthesis of the
above settlement and subsistence studies, along with excavation at open sites, has also
contributed much to our understanding. Lithic cross dating, cross dating of pottery types,
and floral and faunal analyses from these investigations contribute to our understanding
of cultural distributions and resource catchments through time and space in the
northeastern Great Basin (Berry and Berry 2001; Dean 1992; Simms 1999; Simms and
Stuart 1992; Talbot and Richens 1996; Wilde and Soper 1990) Evidence from these
sources are woven into the following account ofthe archaeological sequence in the Nuwe
area.
ps-----------------------
51
Cultural Sequence in the Northeastern Great Basin
Some contemporary archaeologists think that the earliest stone tools found in the
New World are much older than 13,000 years. There are some much-discussed
archaeological sites in North and South America that approach or exceed this age, for
example Meadowcroft Rock Shelter in Pennsylvania (14,000-18,000 RP.); Wilson Butte
Cave in Idaho (14, 500 - 15,500 RP.); Fort Rock Cave in Oregon (13,000 RP.); and
Monte Verde in Chile (12,500-17,000 RP.). These sites have been dogged by
controversy about dating, perhaps "hyper-skeptical" controversy (Adovosio, and Pedlar
1997; Gruhn 1961; Bedwell and Cressman 1971; Dillehay 1997). Additionally, there are
sites claimed to be much older than that. Krieger (1964) advocated a "chopper-scraper
horizon" or "pre-projectile point stage" in the Americas. His argument, however, has not
been accepted and for most archaeologists is not a valid construct, even though claims of
this sort continue to be made, as at Pedra Furada in Brazil, for example (cf. Deloria 1995;
Churchi111995; Meltzer, D. J., D. K. Grayson, G. Ardila, A. W. Barker, D. F. Dincauze,
C. V. Haynes, F. Mena, L. Nunez and D. J. Stanford 1997).
In the Nuwe area, possible ancient tools observed along Pleistocene shorelines of
Lake Bonneville, and in mountain environments of Utah near Park City, have been
advocated by some as representing quite early (15,000-70,000 RP.) occupancies of North
America (cf. James and Singer 1980:88-89; Figures 1,2, 3). The Calico Hills site, in the
Mojave Desert of southern California, is one well-examined case of "geofacts" that look
superficially similar to objects of human make, but do not measure up to the stringent
p------------------------- ,..
52
criteria of lithic analysis required to demonstrate human workmanship. Nevertheless, the
finding of earlier sites remains a distinct possibility. Many possibly ancient sites in Utah
have been explained away, perhaps too readily, by conservative local archaeologists
(Grayson 1993; Gruhn 1987; Singer and James 1980). Apparent associations of artifacts
with extinct megafauna have also been explained away (Grayson 1993).
I think it remains likely that more ancient occupancies of North America did
occur, and will one day be demonstrated (cf. Deloria 1995). The determination of when
and how people first appeared in the Great Basin is still open for debate. Abundant data
on natural history attest to glaciers covering much of far northern North America, but
human passage southward through an ice corridor may have been possible after 17,000
years ago. And we know that a coastal route was perhaps available by 15,000 years ago if
not before (Erlandson, 2002). People crossed 100 km of open water to arrive in Australia
as much as 50,000 to 60,000 years ago, and had settled islands in Western Malaysia and
well off the coast of Japan by ca. 25,000 to 35,000 years ago (see also Dillehay 1997;
Meltzer et al. 1997).
The following Eastern Great Basin culture history is adapted from Aikens and
Madsen (1986), with new data added into this framework from investigations that have
been completed in the years since it was written. It is important to note here the Gosiute
name for ancient animal progenitor ancestors, and very ancient human ancestors, is
Numakinat (cf., Deloria 1995:233; Fowler and Fowler 1971). So, in Gosiute terms,
archaeological resources dated prior to about 11,000 years ago may be referred to as
Numakinat, while the term Buuveyunuwena may be used for the period between 11,000
p------------------------
53
years ago and historic contact times. The Fremont people are Newenucyou or in Ute
(Nutsiyu) Fremont is Mookweetch. A Gosiute and Northwest Band Shoshone (Nuwe)
culture history that makes use of these distinctions is currently under development for
tribal consultation purposes (Brewster 2003a).
Bonneville Period 01,000-9,500 RP.)
The Bonneville Period refers to the earliest generally accepted human occupation
of the Eastern Great Basin (Aikens and Madsen 1986). The atlatl or spear thrower was
possibly used during the Bonneville Period along with thrusting spears. The period is
marked by the presence of Great Basin Stemmed points C-14 dated to 11,200 - 7,500 BP.
(Figure 4), and a few fluted projectile points typologically cross-dated dated to 11,200 -
10,900 RP. (Beck and Jones 1997). A preferential adaptation to lake edge ecotones
beside shallow water during the beginning ofthis period changed by 9,500 RP. to a
variable use of ecotones in surrounding environments. Table 1 shows the cultural
chronology of the Eastern Great Basin.
TABLE 1 Cultural Chronology for the Eastern Great Basin Area
PERIOD
Bonneville
Wendover
Black Rock
Fremont
Late Prehistoric
DATES
11,000-9,500 BP
9,500-6,000 BP
4,000-1,500 BP
1,600-600 BP
600-200 BP
pt--------------------------
54
Significant climatic shifts correlate with a wider distribution of Great Basin
Stemmed projectile points in various ecological zones. In the Eastern Great Basin, Great
Basin Stemmed points and crescents from Smith Creek Cave have been C-14 dated as
early as 11,200 BP. Similar artifacts have been found in the southern portion of the Utah
Test and Training Range at several lunette dune localities, and on various parts of the
Dugway Proving Grounds and Hill Air Force Base (eg., Carter 1999). These sites are
tethered to shoreline marshes associated with the drying Lake Bonneville (Figure 2).
pt--------------------
55
,0
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
2Q
•'9,7
1 I
I I
t~·15 16
I i
I I
I I
.1 I
,4
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
•II
,.,.
12 13 ,
~ l ~
! 'tII
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
...',
"II
I
I
•II
I
I
I
•9,
,
"i!
3 4 5 "
...... ; I
6 ".tl
It
8
I
I
I
I
I
I
'000
....
-
{-
Type Name , (Altmtate Name)
1 Desert Side-notChed Series
Desert Side-notched
Uinta Side-notched
Bear River Side-notched
2 Cottonwood Triangular
3 Bull Creek Concave-base
4 Parowan Basal-notched
5 Nawthis Side-notched
6 Rose Spring':'Eastgate Series
(Rosegate Series)
Rose Spring Comer-
notched
Rose Spring Side-notched
Eastgate Expanding-stem
. Eastgate Split-stem
7 Martis Series
Martis Triangular
Martis Comer-notched
Martis Stemmed-leaf
8 Gypsum .
9 McKean LanceoIate
10 Blko Series
Elko .Conier-notched
ElkoEared
Elko Side-notched
Elko Contracting-stem
11 Pinto Series
(Gatecliff Series. Little Lake
Series, Bare Creek Series)
Pinto Sqll8te-sbouJd~
Pinto Sloping-shouldered
Pinto ShouJderJess
.Pinto Willowleaf
12 Humboldt Series
(Great Basin Concave-base
Series)
Hwnboldt Concave-base A
HlUDboldt Concave-base B
Humboldt Basal-notched
Trinle-T C'"noV,,-h3y'
13 Large Side-notched
Northem Side-notched
(Bittenoot Side-notched)
Hawken Side-notched
il.ocker Side-notched
Sudden Side~notched
San Raphael Side-notched
14 Cascade
15 Large uDnamed stemmed
16 Large stemmed
(Great Basin Stemmed Senes)
Lakc.'Mohave
Silver:.Lake
Parman Series
Windust
17 Ha.skett 1 and 2
18 sJ>ttsbluff
19 FOisom
20 Clovis
Figure 4. Key to Great Basin Projectile Point Sequence (Jennings 1986).
us------------------------
56
dcb
a
edcb
7
b
9
a
b
8
a
5
a b
4
2
3
[lOmm]
cb
10
adc
6
b
j. j",. ..; ....•..i~" ~~~
a
Figure 5. Late Prehistoric and Archaic Projectile Points (after Jennings 1986).
p-----------------------
57
a . b c
11
d e •
• .b
c
13
d e
14
dc·b
[lOmm]
aa
Figure 6. Late and Middle Archaic Projectile Points (Jennings 1986).
...-------------------------
a
17
b
[lOmm]
a
b
.20
58
U. of Utah. Mus. of Nat. Hist.• salt Lake City: la. 42Wb34-FS73-64; Ib, 42Sv7-FS32-
5142; Ie. 42Mdl80-FS225-V16; Id. 4a'.80268-FS2.26-127; Ie. 42'.8036-f''S46-23; 3.
42MdlSO-FS289-111; 4. 4201134-F'S425-1; S. 42l"nl24~FS208-8;6a. 420Bo36~FS4S2­
23; 6b. 42Wn420-FS27-12; 6<;, 42In124-FSSO-S:h Sa, 42Wn420-F'S843-11; Sb.
42Wn42o-FS477w-S; 9a; 9b. 425V6-FST539-7; lOa. 42'.8036-FS717-43; lOb. 42Bo36-
FS701-258; lOe. 42Bo36-FS39~11;lla. 42.Bo36S-FSS3-166; 12b, 4213036S-FS4S''4;
13c. 42SV6-'PS988-5; 130. 48SwlOl-FS779-3. Nev. State Mus., C~D City: za, 140:3-
0-678; 2b, 1O-A-2; 6d. 42-B-036; 7a. 38-0-5207: Th. 2395-0-859; 7c, 2395-0- '
Z662; 7d. 23.510; Ub. 2310913; 11c. 1003126; lld. 2335011;- 110. 10-A-l; 12a, 2293415:
120. 1403-0-635; 133, 23081/15; 13b. 108S-57; 13d. 2301812:; ISa, SO; ISb, 55; 16a.
1514-0-3; 16b, 819-0-134<:; 16c, A92;20a. 26Wa00l501; 2Ob. 26WaOOlSOO. 14. aftet'
Bedwell 1973:fig.12, 1>3; 16d-c, afu~t' Am.'1den 1937:pls.42. b. 41c; 17a-b. aftet' Butler
1965:fig.ge, h; 18. after E.M. Davis 1962:fig.24; 19. after Butlct' 1978:fig.33.
Figure 7. Early Archaic Projectile Points (Jennings 1986).
ptE_a---------------------------
59
On the southern Utah Test and Training Range, milling stones occur in open dune
field sites with crescents, laneeolate knives, domed scrapers, and Great Basin Stemmed
projectile points. It is probable that these sites were associated with shallow water and
marsh settings. A limited but similar artifact inventory has been observed within the
lowest stratigraphic levels in cave deposits.
Dated material in stratified cave deposits is observed in Danger Cave, where
Great Basin Stemmed projectile points, randomly used flake knives, chipped stone flakes,
and milling stones are observed by about 11,000 BP. Basketry made at this time was of
both twined and coiled types. At Smith Creek Cave, end scrapers and broken bases of
Great Basin Stemmed projectile points were associated with hearths dated at 11,200 -
10,000 BP. or perhaps earlier. Deer Creek Cave had poorly defined stratigraphy with
similar artifacts, and a 10,000 RP. date was taken on a deeply buried hearth (Aikens and
Madsen 1986). Smith Creek and Deer Creek caves both have pennanent streams that run
near them, and Danger Cave is near the edge of an ancient marsh.
The Great Basin Stemmed and leaf shaped projectile points ofthe Bonneville
period show regioJlal morphological variability both in the northeastern and throughout
the Great Basin, as a whole. They are generally similar to Lake Mojave and Silver Lake
projectile points, but are distinct in that they do not have a separate hafting element.
Instead they typically have concave bases and basal thinning, and are edge-ground along
the proximal margins. Limited subsistence data suggest that mountain sheep and possibly
camel were hunted, and seeds were likely collected and processed with milling stones.
p.s_--------------------------
60
Seeds were used through space and time in the Great Basin over more than 10,000 years.
In fact, local Nuwe at historic contact still relied on seeds as a predictable food source.
Beck and Jones (1997) observed that the Western Pluvial Lakes Tradition,
proposed by Bedwell (1973) and said to be focused on lacustrine settings, did not
adequately account for the distribution of Great Basin Stemmed points through time and
space. They proposed, therefore, the alternative name, Western Stemmed Tradition. The
Western Pluvial Lakes Tradition was thought by Bedwell to have been tethered to pluvial
lakes and lake-focused subsistence, but the Western Stemmed Tradition concept
acknowledges that the Great Basin Stemmed points once thought to mark that tradition
are not restricted to aquatic settings. However, even taking this expanded view into
account, the lacustrine focus ofhunter-gatherer-fishers in the Great Basin overall has
long been recognized as one of the most successful orientations practiced there. In areas
where shallow marshland is available, or where the lakes are fresh and fish live in them,
there can be little "Gardens of Eden." This recognition is important, and tempers the
Jennings (1957) Desert Culture concept, which heavily stressed the overall aridity of the
region. As we will see, the Desert Culture was a highly successful way to practice
subsistence economics in an arid area (Thomas 1974), but it also relied importantly on
the relatively rare, yet essential wetland "sweet spots" ofthe Great Basin (Willig and
Aikens 1988).
The few fluted projectile points (11,200 - 10,900 BP) that have been located in
the Eastern Great Basin and show great morphological variation and have usually been
found along lake margins. However, the exact relationship of these points to classic
IIJIS------------------------....
61
Clovis is poorly defined. The Great Basin fluted points could be coeval with the Great
Basin Stemmed points, at least in part (Grayson 1993:237), although Willig and Aikens
(1988) argue that they largely preceded Great Basin Stemmed. Pleistocene vegetation
patterns during the Bonneville Period were giving way to modern Holocene vegetation
distributions.
Late Pleistocene vegetation patterns were quite different then those of the
following Early Holocene. A Plenipluvial coniferous forest was earlier present in the
Great Salt Lake area, but around 10,500 B.P., sagebrush replaced this coniferous forest at
lower elevations. Pinyon and Juniper forest replaced the coniferous forest in other areas
(Currey and James 1982:44). Most of the known archaeological sites were near shallow
water and marsh vegetation communities, and may have been tethered to these resources.
Across the Great Basin, as lacustrine resources dried due to increasing aridity, Bonneville
and other people reacted to the challenge by using alternative resources in upland settings
(Grayson 1993).
Wendover Period (9,500-6,000 B.P.)
The Wendover Period corresponds to "Early Archaic" periods elsewhere in the
Great Basin. The first clearly defined and dated assemblage from this time comes from
Danger Cave. At Danger Cave, 150 grinding stone fragments were found in the 9,000 to
10,000 year-old level. Some technological items of the Wendover Period show a
transition from earlier Bonneville times. Flat milling stones, twined and then later coiled
basketry indicate a heavier reliance on vegetal products (James et aI, 1981:101). It is
likely that their users practiced a seasonal round similar to that of later archaic
ps-----------------------
62
populations (Grayson 1993). Hogup Cave (earliest date 8800 RP.) is similar to Danger
Cave in that during the early Holocene, a shallow-water marsh occurred along the old
lake margin near the cave. Wendover period sites occur in a wider array of environmental
settings than before, and correspond to an increasingly desiccated environment (Carter
1999). P1uvia11ake edge food productivity was gone, or largely gone, by 7,500 RP., and
the correlation between culture and environmental change at this time is stark (Grayson
1993). Many of the hand milling stones used during the Wendover Period may also have
been used as multipurpose tools, as for the edge grinding ofbifacia1 projectile points.
Around 6,500 - 7,000 years ago pinyon pine-a key Native food resource of the
contact-historic period-moved into the Central and Eastern Great Basin from a previous
range farther south. An increased reliance on seeds overall becomes apparent, and the
high labor cost of obtaining them was a choice that people made, possibly in response to
desiccation. The much-increased use ofmilling stones suggests that reliance on seeds
become a more viable adaptation to food procurement when other resources were not
available. Some researchers think that this period supported a smaller human population
than existed earlier and later in time (Grayson 1993:255).
Several major cave sites continued to be used during the Wendover Period,
including Danger Cave, Hogup Cave, Sandwich Shelter, and Black Rock Cave (Aikens
and Madsen 1986:155). Some upland cave sites, and other sites in different
environmental and topographic settings, imply a shift away from a strongly lake edge
orientation. Upland sites of the period include Weston Canyon Rockshelter at the
northern edge ofthe Nuwe region, and Joes Valley Alcove, Sudden Shelter, O'Malley
p------------------------
63
Shelter, and Cowboy Cave, in adjacent regions to the south. Lowland and upland site
settings suggest that an ecologically structured seasonal round became the primary
settlement pattern.
Dietary evidence from this time shows that Wendover Period people relied on a
wide range of vegetal foods, including pickleweed seeds from the lake margins and other
seeds from higher environmental zones. Pickleweed grows along the perimeter of
saltpans such as the Great Salt Lake. At sites like Danger Cave, where brackish springs
occur, cattail and bulrush and other useful plants are present. Basketry made at this time
was of both twined and coiled types. Coiled 'parching' trays likely utilized for charring
and winnowing seeds, along with milling stones, suggest the hulling and grinding of
seeds. The seed meal was likely made into dried cakes or gruels, as it was during the
contact-historic period (Chamberlin 1911 :343). Many animals were used, including
various waterfowl, deer, mountain sheep, elk, and bison. The larger mammals are more
common in upland cave site inventories, while small game such as jackrabbits, cottontail,
and various small rodents were more widely found and may have been used more during
this time than in others. The larger mammals appear to have moved upland in response to
desiccation in lower, warmer environments. Rabbit and waterfowl nets, snares, and
'Promontory Pegs' probably used for setting them, were all in use. Looped pieces of cord
may have been employed to snare small animals based on the running loop principle. At
Hogup Cave, a numerical correlation between rabbit and bird bones suggests that netting
may have been used to mass-harvest both types of prey. The evidence ofwaterfowl and
shore birds indicates that there must still have been significant water available there, on
115-2-----------------------------..,.
64
what are now barren salt flats. Bones of small animals and waterfowl, and waterfowl
eggs, suggest that a diversity ofresources was available near the cave.
The atlatl or spear thrower was used during the Wendover period. Projectile point
types common during this period included Pinto (8,300-6300 RP.), Northern Side-
notched (7,200-4,500 RP.), Elko (7,500-3,500 RP.) and Humboldt (5,000-1,500 RP.)
(Grayson 1993:253). Some ofthese point types may have been hafted as knives. At
Hogup Cave, carved wooden hafts, slotted to secure such points, would have served well
as butchering knives. Large ovate flaked bifaces served for skinning purposes. Stone
scrapers suggest that processing of animal skin was also an important focus. Tools
produced from cores brought into sites from quarries elsewhere attest to the use of
preferential material for making of stone tools. Clothing is not well represented at the
sites, suggesting that the clothing used may have been simple and scanty. Bone awls split
from mammal long bones served for the manufacture of both basketry items and soft
processed leather clothing and hide pouches. Rabbit skin blankets (robes) were well
attested at Hogup Cave, as they still were during the contact-historic period. To make
them, rabbit fur strips were twisted, laid parallel, and then twined together with plant
fiber cordage. No footwear is known for the Wendover period, but sandals of the same
age from Cowboy Cave in Central Utah are made of woven plant fibers and are
functionally similar to those from Fort Rock Cave and other sites in the Northern Great
Basin (Aikens and Madsen 1986:156).
Many other items have been found in the dry cave deposits of the Eastern Great
Basin, including pendants and necklaces or bracelets made of small mammal teeth, rabbit
----------------------
65
long bone sections, or perforated Olivella shell beads from the Pacific Coast. Shell is
rare, but it shows that trade from the Pacific coast was already occurring at this time
(Aikens 1970; Hughes and Bennyhoff 1986). Incised stone is present at various sites, and
incised stone tablets are widespread in the Great Basin (T. C. Thomas (1983). At Hogup
Cave, and in the Promontory caves, these tablets show designs comparable to some seen
at rock art sites of the same area.
Black Rock Period (6,000-1,500 B.P.)
This period takes its name from Black Rock Cave at the northern end of the
Oquirrh Mountains, west of Salt Lake City. However, artifacts similar to the cultural
items here are found at many localities, including Deadman, Danger, and Hogup caves
(Aikens and Madsen 1986). Intensified upland use and a possible population increase at
the beginning of the Black Rock Period are indicated by site numbers and distributions,
and there is a remarkable change in projectile point styles. New sites were inhabited for
the first time between 6,000 and 4,000 B.P. Elko and Gypsum (or Gatecliff) projectile
point types (2500-1500 B.P.). show a 400% increase compared with earlier assemblages.
These point types may have proven to be functionally and technologically suited to
upland hunting with the atlatl and dart. Elko points may also have served as knives.
Indian ricegrass was collected as a food source, as it still was during the historic-contact
period. The upland sites may be small hunting camps, similar to those in use during the
historic-contact period. Madsen suggests (1982:215):
The preferred (or perhaps the most abundant or the most readily procured)
faunal resource was mountain sheep (S.J. Miller 1979). Deer and rabbit
remains are also common, and bison remains are occasionally recovered.
1115--------------------- ---- ------ --
66
Evidence from some sites (e.g., Dalley 1976) suggests occupation by
family groups rather than small hunting parties. This strengthens the
probability that most of these sites (some are far from lake margins) are
related to lake edge sites through an occupational pattern often called a
seasonal or annual round. As noted, upland species such as mountain
sheep in lake edge sites after 5,000-6,000 years ago suggest a mobile
subsistence-settlement system (S. J. Miller 1979)..
The increased mid-Holocene aridity previously noted may be responsible for the
observed greater use of upland sites during the Black Rock Period. The drying of many
lake edge settings probably induced populations to use upland resources more than they
did previously. At Givens Hot Springs in southern Idaho, semi-subterranean pit houses
were built by 4,300 RP. (Butler 1986:131). Other pit houses in the broader area are dated
to 2,400 RP., associated with Elko projectile points and hopper mortars (Butler
1986:131). Further dates from shallow pit houses are around 1,200 RP. No pit house
sites dated to this period have yet been found in the Nuwe area of the Eastern Great
Basin, but adjacent areas have such houses, so it seems likely they were present, and still
await discovery in the Nuwe area (cf., Wingard 2001).
Later in the Black Rock Period, Neoglacial climatic change brought increased
moisture that in some cases paradoxically diminished local lacustrine subsistence bases
by deeply flooding pre-existing shallow springs and marshes at lake edge sites (Aikens
1978; Curry and James 1982), even while the added moisture made the uplands ever
more productive. At Hogup Cave, for example, on the edge of the Bonneville Salt Flats, a
decline in seed and plant foods, waterfowl, and jackrabbits, cotton tails, and other small
mammals reflect this flooding of a small lake-edge marsh. At Hogup the availability of
shallow water resources sharply decreased about 3,000 B.P. (Aikens 1970), but human
p67
occupation at other sites located beside spring marshes, like the Fish Springs Caves, were
not similarly affected because the marshes were above the level of the Neoglacial lake
rise.
Some unique moccasin types found at Hogup Cave, dated between 2,650 and
1,580 RP., were first identified from sites near the Fremont River in east-central Utah
(Morss 1931). One distinctive moccasin at Hogup was constructed from the ankle hide of
a deer or elk. Other moccasins, of the Fremont River type, used the animal's dew claws
to act as "hobnails" on the bottoms of the soles, and the fur of the hide was turned inside.
Some ofthese moccasins were painted with red ocher and all were minimally tanned. The
fact that the moccasins were not tanned to the point ofbeing soft suggests that they may
have been made that way for added durability, as other such moccasins found in the
Fremont River country showed the same characteristic (Morss 1931). The bow and arrow
came into preference during the latter part ofthe Black Rock Period. Rose Spring and
Eastgate projectile points (1,700-1,000 RP.) are smaller but otherwise similar in
appearance to older Elko Corner-notched and Side-notched types. Basketry underwent a
shift in style and form, and one-rod and bundled foundation coiled basketry became more
popular. The seed gathering technology continued without change. Zoomorphic figurines
first appear at Hogup Cave, during a time when split willow figurines ofthe Grand
Canyon Figurine Complex are present to the south, outside the Nuwe area (Aikens and
Madsen 1986:160).
68
Fremont Period (l,600-600 B.P.)
By 1,600 RP., subsistence use of maize was becoming increasingly widespread in
the northern half ofUtah, though it had appeared substantially earlier in Late Archaic
context at Elsinore (ca. 2,340-1,940 RP.) in central Utah (Wilde and Newman 1989).
Pine nut gathering continued during this period and persists today among Native peoples
ofthe region. Many of the same sites continued to be occupied during the transition to
farming, and hunting and gathering long thereafter remained a major source of economic
support, even where horticulture w~s also practiced. By 1,200 B.P. the Fremont Culture,
originally named from the Fremont River region of central Utah, becomes more apparent
in the Nuwe area.
The Fremont Period takes its name from a diverse archaeological complex widely
found across the Eastern Great Basin and Western Colorado Plateau. The primary
characteristics ofthe Fremont lifestyle, especially farther south, included settled village
life, horticulture, pit houses, above and below ground storage features, and predominantly
plain but some painted pottery ofvarious neck shapes and functional fonus. In general,
however, the Fremont horticultural experiment failed to provide the productive impetus
to generate societies and settlements as elaborated as those of many Southwestern
sedentary village farmers. Some researchers have reasoned that the Fremont Culture was
unable to reach the higher level of productivity that would support such elaboration,
mainly due to limiting environmental circumstances (Madsen 1982).
..----------------------
---_.. _.----- - -
69
Five regional Fremont variants defined by Marwitt (1970) provide a model of
cultural variation based on distributions ofmaterial artifacts, though most specialists
recognize that these variants are not clearly-bounded units. Madsen (1982) and Simms
(1986) showed that the regionally observed adaptations range from sedentary
horticultural villages where people also practiced supplementary hunting and gathering
forays, to semi-sedentary sites reflecting a seasonal round that involved much more
hunting and gathering. Local variability in the Fremont adaptation is similar to that seen
among hunter-gatherer peoples of other areas within the Great Basin and Intermountain
West. It depended on relative dependability of water sources such as springs, streams,
lakes, and rivers, and a range of topographical and ecological zones that was varied and
productive enough to support semi-sedentary or fully sedentary occupations. Variation
among material artifacts is considerable within and between regional Fremont variants,
and criteria distinctive enough to differentiate the variants unequivocally are lacking. Of
particular interest to the present discussion's focus on the Nuwe area, the demarcation of
Fremont Culture into regional variants is especially problematic in the Northeast Great
Basin, where there is a definite problem in separating Northern Utah Fremont from
preceding Desert Archaic cultures. Berry and Berry (2001) in fact see this as part of a
more general problem, contending that the classification scheme in use cannot clearly
distinguish the Fremont variants from each other, or even from Anasazi (Hisastinom) and
other prehistoric horticultural peoples ofthe adjacent Southwest.
Controversy about the classification system aside, it is clear that Fremont Culture
people engaged in a wide array of subsistence activities and settlement patterns. Some
IJP~--------------------------
•
70
were largely hunter-gatherers, while others were oriented to settled horticulture in more
intensive ways, like the Hisastinom further south. Horticultural products included maize,
beans, and squash in areas next to permanent water sources or with suitable exposure to
rainfall. Maize was the primary crop grown in the Northeast Great Basin area, at those
locations where there is evidence of cultivation. In the Northeast Great Basin, Fremont
Dent, a highly drought resistant com, was one ofthe species propagated. However,
predictable wild resources from the hunting and gathering of native flora and fauna were
also much utilized.
Rosegate projectile points (1,700-1,000 RP.) attest to the arrival of the bow and
arrow during the Archaic-Fremont transition, and thereafter Desert Side Notched and
Cottonwood Triangular projectile points (1,000 RP.-historic.), were dominant throughout
the Eastern Great Basin. The Rosegate points are much smaller than earlier types, yet are
similar in form to the larger projectile points earlier made for use with the atlatl and dart.
The climate of the Fremont period was basically similar to that experienced today,
except that early on, rainfall patterns in the Fremont area appear to have been more
influenced by summer thunderstorms coming in from the GulfofMexico. The pattern of
today, in contrast, is dominated by summer-dry Pacific systems over most ofUtah. In
other words, earlier climatic patterns in the Fremont area would have been more similar
to those experienced in the Southwest, where Native maize horticulture was and still is
supported by summer rains. The maize-containing Late Archaic site at Elsinore, in central
Utah (Wilde and Newman 1989), shows that in fact maize cultivation arrived in Fremont
territory well before the appearance of Fremont culture as such. The familiarity and
71
importance of seed harvesting to the Desert Archaic people then occupying the Eastern
Great Basin and Northern Colorado Plateau (cf. Madsen and Simms 1998) would surely
have facilitated the adoption of maize. If Shaul's (2001) recent linguistic analysis is a
sound indication of the probable Late Archaic Fremont people's language, then the
ancestral Fremont were likely Northern Uto-Aztecans (Upham 1994:134-135).
Late Prehistoric Period (600-200 RP.)
The Late Prehistoric period of the Eastern Great Basin is clearly identifiable with
Numic speaking Ute, Gosiute, Shoshone, and Southern Paiute who were living in the area
when the White man came. The material culture of this period is characterized by
distinctive basketry, Brownware ceramics, a continuation of the earlier projectile point
fonus, a rock art tradition similar but not identical to that of the Fremont Period, and
basketry seed-beaters designed to extract maximum calories from seed-bearing plants,
amongst other traits (Bettinger and Baumhoff 1982; Madsen 1982; Madsen and Rhode
1994). According to one persistently vocal strain of archaeological interpretation in the
Great Basin, there is no relationship between the preceding Fremont and the Numic
peoples who currently live in the area. As previously discussed, the Numic Expansion
hypothesis (Lamb 1958, Bettinger and Baumhoff 1982; Madsen and Rhode 1994), based
on lexicostatistical comparisons and glottochronological time estimates, argues that the
Numic speaking peoples spread across the Great Basin after about 1,000 RP. from a
southwestern Great Basin homeland around Death Valley, and wholly replaced the
previous inhabitants ofthe Great Basin, who disappeared without leaving any traces. The
Numic Expansion model is the subject of the next chapter and will not be discussed
IF'
72
further here, except to say that it has been strongly challenged (Aikens and Witherspoon
1986, Aikens 2000, 1994, Goss 1977; Grayson 1993, 1994; Gruhn 1987; Hill 2003; Shaul
2001; Swanson 1972; Upham 1994) and is a major point of contention both among
archaeologists and between Native peoples and those archaeologists who continue to
make much of it.
Historic Period (A.D. 1776-Contemporary Nuwe)
The Historic Period starts with early trappers, military expeditions, and the
emigration of the oppressed Latter Day Saints (Mormons) from the American midwest
into the Great Basin country. This section covers the initial intrusion by culturally
different people with widely divergent world-views, and gives a brief account of the
contemporary Nuwe situation. Some themes that emerged at the inception of the Historic
period have continued into contemporary times. These are exploration, military activity,
mining, ranching, settlement, grazing and farming, displacement of Native peoples,
materialism, assimilation, religious conversion, disease, and the Native people's struggle
to survive.
The Spanish friars Sylvester Velez de Escalante and Francisco Anastasio
Dominguez initiated the arrival of Europeans in the Eastern Great Basin in 1776 as part
of a military expedition attempting to trace an overland route from Santa Fe, New
Mexico, to Monterey, California. However, lost cities ofgold and a mythical river that
connected with the Pacific Ocean were also interests of the expedition. It is fairly clear,
however, that the effects ofEuropeans were already being felt much earlier in the region.
The horse was known to the Ute as early as 1637-1641, and horses were c1earlybeing
73
used by the Indians as pack animals by the 1650s (Tyler 1951). The horse was first
captured by Pueblo peoples during their revolt in 1680 against Spanish missionaries, and
eventually the Southern Ute also obtained them. By the 1830s, horses were found in
almost all areas of the Great Basin capable of supporting them. Although the timing is
less certain, European diseases may well have preceded other aspects of European
presence by many years, as they did elsewhere throughout the Americas (Loewen 1995).
The Nuwe population of the Northeast Great Basin may have already been reduced from
a conservatively estimated 5,000 people before direct White contact ever commenced.
Several well-known trapping, trading, and military exploration expeditions passed
through the Great Salt Lake Desert, seeking material gain in the Great Basin. Jedediah,
Strong, Smith crisscrossed the Great Basin east and west in his journey of 1826-1827, for
the purpose of material exploration and to acquire pelts (Morgan 1947). Smith, as he
intruded upon the Great Salt Lake region, observed some Gosiutes, who he considered
timid because they would not go near him, and some equestrian Bannocks, who he
considered bold, and who offered food to his squad (Irving 1961: 162). In the spring of
1827, Smith and his three men traveled through Thomas Creek at the base ofthe Deep
Creek Mountains (Fremont 1887). The Gosiute observed this party, who had almost
thirsted to death by the time they reached Skull Valley.
The next intrusion was that ofJoseph R. Walker, Lieutenant ofCaptain Benjamin L.
E. Bonneville's Rocky Mountain Fur Company, during Walker's expedition to California
during 1833 and 1834. Walker had been ordered to explore the shores ofthe Great Salt Lake,
.._------------------------~-
•
74
but instead sought the legendary San Buenaventura River that was thought by some early
cartographers to be connected across the West to the Pacific Ocean.
In 1845 another military expedition, that of John C. Fremont, apparently passed
through the Great Salt Lake Desert. Fremont identified the Great Basin as a vast region of
interior drainage, finally putting to rest the belief that a waterway connected the eastern
half of the continent with the western half (Hawkins and Madsen 1990). In 1846, the
Donner-Reed party made its ill-advised trek across the Great Salt Lake Desert over the
Hastings Cutoff, where many of their heavy wagons became mired in the mud of the
Bonneville Salt Flat, delaying their progress badly and presaging the disaster that awaited
them in the Sierra Nevada (Malouf and Findlay 1986:508).
Members ofthe Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS, or Mormons)
were the first Euroamericans to come to the Great Basin with the express intent to settle
there. Their goal was to start a new nation or promised land of Zion called Deseret. The
LDS church was founded in Fayette, New York, in 1830. After experiencing socio-
religious problems during which church founder Joseph Smith was murdered in Nauvoo,
Illinois in 1846 for promulgating polygamy, the Saints moved westward under the
leadership ofBrigham Young. In 1847 the Mormons located in the Salt Lake Valley
because they thought, as it was then a remote part ofMexican territory, they would be
free from the harassment they had suffered in Missouri and Illinois (Durst and Voss
1990:7-9). Theybe1ieved that the Salt Lake Valley was a no-man's land located between
warring groups ofUte and Shoshone, and they hoped to avoid provoking Indian
'I
..--------------~-T
75
hostilities in settling there. However, within three months the Mormons had attacked and
killed local Native Americans, possibly Gosiutes (Weber Ute).
U.s. government exploration of the Great Salt Lake region commenced with the
1849-1850 survey expedition of Captain Howard Stansbury of the Anny Corps of
Topographical Engineers (Stansbury 1988[1852]). This survey expedition followed
Gosiute trails into the Deep Creek region. In 1855, the Deep Creek Reservation (later
renamed the Gosiute reservation) was one of the first two areas ofland set aside for Great
Basin Indians by the War Department's Division of Indian Affairs. Several Gosiute
groups were ordered here, but others continued to live off the reservation, working for
white ranchers and farmers on a seasonal basis (Clemmer and Stewart 1986:525-557).
The Deep Creek area and valleys nearby were luscious, according to Bateman (1991: 12-
13-140) in his account of 1850 observations by Captain J.H. Simpson and others in
Pleasant Valley just south ofDeep Creek, which
"contains grass all along it". Philip Frances Delamare [described.] a sister
valley to the east as... "full ofhigh waving grass, a veritable herder's
paradise, and it was not an uncommon happening for stockmen to be
unable to find their animals because of being lost in this high grass which
spread over the valley." Also old timers in Deep Creek Valley
remembered being told by the early settlers about the abundance of grass
when they came here.
In 1852 Howard Egan visited Deep Creek, and in 1858 the Utah Territorial
Legislature fraudulently granted the Deep Creek Valley to Mormon Church president
Brigham Young. That same year old men and small boys were sent to settle the area for the
LDS Church. In 1858 George Chorpenning established a mail route along the path showed to
him by Gosiutes, which later became the Overland Stage and Pony Express route.
76
Captain James H. Simpson in1859 established, following Gosiute and other
Native trails, a direct wagon route from Camp Floyd, Utah, to Carson City, Nevada, that
established a pennanent road through the heart ofthe Gosiute homeland. Simpson kept a
detailed journal throughout his trip, and recorded some accounts of Gosiute and Western
Shoshone culture.
The Monnons ensconced themselves in the Gosiute homeland and set up fanns
throughout western Utah and eastern Nevada, claiming for their own the well-watered
valleys ofthe area. White settlement was underway in Tooele by 1849, in Rush Valley by
1854, and in Deep Creek by spring, 1859. The same year an Indian fann was started. This
fann lasted a year, until the Gosiute lost faith in its U.S. Government sponsors.
In 1860, the Pony Express and Overland stage route was established, and further
intruded upon Gosiute land. The construction of22 stations ofthe Overland Stage system
in 1861 affected the Gosiutes negatively by pilfering water sources and over-utilizing
hunting and gathering areas. As a consequence, many local native camp groups were
displaced, and traditional settlement patterns were degraded. At this time there were an
estimated 200 Gosiutes living in the Deep Creek area and about 60 in Skull Valley.
By 1860 the Gosiute were described as destitute, so clearly by this time
devastations to their traditional harvesting areas had already occurred. Part of the
invasion of Gosiute lands included the deliberate burning ofplant gathering areas, so as
to make the Gosiutes reliant on the Monnon economy. New Monnon farms took over
previously flourishing Native hunting and gathering areas. White ranching practices like
open grazing and plowing depleted extensive stands of seed-bearing native grasses. It is
IIJP-------------------------,..
•
77
possible that the places Monnon crops were planted were the same areas where
indigenous horticulture had been previously managed. In short order, Euroamerican
intrusion spoiled aboriginal settlement and subsistence patterns throughout western Utah
and eastern Nevada (Clemmer and Stewart 1986:525-557).
During the 1850's and the early 1860's the Gosiute were successful in a number
of cattle raids and the burning of some stagecoach stations. This reaction to the intruders
who had taken over their homeland resulted in White hysteria (Crum 1997). There are
recorded numerous instances in which Gosiutes were murdered by miners, the military,
and settlers (Bateman 1991 :74). The Gosiute, although described as subdued during this
time and as numbering only 200, were on the other hand considered fierce warriors,
capable ofthe "Goshute War of 1875." Steve Crum, a Western Shoshone, called this war
"A case ofWhite hysteria." Crum notes that this was not really a "war," but a result of
Gosiute assembling at a particular locality to pick pine nuts, so as to have a taste of
freedom away from Whites. Apparently, the White hysteria resulted from a fight between
two White men in which one murdered the other. The victor ofthis contest framed the
Gosiute, and said that Gosiutes had killed his victim and were going to wipe out all of the
settlers. However, the "Treaty With the Shoshone Goship, 1863" bought about a
cessation of Gosiute attacks against the invaders.
By 1880 the town of Ibapah had "four saloons, and two supported dances on any
given night" (Bateman 1991 :15). The Tooele and Stockton areas during this same time
experienced population booms and extensive mining activity. The area, in addition to
farming, ranching and settlement by LDS emigrants, also was the scene ofmining, and
IIJS--------------------
78
when the Overland Stage route was in operation a steady flow ofEuroamericans passed
through as well.
In the intervening 140 years since the 1863 treaty, the Gosiute and Shoshone have
survived the allotment process, forced assimilation, forced military enlistment, religious
indoctrination, mining, boarding schools, discrimination in their own community, less
than desirable local schooling, impoverishment, the Indian Reorganization Act, and a
number ofother inimical realities. Through all of the adversity, intrusion upon their
traditional lifestyle, and trying times, they have survived. A strong traditional spiritual
system is still maintained among these Nuwe people. Some are now Christians, while
others maintain strict adherence to the Red Road and traditional Native spiritual
practices. Many Nuwe today are college educated or pursue technical trades, and some
work in nearby towns as professionals. The Nuwe today are an industrious people who
work hard to obtain grants and to sustain Tribal programs. They maintain ties to both the
Inter Tribal Council ofNevada and the Utah Tribal Leaders. The future is bright for the
Nuwe and the knowledge oftheir ancient origin is still with them!
Conclusion
This chapter has been presented as a straightforward summary ofprehistory and
history in the country ofthe Nuwe (Gosiute and Shoshone), in order to provide the reader
a background based on the methods of westem science, and, importantly, also to set the
stage for further discussion ofhow thoroughly different are Nuwe and Euroamerican
perspectives on culture and history. In the next chapter the Numic Expansion hypothesis
is discussed at length, and with it the collision between Nuwe and Euroamerican values
IIJIS--------------------
79
that has been brought about by a construct generated wholly within a Euroamerican
intellectual context, and having no warrant in the historical understanding ofthe Nuwe
themselves.
Setting up this contrast, and discussing this collision, is not a purely intellectual or
philosophical exercise. The fact is that under the laws and regulations that have been
established to protect cultural heritage values in the United States, the indigenous people
ofthe Northeast Great Basin are having a very hard time making their own cultural
heritage concerns heard. It is ironic that the very people whose ancestral sites and history
are the ostensible object ofprotection and stewardship, are having such problems. These
problems are widespread across the Great Basin among Punown people as a whole, and
across the United States generally, although the details vary a great deal from place to
place. In the case ofthe Nuwe, the difficulty is that a scientific theory (and one by no
means universally accepted even among Euroamerican scholars) is causing them a great
deal of difficulty in their own efforts to turn the vast--fundamentally Euroamerican--
cultural resource management apparatus to certain concerns that are to the Native people
overwhelmingly important.
T---------------
80
CHAPTERN
COLLISION: THE NUMIC EXPANSION HYPOTHESIS
"Every man's work, whether it be literature or music or pictures or
architecture or anything else, is always a portrait ofhimself (Samuel
Butler [1835-1932] British Writer, http://excite.coml Quote ofthe day
October 4, 2003).
The Numic Expansion model introduced in the preceding chapter involves a
hypothesized recent arrival ofNumic speaking peoples within their respective homelands
between about 1,000 and 500 years ago (Lamb 1958). This more detailed chapter on the
hypothesis is written from a Punown point ofview. Its content is filtered through
ceremonial preparation and is infonned spiritually. Ancestors, for Punown, are a spiritual
issue. Thus, the way to understand them is through the spirit. This Native approach to
writing a dissertation within the mainstream cultural institution of a university has
possibly never been done before. My experience of Euroamerican academic culture is
tempered and infonned by Punown ceremony. My ceremonial treatment of issues is
infonned by the voices of ancestors and the knowledgeable direction of Punown
traditionalists who mentored me.
For Numic speakers themselves, the thought they are not from their Great Basin
homeland is only in the minds of the Taibou nanna (White man). The idea is viewed as
yet another violation invented by Taibou to dispossess the Punown oftheir land tenure
and affiliation with their ancestors. The Numic Expansion hypothesis is used as a
81
justification by some federal agency and cultural resource mangers to not consult with
Punown about ancient human occupation and burial sites in the Great Basin. It is ironic
that thereby the cultural patrimony and intellectual property rights of the Punown are at
stake, while the careers of those who write "objective" and sanitized publications are
rewarded for their academic conformance. It is a quandary, but I believe that archaeology
can be conducted as a learning tool for all. As archaeology is currently written, the
primary beneficiaries ofthe "National Mythology" created by Euroamerican rugged
individualists are the "Jungian Guilt" - inflicted American public, who cannot accept
their own ancestral transgression into the homelands ofothers (Deloria 1996, 1971;
Fowler 1987).
Though there are some Punown who know their prehistoric past mainly from the
writings of anthropologists, the traditionalists rely on spirituality to inform them of their
ancestral past. Archaeology can look at data and suggest things such as population
movements but it is not proper to devalue spiritual beliefs of the native people to
accomplish this task. Instead, we as archaeologists can concentrate on what we do know.
What we do know is the descriptions of artifacts, indications of style, form, and function
ofmaterial culture, and where these objects originated on the landscape in time and
space. With this knowledge, which is reliable because we have the items in front of our
eyes to study, we can paint pictures that are ofcultural orientation. I believe that
speculation on the origins of an ethnic or language group is best treated in the spiritual
domain of the descendents of the people archaeologists study, because identity is after all
a matter of the spirit. However, if a tribe does exist that allows destructive types of
82
research to take place, that is responsibly informed oftheir potential to disrupt traditional
spiritual belief, then these researchers have my blessings.
I
.L!QQl
MILES
....--.--........
........~....-----=--.._~.. ".~..~
/-:-
i'
1[
J
INt
-_.-.~
I/
:
ca. 1000bp
". ---. --
..-
I
i
::-T~~-7I"~
. V,- L
-.
.. <~::::::::::::::::---..J. ..I ..
1 ...
! .. -
: -:-
.,
..:
.. :
.. : ..
. :._ :
.. :
.. :
- :• . I ..
-
-
-•
-ca. -1000
j
....._-_...-
'"'--..........-------
Figure 8. The Punown area within the Intermountain West, showing source and direction
ofproposed Numic Expansion, after Rhode and Madsen (1994:214, fig. 24.1).
,
..J
p------------------T
83
Contrary to the traditional Punown viewpoint, the Numic Expansion hypothesis
has been used to withhold the repatriation ofobjects and knowledge to contemporary
Punown, including the bones oftheir disinterred ancestors. It has been utilized as a
justification by some federal agencies not to consult with Punown and even to violate
sacred skeletal remains (see Barker and Pinto 1994). Native American Graves Protection
and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) investigations by Punown in Utah have resulted in
investigations of archaeologists, who have been accused by tribes ofviolating that law.
However, these archaeologists were patted on the head and promoted as heroes by non-
Indian members of the November 2002 Utah Native American Review Committee
Meeting in Salt Lake City.
In one gross instance an Elko, Nevada BLM representative asserted that the
Western Shoshone had taken their homeland from people who were there before them,
and that violation of the Ruby Valley Treaty of 1863 by the BLM was no different then
what the Shoshone had done during prehistory. The BLM Manager was quoted in the
April 29, 1998 issue ofthe Salt Lake Tribune as saying,
"We do not consider this to be an Indian issue; it is a grazing issue," says Stout.
"This is a rough deal because a lot ofwhat they [the Indians] base their arguments
on are the policies of conquest of the federal government, policies that every
emerging nation used. Conquest is how the Shoshone got their lands in the first
place."
Ofutmost importance is to ask how Euroamerican researchers came to believe it
is their right to own the bodies ofprehistoric (pre-American) Native Americans, and to
ask what gives them the right to undermine Punown cultural patrimony with hypothetical,
p-----------------------
84
impossible to prove theory (Cf., Madsen and Rhode 1994). It is this threat to Punown
spirituality that must be redressed.
Previous Numic Expansion Research
The distribution ofNumic speaking peoples extends throughout the Great Basin
and into adjacent Intermountain West and western Plains territory (fig. 1). In some areas
there is written historic evidence that Numic peoples, including the Eastern Shoshone,
Comanche, and Ute, came to be located in certain places after the introduction of the
horse. Some, such as Madsen (1994), assert that Numic peoples are outside of their
original territory over as much as 60% oftheir present land base. The area ofmention
includes the central Rocky Mountains, western Plains, and north-central Oregon.
However, in these lands adjacent to the Great Basin, Desert Culture sites are present as
well as settled horticultural or lacustrine-based villages. The "leave no trace" hunting and
gathering style oforienting to the environment that is present almost everywhere in the
Intermountain West is present there as well. It is entirely reasonable that Punown
ancestors have been present in this landscape since the beginning of human occupation
(cf. Aikens 2000; Brewster 1998, 2003a; Goss 1978; Gruhn 1988; Swanson 1972). The
Rocky Mountains and Sierra Nevada each share affinities with the Great Basin, which
they bound east and west (Bennyhoff 1958; Husted 1968; Jenkins and Erlandson 1996;
Larson and Kornfeld 1994; Swanson 1972; Vellanoweth 2000).
The Numic Expansion theory argues that Western, Central, and Eastern Numic
speakers arrived in their present distributions within very recent times. The putative
p ..--------------------------
I
..
85
reason that the native languages are so similar across such a vast area is that their
speakers had split apart from one another only 1,000 or so years ago. Lamb (1958) based
this estimate on lexicostatistic glotto-chronological reconstruction. However, glotto-
chronological reconstruction has never enjoyed a reliable acceptance amongst linguists
Grayson (1994); Hughes (1994).
Lamb (1958) reasoned that the area ofgreatest contemporary language diversity is
where the Numic speakers originated. So, he inferred that Numic speakers came from the
Death Valley area at the southwest corner of the Great Basin, and concluded that an
expansion out of that area had taken place. The glottochronological estimates he made,
placing this dispersal in very recent times, are based on dated research into language
dispersals in Europe, where conditions differ radically from those in the Great Basin. In
the parts ofEurope where these studies were focused, substantial populations of farming
peoples were anchored within their respective territories by economic, geographic, and
political factors. In contrast, hunting-gathering Numic peoples practiced polite social
relations with other Punown, and constant contact across a vast region. For this reason,
glottochronological estimates based on European data are inapplicable to the
Intermountain West. Further casting doubt on the method, the statistical time frame for
changes within the Romance languages was actually found to be inaccurate when
checked against an historic record (Rea 1958; 1973; Grayson 1994).
I believe the Numic Expansion concept comes from a long-standing historical
bias as filtered through objectivity (Horgan 1996). The bias toward Native people has
been present since the arrival of the first Spaniards and other Europeans on the continent
•86
(Loewen 1995). We are all entitled to our own opinions. But in America, where courts
rule, and these courts consult "experts," those expert's opinions can hurt those that laws
have been intended to protect. Although the Numic Expansion hypothesis is unproven, it
has nevertheless been used to argue for denial of the cultural patrimony and historical
rights ofPunown to be involved in the interpretation and management of their history and
sacred sites. The thought that outside "experts" know better what is best for Punown,
contrary to Punown beliefs, and based on a disputed accounting of the prehistoric
archaeological record, is completely unacceptable. It is projection of a well known
stereotype that real Indians are extinct and that academically trained researchers alone
have the knowledgeability to represent the ancestors of the Punown (Mihesuach
(1996: 113-114) Some of the problem stems from a strong general tendency among
scholars to conform to schools of thought associated with previous research (Dwyer
1976; Jett 1977; Deloria 1995).
Numerous archaeological models have been put forth trying to explain the origins
of the Numa (Aikens 1966; Gunnerson 1962; Heizer and Napton 1970; Jennings 1958;
Rudy 1953; Steward 1942; Sutton 1994; 1988; Swanson 1962; Zingg 1933). Combined
linguistic and archaeological models have also been put forth (Bettinger and Baumhoff
1982, 1983; Bettinger 1994; Gruhn 1987; Hill 2003; Hopkins 1965; Husted and Mallory
1968; Madsen 1975; Taylor 1961). Archaeological, linguistic and environmental models
have been put forth as well (Aikens 1994; Aikens and Witherspoon 1986; Grayson 1994).
Purely linguistic models have been put forth (Fowler 1972; Miller 1964; Nichols 1981;
Goss 1977; Shaul 2001). Rock art models have also been put forth (Orozco 1992;
87
Whitley 2000). Each of these is a potential hypothesis designed to explain the distribution
and the expansion of the Numa and their linguistic relatives. The following briefly
summarizes historical antecedents to the Numic Expansion concept and to some of the
above models.
Early explorers, the chroniclers ofmilitary expeditions such as those of Fremont
and the earlier Franciscan (Spanish) monks, early Mormon and other emigrants, and
many ethnographers, came to believe that the Punown natives of the early historic period
could not have made the granaries, rock art, and stone house mounds that were seen in
eastern Utah (c£ d'Azevedo 1986; Fowler and Fowler 1971; Loewen 1995). As early as
1877, Stephen Powers came to the conclusion that the Punown of the western Great
Basin were recent also arrivals there. Powers (1877:452) theorized that the Washoe
"colonized Western Nevada by crossing the Sierra from California; but afterward were
driven back toward the mountains by the Piute (sic), who seem to be later arrivals." This
is reminiscent of other historical fallacies, such as the "Myths of the Mound Builders" in
the eastern United States, or Hyerdahl's and Van Daniken's theories that that western
civilization, or even space invaders, must have helped the Inca, Maya, and Aztecs build
their civilizations (2003).
As noted earlier, White intruders freely speculated about Punown origins. This
was done in a guilty sort ofway. The psychological term "projection" refers to the
tendency to project what one thinks of oneself onto others. The "others," in this case,
were Native Americans who were not like the western intruders but differed in color,
race/ethnicity, and culture. "Cognitive dissonance" is the psychological term for those
p
, ,
88
who do not choose to see their own negative deeds, and to cover them over with niceties.
It is as ifto say "we as White Americans came upon this land and it was empty, except
for the Punown, a useless, lazy, unproductive people of low cultural accomplishment; of
course, there is no way they could have ever survived in this harsh environment for many
years." So European "manifest destiny" does rear its ugly head, although this colonialism
is probably subconscious. But "Jungian Guilt", as portrayed through ''National
Mythology," can only work ifone cannot face the past ofhis own ancestors and projects
their faults onto others, in this case the Punown. In this perspective the Numic Expansion
is about the White conquest and control ofAmerica. Such a theory guiltlessly invokes
mechanistic universal cultural laws, optimal foraging, cultural materialism and survival
of the fittest, providing an "etic" account that does not implicate the ancestors of the
theorizers.
Stephen Powers in 1877 had the impression that Piutes (sic) ensconced
themselves on the peaceful village tribes of California and drove them from their lands.
Early Mormon settlers and other immigrants across the west presumed that Snakes,
Diggers, and Paiutes had come to their present homeland very late in time. Many of these
presumptions concerning a late Numic intrusion into their own homeland stemmed from
historical bias that started with early Puritan prejudice against east coast tribes (Loewen
1995). Apparently the east coast tribes, who taught early European immigrants to farm,
subsequently became "roaming savages." In Utah the Punown are known to have taught
the early Mormons to dig for tubers, and this allowed them to fend off starvation during a
period of famine (the story of the early pioneers digging sego lily bulbs is known to every
p-----------------------~ T
89
Monnon child). Natives became savages only after their lands were appropriated. Before
that time, Native people helped Euroamerican immigrants to fann, fed them, taught them
the uses ofnative plants, and shared their land (Chamberlin 1911). Afterward, negative
stereotypes ofNative people became the early basis for the Numic Expansion concept
(Jacobs 1972; Goss 1999; Loewen 1995; Mihesuach 1996). Only an alternative history
book, such as "Lies my Teacher Told Me" (Loewen 1995), tell the truth about much of
what happened historically.
The famed early anthropologist Alfred Kroeber (1907) himself experienced a sort
of "double psychological social bind" when it came to classifying the origins of the
Punown. Kroeber at first thought the "Shoshonean" stocks of southern California, the
Tubatulablic, Numic, and Takic, because of the diversity of their languages, must have
had a "longer fixed residence" there than did the Numic groups to the east (cf. Sutton and
Rhode 1994:6). Then in 1925, after 18 years of additional research, Kroeber reversed
himself, stating that:
it is entirely conceivable that that these tongues have been spoken in their
present locations from time immemorial. Their territory is in the Great
Basin; their speakers were actually part of the Plateau tribes; and there is
no foreign element or anything else to indicate that they ever had any
antecessors on the spot (cited in Sutton and Rhode 1994:6).
During his archaeological excavation ofcaves along the northern edge of the
Great Salt Lake, Julian Steward (1937) made an attempt to define their cultural
chronology. He observed a change in material culture, and was the first in this area to
claim that the resident Shoshone, Gosiute, Southern Paiute, and Ute were not originally
from Utah. Other archaeologists working in the Great Basin observed similar changes in
ps-------------------------
90
material culture elsewhere (Harrington 1933). In 1958 Lamb proposed the Numic
Expansion model, and suggested it was supported by Julian Steward's earlier (1937,
1942) culture history of the Eastern Great Basin.
Steward was not original in his view that the Punown came from elsewhere, but
seemed to be following earlier work by archaeologists who observed changes in material
culture through excavations in the southwest (Harrington 1930; Hayden 1930; Kidder
1962). These changes were explained as the result of a replacement by a more primitive
("deculturated") people, who appeared after the Pueblo peoples abandoned the northern
Southwest, possibly due to competition and "savage enemies".
Jennings (1957) put forth the concept of a "Desert Culture." Jennings, who
excavated Danger Cave in Nuwe territory, saw a pattern he recognized as similar to that
of the historic Gosiute, and the antiquity ofthe Danger Cave evidence led him to
postulate that Gosiute ancestors had lived there for the past 10,000 years. Jennings'
model also drew on Steward's (1938) concept ofcultural ecology, and discussed how the
Desert Culture had been present in the Great Basin for over 10,000 years. With the
advent ofradiocarbon dating the Great Basin Desert Culture, which had been considered
by many archaeologists (including Steward) as a late peripheral derivative of
Southwestern Basketmaker culture, was shown to be a much earlier development,
actually ancestral to Basketmaker (Cressman 1942; Jennings and Norbeck 1955; Madsen
and O'Connell 1982).
It is important to point out here that Steward was an easterner who grew up in a
green eastern environment, held many of the stereotypes discussed above, and was
T ~~ -- ~-~-~~--~--~ ~~-
91
inculcated in ''white bread" authoritarian American culture. During the 1930's Steward
failed miserably at representing the Bureau of Indian Affairs in Western Shoshone
reservation development (Steward 1937b). Steward was of the opinion that the Great
Basin people had no regular social organization other than small nuclear family groups,
and that their entire orientation was "gastric:" that is, geared entirely to the demands of
marginal subsistence in an impoverished environment. Steward's "findings" were so
negative that the local Bureau of Indian Affairs did not accept them. Had Steward's
recommendations gone forth, the Western Shoshone would be landless Indians today
(Clemmer, Myers, and Rudden 1999). Steward (1955) later developed a broad theory of
multilineal cultural evolution, partially based on his misunderstanding ofthe Shoshone.
In order for the model to work, the harsh desert environment of the Great Basin had to
produce the most primitive people on earth (Steward 1937c). That is why Kehoe (1999)
wondered where Wuzzie George and Wovoka were in Steward's writings.
At this point it is important to say a little more on stereotyping and its negative
effects on Native American Indians. Much of the information that follows is adapted
from Mihesuah (1996) in her book "American Indian Stereotypes and Realities."
Mihesuah provides a revealing picture ofthe effects of stereotyping on American Indians.
False imaging provided by stereotypes stigmatizes its victims. For those who perpetuate
those myths academically, in media, or otherwise, there are negative effects felt by them
and those they have projected upon (Berkhoffer 1979; Churchill 1998; Deloria 2003,
1974, 1969; Goss 1999; Mihesuah.1996). For Native people, the false imagery causes
emotional distress, frustration, anger, insecurity, and feelings of helplessness (Mihesuach
r-.
92
1996:113). In classrooms where students are taught that American Indians are ignorant,
savage, and inferior, the result is low self-esteem for Indian students and negative beliefs
amongst non-Indians students (Mihesuah 1996:113-114). Some Native people accept the
stereotypes projected at them in society and in the classroom. They develop a sense of
helplessness and feel they will never accomplish anything because of the negative images
provided to them of their Indianess. In fact, the high Native dropout, unemployment,
alcoholism, and suicide rates demonstrate that "nurture" is required and that environment
is the primary key to understanding this contemporary phenomenon. Some try to forget
their Indianess, and fail to learn tribal traditions or to express themselves as Indians.
A further problem resulting from the negative projections is that they bring about
racial intolerance in the educational system and the work place. I can attest to this
personally, as I was thrown out ofHigh School at age 15 due to such factors. Often
Indians are excluded from fully participating in American society and experiencing the
same socio-economic opportunities as others because of negative stereotyping.
Frequently when Natives are involved in bringing about positive social change, whether
it be in academia or within their private lives, some Euroamericans feel somehow
threatened and think Natives are antagonists for reminding them ofthe atrocities
committed by their ancestors (Mihesuah 1996: 114).
Bettinger and Baumhoff(1982) produced one of the most influential Numic
Expansion models, combining linguistics, material culture, and the idea ofcompetition
for resources. According to the theory, the Numic people basically out-competed earlier
peoples of the Great Basin and thereby replaced them. The model relied on Lamb's dates
>---------------------""""-T ~ ~~-~---~ ~~- ~-~~-----~-------------
93
for a Numic Expansion. However, as noted above, this model has been widely criticized
because ofits reliance on glottochronological estimates as well as other reasons. Material
culture in the eastern Great Basin and elsewhere makes the timing of this model
impossible to support. Although Bettinger (1994) does much to construct a revised
model, using current archaeological and linguistic theory, he still fails to provide a factual
scenario that would allow a demonstration of his assumptions. The Bettinger model fails
to "isolate elements that are 'truly' Numic from those that are not (Hughes 1994:60)."
The historically known interactions between Punown and neighboring people do not
indicate that in general, aggression or even sub-conscious competition was their primary
means ofdealing with another ethnic group. However, historic Punown did fight back
successfully at times during White incursions into the Great Basin and perhaps the
underlying aggression scenarios attributed to Numa by some researchers (e.g., historical
data in Alley 1986; Sutton 1987), are in reality psychological projections (Hughes
1994:70).
In areas where Penutian or Hokan or Athapaskan speakers are located bordering
Punown, various communities became "in-between dwellers". Skirmishes are known to
have occurred historically, but these battles were almost always a result ofnon-Indian
encroachment. The Salt Lake Valley in Utah was home to Ute, Gosiute, and Shoshone. In
the west, Spanish Springs Valley and Honey Lake Valley were used by Washoe and
Northern Paiute and historically by Maidu. Yosemite was home to Northern Paiute,
Mono, and Miwuk. All these are examples of "in-between dwellers" (cf. Brewster 1998).
The Punown orient to the environment in which they live, and their cultures can change
p------------------------- T
94
dramatically with the addition ofnew resources, as Swanson (1972) portrays in the case
of the Lemhi Shoshone of northern Idaho. In times of environmental stress Punown can,
and did, according to the archaeological record, re-orient to a Desert Culture pattern.
Although new basketry seed-beaters became dominant in the Great Basin after
about 1,000 RP., and in Nuwe territory coiled basketry was generally replaced by twined
ware that took less time to make, these useful changes fall far short of documenting a
total replacement of the human population. More reasonably, they represent the spread of
a few technological behaviors that were superior for certain economic purposes, much
like the bow and arrow or pottery or even a four wheel drive truck. Adovasio (1986,
1994) supports the Numic migration argument based on these and subtler differences in
basketry construction but again is liable to much the same criticism. Pottery, which also
comes into this discussion, is examined further below.
By contrast an environmental, linguistic, and archaeological model claiming that a
Numic homeland existed in the central Great Basin for at least the past 5,000 years is
more congruent with Punown understanding, though it becomes problematic when it
relies on environmental circumstances and material culture differences to attach ethnicity
to the types ofdevelopments just mentioned (Aikens and Witherspoon 1986; Hughes
1994:69). The Numic peoples historically are located near Penutian speakers to the north
and west ofthe Great Basin, and Hokan speakers to the south. Hokan speakers also cut
offNumic speakers from Uto-Aztecan speaking cousins further south into Mexico
(Aikens and Witherspoon 1986). Along the eastern edge ofNumic speaking territory are
Athapaskan and Siouian speaking groups. It has long been hypothesized that the Navajo
p-----------_....-------------- ',.
95
and Apache split apart from northern Athapaskan cousins about 1,300 years ago, the date
based on glottochronological estimates. Based on this hypothesis, Aikens and
Witherspoon postulated that Numic border lands were occupied by Penutian, Hokan, and
Athapaskan speakers, and the Great Basin interior was occupied by Numic speakers
(Aikens and Witherspoon 1986:12). It is an "if it was not Numa in the Central Great
Basin then who"? argument. They do not take into account deep time, instead accepting
the linguists' conventionally established date of about 5,000 years for the time when the
ancestral Uto-Aztecan speech community broke up into regional groups. However,
Aikens, Middleton, and Thomes (2000) correct this reliance on the conventional data in a
later paper, relating adaptive diversity and Nichols' (1981) Old California Uto-Aztecan
hypothesis to the idea of the Great Basin as an even earlier Uto-Aztecan homeland.
The edges ofthe Great Basin during some times in the past were occupied by
peoples with varying material cultures. These cultures are the Fremont in the eastern
Great Basin, Virgin Branch Anasazi in the southeastern Great Basin, the Lovelock in the
western Great Basin, and the Chewaucanian in the northwestern Great Basin. The
archaeological variability is real, but on the other hand the ethnohistoric Northern Paiute,
Western Shoshone, Northern and Southern Ute, and Southern Paiute all shared a lithic
technology, a generalized Desert Culture, and variability in material culture, so I believe
it is an equal probability that the material culture is all Punown. Simply, I suggest that
Punown overall had a quite variable material culture and a subsistence cycle that mirrors,
though not exactly, each ofthe identified archaeological cultures.
p96
The Virgin Hisastinom (Anasazi) of Southwest Utah and adjoining Nevada
utilized painted pottery, were sedentary farmers, and built masonry granaries above and
below ground. The Fremont ofUtah and eastern Nevada practiced a semi-sedentary
existence, practicing an adaptation similar to that of the Virgin Anasazi. It is very
important to point out, in this connection, that the Snake Valley Gosiute, Ute, and San
Juan Southern Paiute were all observed growing com and living in small villages at the
time ofcontact with Euroamericans (Rittman 1995; Stoffle and Zedeno 1998). Irrigation
was present among the San Juan River Paiutes in southeastern Utah, and among the
Owens Valley Paiute, Smith Valley Paiute, and Walker River Paiute in Nevada. The
latter Paiute groups grew indigenous tubers and seeds, while the former grew com, beans,
and squash. Overall, the Punown managed land by broadcasting seeds, and carefully
managing tubers and seed crops by not allowing them to die but to continue to propagate.
These practices survive today where it is environmentally possible amongst traditional
Punown. Pronghorn antelope and other food animals were also managed (Arkush 1999).
Prayer and ceremony accompanies both gathering and hunting, and in the practice of
ceremonial observances was embedded responsibility and care for the plant and animal
resources (Arkush 1995; 1999).
The ceramics of the Fremont period in the northeast Great Basin have previously
been defined as not ofNumic origin. Punown ceramics generally are characterized as a
thick and brown and not very fine utilitarian ware, while the shapes, sizes, and textures of
Fremont ceramics can be quite fine (Madsen 1986). Patricia Dean (1992), however, in her
doctoral dissertation study of grayware ceramics in the northeastern, Great Basin
p97
demonstrated substantial similarity between Fremont and Shoshone pottery, contrary to
the views ofMadsen (1986), Rhode (1994), and others. Dean (1992:iv) reported that:
This analysis showed that previous identifications ofpottery attributes
were partially or entirely erroneous. Every attribute measured
demonstrated the same essential pattern: Great Salt Lake Gray [Fremont]
and Shoshone ware [Numic] fell within this range. Further, except for one
form of temper material, Promontory Gray and Shoshone Ware shared the
same attributes with one another. Ethnographic evidence is also presented
that links late prehistoric pottery to the historic Shoshone, confirming a
single unbroken pottery tradition in the Great Salt Lake region.
I conclude that the evidence of this study does not support the concept of
two unrelated pottery traditions (Fremont and Shoshone) in the Great Salt
Lake region. based on this work, much of the traditionally conceived post-
archaic culture history of this region must be reevaluated.
Dean (1992:128) goes on to discuss some descriptive statements about material
culture made by Steward (1937:122). She points out that Steward had identified
particular attributes for Fremont that in fact are present throughout the prehistory ofthe
area. In the Promontory area and Great Salt Lake region generally, coiling was the
primary means of pottery construction for both Fremont and later Nuwe, temper material
was the same, and the basic construction of pots was the same. Dean sees this as
"evidence of a direct historic link between the historic and late prehistoric periods (Dean
1992:130)." The Dean dissertation thus contains factual data that support a long Punown
continuity in the Great Salt Lake region. Dean (1992:130) put forth a question, but also
seemed to be making a statement, in saying, "is not the Promontory Gray pottery a
marker for the culture that became the historic Promontory Shoshone?" Further, "if the
Fremont culture arose from a Desert Archaic base, and if the Fremont and historic
98
Shoshone are continuous with one another, is not the ethnographic Shoshone culture a
lineal descendant of ancient desert tradition?
Another example to further illustrate the extent of the hypothesized Numic
Expansion is the case ofa supposedly late Uto-Aztecan intrusion (Shoshone Wedge) into
the Los Angeles Basin and southern Channel Islands. Jenkins and Erlandson (1996), and
Vellanoweth (2000), have all noted that the occurrence ofOlivella Grooved Rectangle
beads of 5,000 to 6,000 years ago matches the distribution ofUto-Aztecans historically.
Christopher Raven (1994:1), in his paper discussing the Numic Expansion as "invisible
from the west," did a study ofprojectile point type distributions within various ecological
settings. He found that "prudent foragers may have capitulated to a Numic-like strategy
some millennia [5,000 RP.] in advance ofthe [postulated] Numic arrival (Raven
1994:156). Raven, showing his non-belief in the Numic Expansion and the Bettinger and
Baumhoff (1982) model went on to write, "As a final note, and on the general premise
that the devil can quote scripture to his own end, we might inquire as to how well the
same data fit a model of in place growth."
Additional Perspectives on Numic Expansion
As just reviewed, a long held archaeological view of the Eastern Great Basin is
that Numic speakers who were ancestral to modern Northern Ute, Gosiute, Western
Shoshone, and Southern Paiute, began to inhabit the areas where these people live today
only about 500 to 600 years ago. However, as also noted, glottochronological
reconstructions are seriously flawed (Fodder 1961; Goss 1978; Grayson 1994; Rea 1958,
1973; Shaul 2001). Goss (1977), however, has reinterpreted the linguistic data and
>I
i
I
L
99
concluded that Numic speaking peoples and their Uto-Aztecan ancestors may well have
been in the Intermountain West much longer than supposed by Lamb and some others
(Fowler 1972; Miller 1986).
Initially a supporter of the Lamb (1958) model, Goss (1977:60), with further
study came to quite a different view:
This model quickly became dogma and a large group of linguists and
anthropologists ... began shuffling data to fit this model and rejecting that
which it did not fit .... I feel we have been seriously detoured by our
blind acceptance of the Lamb hypothesis and the resultant reluctance to
look at the counter evidence the data keep throwing at us. Lamb has been
a Judas-goat to a generation of Great Basin prehistorians ... he didn't do
anything more with the model, after he did it to us.
NP.. T
Intermontane
Macro-Penutian
Dialect Area
[2001
MILES
N
100
Figure 9. Macro-Penutian Dialect Area about 7,000 years or more B.P.,
according to Goss (1977).
F101
Goss (1977:61) proposed instead an Intennountain Macro-Penutian Dialect Area
for linguistic development of the Proto-Uto-Aztecan-Tanoan core area before 7,000 RP.
(Fig. 8). It included Death Valley, Lamb's focal point, but also most ofthe Great Basin
and central Southwest. This area encompasses the entire current range ofNumic speakers
and Northern Uto-Aztecan speakers (NUA) and suggests that Penutian speakers are also
likely part of this one time ancient people. He goes on to conclude that on the basis of
existing evidence, there is really no better hypothesis than that Numic ancestors have
always lived in the Great Basin; where they remain today.
Shaul (2001), in his "Linguistic Foot Prints" cultural affiliation study, utilized
Fowler's (1972) data on species that are critical in inferring homelands in linguistic
studies. Fowler had suggested that the Proto-Uto-Aztecan homeland might have been in
the northern 2/3 ofArizona, following the Sierra Madre Mountains ofMexico. Shaul
(2001 :12) convincingly extends the range ofProto-Uto-Aztecan origins, noting that ''the
distributions overlap, extending into Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, and Northern Mexico.
This infonnation locates Numic (and Hopi as well) within the area ofUtah Fremont
culture". Shaul (2001 :7-31) further argues that the observed language diversity
surrounding Death Valley could imply simply that people there had diverse and rich food
resources, and that Death Valley could even have been the last area penetrated by Numic
speakers. He also notes that seed beating technology (a supposed marker for Numic
migration) could more plausibly have spread northward through kin networks ofthe
typical foraging kind known to exist in arid lands.
..
102
Based on his exploration of deeper and broader time relations for Uto-Aztecan
ancestors, Shaul (2001 :31-32) reaches the following conclusion about the language ofthe
people who share cultural affiliation with the human skeletal remains found in the Nuwe
area at Willard Bay on Great Salt Lake:
If age-area modeling is the criterion for ranking, then Northwest
Shoshone, Goshute Shoshone, and Northern Ute are the most likely
candidates, with Tanoan and Southern Paiute next likely. Ifhomeland
studies are used as a criterion for ranking, Numic and Tanoan both are
reasonable candidates, with Keresan perhas just touching the southern area
of the Fremont archaeological culture. The agricultural terminology
suggests that Northern Ute, Southern Paiute, and Hopi share an
agricultural tradition that includes the Fremont area.
Finally, another linguist, Jane Hill (2003), discussing her "Farming Language
Dispersals Hypothesis," has proposed that Uto-Aztecan farmers brought farming
technology and other material culture traits to northern Utah, perhaps as early as 3,500
years ago. Hers is a long-distance migration hypothesis analogous to that of Lamb, but
further complicated by the fact that she proposes Fremont and Virgin Anasazi were
related to Southern Uto-Aztecan. Since the present day Numic peoples are northern Uto-
Aztecans, and no southern Uto-Azteczans now live in the region, her theory would seem
to bring into the debate more problems than it solves.
Sutton and Rhode, in "Across the West," a major symposium volume on the
Numic Expansion problem, candidly explain the current situation (1994:6):
Conjectures about a Numic Expansion have been fueled mainly by
linguistic and archaeological evidence, with comparative ethnology,
physical anthropology, and oral traditions playing lesser roles. How the
Numa came to occupy their historical range is by no means obvious .... As
a result, different models ofNumic history may have believers,
nonbelievers, and a host of skeptical in-betweeners.
_------------~I!IIIIIIIIIIII!II!!!I!I!!!I1111!'!!"!!!!!1!!!!!!!!!1!!!!!!!_!!!!1!!!!!!!_------------~-----~--F
1
103
In their concluding chapter, Madsen and Rhode ask, "Where are we?":
What accounts for the historical distribution of people who spoke the
Numic languages? This fundamental question is easily stated, but, as the
papers in this volume attest, arriving at a satisfactory answer is not ....
Where did the Numic speakers come from? When did they spread out
across the west? How did they accomplish their spread, and who did they
replace? What ultimate conditions caused their expansion? Who are
"they," anYWay.... None of these questions have an answer all can agree
on. Indeed, the range of opinion expressed here suggests that a consensus
about many aspects ofNumic prehistory is a long way off. Opinions differ
not simply on empirical details such as the Numic homeland, when they
spread from that homeland.... [yet] there appear to be surprising areas of
consensus that may be marked by the enthusiastic manner in which the
contributors express their diverse opinions.... This is a hazardous
occupation at best, but in a postmodern era in which science is an
imperialist belief system, in which theories are intentionally engendered
and in which all knowledge is political (See Dominguez 1994), it is
particularly dangerous.... a scientific consensus on the Numic Expansion
issue, even should it be reached, may be only one, not very widely
accepted, point ofview...(Madsen and Rhode1994:213),
What do Punown think of the Numic Expansion" How do we Reprove this
Attack on our Ethnicity?
As set out in preceding pages, since the arrival ofnon-Indians in the Great Basin,
Punown origins have been speculated about. In the Eastern Great Basin, the Mormons
(1848) speculated about housing structures, pottery, and rock art that appeared to them
not to belong to Punown (Arrington and Bitton 1980; Cline 1963). In other parts of the
Intermountain West, similar speculation based on historical ideas of American Indians
(Berkhoffer 1979) led to similar conclusions (See Powers 1877; cf., Madsen and Rhode
1994). What effect has this speculation had on the Punown and what do the Punown think
of being portrayed in this manner? The following interprets the many conversations I
--
!
I
I
-L
104
have had with my own people concerning archaeology, the Numic Expansion concept,
and the NAGPRA. It offers my opinion, as informed qualitatively by my own people. It
offers some archaeological solutions for political and spiritual correctness from the
Punown point ofview, as well as suggestions about how anthropologists can work with
the Native people in a harmonious fashion.
The Punown ancestors are crying. As the spirits have been released from their
resting places, from which they watch over their children, they cry. They cry as Jesus on
the Cross cried for all people. In some ways the crucifixion of Jesus, and the berating and
ridicule he experienced on the cross is similar. Jesus suffered knowing that he was there
for the people. Jesus died with the greatest test ofhis faith. He suffered physically and
psychologically and even he wanted to give in. Many Punown have given in and accept
the non-Indian idea of who their ancestors are (Mihesuah1996). To ask them oftheir
prehistoric past would simply get an answer that came from anthropologists. While
traditionalists would surely not accept the stereotypes, they flounder, and accusations are
pointed at them.
Punown have not asked non-Indian anthropologists to make up theoretical
arguments concerning their possible origins based on Euroamerican methods of studying
prehistory, ethnohistory, historical linguistics, and bioanthropology. The NAGPRA is
designed to be a compromise between archaeologists and Natives on human Rights
legislation. Archaeological researchers are directed to determine cultural affiliation.
However, when the law was drafted, it did not take into account the plain fact that
archaeologists generally do not have the tools to convincingly determine cultural
l105
affiliation between archaeological and living groups. In my opinion the best possible
scenario for repatriation is that non-destructive analysis and minimal radiocarbon dating
are performed beforehand, along with artifact and site analysis. However, as for assigning
ethnic designations to past peoples, anthropologists cannot attain such fine-grained
resolution. The following discusses point by point how Punown feel about the Numic
Expansion hypothesis and related matters.
First, Punown qualitatively have much experience with anthropologists and
American mainstream culture in general. Prisons and jails hold Punown who claim ''we
get in trouble for things that white people do not." Punown feel that they are not taken
seriously and that once a charge or stereotype or accusation is leveled against them, it is
an uphill charge for them to free themselves from the assault (Kehoe 1998). Punown feel
that anthropology is used to destroy them and that it is used in ways that represent the
"dark side" (Trigger 1980). Some Punown feel that there are some benefits to
anthropology but the conduct ofmany anthropologists is nevertheless viewed with
contempt (cf. Watkins 2000:64-178). The Numic Expansion hypothesis and the damage it
has done to Native communities is in a way similar to what has happened in the well
known struggle for repatriation of Kennewick Man and Spirit Cave Mummy.
Some researchers have defined a new term, "Paleoamerican" (Dansie 1997).
These Native people are no longer Paleo-Indians but "Paleo-Americans." As I have
earlier discussed, this view is in line with recreating one's own image in the
archaeological record. It has been suggested that the Paleo-Americans may have been
proto-Caucasians who arrived in America prior to the Indians. Some researchers claim
L106
that Clovis fluted points of 11,000 to 12,000 years ago in America represent imported
technology from Spain (Stanford 2002). The earliest Indians we have found so far are
now turned into Caucasians! Deloria (1995:253) shares how a simple accusation by a
researcher can effect Cultural Patrimony. Deloria makes this point with reference to
Clovis projectile points, the extinction ofmegafauna at the end of the Pleistocene and the
study of Early Man in North America:
"But where is the evidence? If you have followed the argument in this
book, you will realize we do not need evidence; we can simply make the
accusation. After all, we know that American Indians, Asians, Africans,
didn't do it" ....
A second point is that data invoked in constructing a hypothetical Numic
Expansion have not proven that such an expansion actually took place, as I have just
discussed above. One has to wonder why some anthropologists choose to speculate in
such a manner. A Jungian psychological study of archetypes and unconscious collective
ofAmerican anthropology would go far in answering the questions of"why".
Third, a Numic Expansion theory implies that the traditional spiritual knowledge
the Punown have oftheir origins is false. "Ethnocentrism" is a term used to describe one
ethnic group's implied superiority over others. The Numic Expansion is clearly an
ethnocentric concept that does not benefit the people it is about. Prehistory is not gold,
skeletal remains are not silver. How does cultural materialism and the exploitation of
Native ancestors, without Native permission, benefit Punown? How does forcing ones'
will due to a powerful Euroamerican supremacy benefit society in general and how does
it encourage ethics amongst a free nation? Does such behavior benefit any American?
107
What gives researchers the right to conduct studies that have no factual end in their
findings? How is it that researchers have a right to defile the spirituality (religion) of
Punown? How could this be ethical?
In the 40 years since the Civil Rights Movement began in America, the trend in
Native communities has been to reorganize and to re-assimilate traditional beliefs and to
regain what has been lost from forced inculcation ofEuroamerican values (Bordewich
1996). This trend is getting stronger, and the "melting pot" idea that one day Native
Americans will have lost their cultures is gibberish. The right thing to do is to work with
Native people to understand the orientations observed through anthropology and
archaeology. The Native people themselves provide the best look into the spiritual
ideology of their ancestors. Much of the ceremonial system of the Punown is unknown to
anthropologists. As shared earlier, as I grew in my understanding of Great Basin
archaeological explanations of the Punown, I also found that traditional Native
ceremonies are kept from the view of those who are not ready to deal with the
complexities and power inherent in dealing with the spirits of ancestors.
Fourth, some ofthe methods used by scientists to collect data are not spiritually
acceptable to the Punown. It is thought that desecration of skeletal remains through
consumptive analysis, (e.g. for radiocarbon dates and mtDNA analysis) is a violation of
ancestors who have been laid to rest and given over to the care of the Creator. Recreation
of dead cells in test tubes is considered a heresy, and the manipulation ofNative genes
for test samples is considered heresy. Worse yet, the potential creation ofclones for the
Punown would mean that the spirit in the clone would not be of the Creator but of the
108
"dark side" (personal communication with a Shoshone Indian Doctor, 1998 concerning
Biopiracy). The Creator has the right to create life and no human can claim that.
Biological warfare has been conducted on Native peoples in the past by intentional
poisoning of springs and providing them blankets infected with small pox and measles
(e.g., Hemphill and Larsen 1999). MtDna analysis has not borne fruit about Native
origins thus far. It can show only ifan individual is Native American. Why is the belief in
an objective science that is not factual viewed with more faith then the spirituality of
Punown? What is the importance ofa test that science heralds as an answer to a question
which is not useful, nor important to Native people?
Fifth, burials, skeletal remains, and associated funerary items are sanctified,
prayed and sang over, and put away in a ceremonial context, never to be disturbed. What
gives anthropologists the right to desecrate traditional ceremonial areas and to destroy the
continuous cycle of religious freedom? The Native ancestors are not American but pre-
American. Contemporary Natives have the right to say "no" to such studies because they
are direct descendants. Readers are reminded of the historic preservation legislation
referred to in Chapter One. How do we get federal courts to start enforcing laws that
protect American Indian religious freedom? Where will tribes find funding to pursue
Historic Preservation violations by university staff, federal agencies, and private contract
Cultural Resources Management firms?
Sixth, data gathered through particular types of excavations, such as those in
caves, violate sacred prayer "offering caches" th(lt are sanctified. The prayer caches are
desecrated when removed by unsuspecting and ignorant archaeologists. In a study on the
IL
109
Pectol Shields (Brewster 2003b) ofcentral Utah, I learned through a combination of
spiritual direction and research studies that caches in caves are likely placed there with
ceremony and therefore, sanctified. For example, the Pectol Shields were buried in a
small cave, covered with cedar branches, and then covered with soil. The Pectol Shields
are similar to other Intermountain West caches. Some other examples that come to mind
are Lovelock Cave duck decoys, Promontory Cave moccasins, and numerous ''prayer
cache" offerings found in Hogup and Danger caves. Spirit Cave Mummy in Western
Nevada was interred with bifaces, basketry, and burned human bone. Spirit Cave
Mummy was placed within a cave. He was buried in the same way as were the Pectol
Shields or the Lovelock Cave duck decoys or the Promontory moccasins in northern
Utah. These are examples of cultural continuity (cf., Stoffle and Zedeno 1998). The key
to the cave prayer cache offerings is that caves are part of the Sacred Grandmother earth
matrix. The following account is adapted from Brewster (2003b).
Prayer cache offerings are known to occur as early as 10,000 RP. in the Eastern
Great Basin at Danger Cave. At Danger Cave, 150 grinding stones were located in the
level dated between 10,000 and 9,000 years ago. At Promontory Cave, upward of 250
moccasins were cached. It is likely these objects are an "offering cache" (Northwest Band
Shoshone and Indian Doctor interlocutors). At Gypsum Cave to the south, near Las
Vegas, Nevada, ethnographic and archaeological evidence combines to shed light on the
prayer caching of Southern Paiute medicine men, which shows Punown continuity:
Caves are places ofpower ... Caves served a vital role in the quest for
knowledge by shamans and medicine men because they were seen as the
embodiment of an individual spiritual entity. .. Thus they were used to
•110
seek visions, find spirit guides, and acquire healing power and shamanistic
songs.
.... Before entering caves or other spiritual locations, shamans would
deposit food, tobacco, feathers, and other items as offerings to spirits. One
of the most important caves is Gypsum Cave, known to have been used by
Paiute medicine men. .. (Stoffle and Zedeno 1998: 11).
Archaeological evidence throughout the Intermountain West attests to similar
material manifestations (Brewster 2003b; e.g., Stoffle and Zedeno 1998). The cultures of
the region show a continuous Punown affiliation through time and space, and cave "cache
offerings" are known Numic traits that extend back into deep time (into Buuveyanewena
and Numakinat times). In the future, federal agencies will need to be cognizant of the
traditional cultural property implications of archaeological collections made from cave
excavations.
Seventh, the Numic Expansion hypothesis implies that the Punown are static, and
unable to change or discard adaptations in favor of new ways ofmaking a living.
Although anthropologists would deny this accusation, it is unmistakably implied by the
archaeological reliance on very few items of material culture in discussing the Numic
Expansion hypothesis. The Desert Culture adaptation is identifiable in much broader
terms, however, and it is securely proven that the Desert Culture way oflife was a
reliable and successful orientation over millennia throughout the Intermountain West
Jennings (1978). Julian Steward (1938) identified a seasonal round for the Western
Shoshone, and Thomas (1974) interpreted Reese River Valley archaeology as
representing a similar orientation. Aikens and Witherspoon (1986) developed a Central
Great Basin origin model for Numic peoples based on the Desert Culture model. The
- - - -------------
111
Desert Culture pattern is recognizably persistent even when more elaborated fonns of
orientation, such as horticulture, semi-sedentary lacustrine~basedvillages, and sedentary
village adaptations succumb to environmental vicissitudes. Yet, amidst the material
culture spread across the Northwest, Eastern, and Southeast Great Basin, where these
experiments took place, archaeologists often fail to recognize the Desert Culture pattern
that persists within the more elaborated and ephemeral culture (Madsen and Rhode 1994;
Rhode and Sutton 1994).
Upham (1994:130-138) discusses compellingly the co-existence and mutual
relations ofhunter-gatherers and farmers widely throughout the Desert West, and the
"adaptive diversity" of the Desert Culture. This adaptive diversity leads to variability in
local cultural sequences, as "nomads" cycle into and out of sedentary lifestyles. Upham's
insightful discussion has many applications to the Numic Expansion debate, even though
that is not his central focus.
Eight, there are some researchers who in an ethnocentric manner claim to be
experts in Numa culture but are really being "pathological self serving individualists".
They think they know what is best for the Punown but are really making for themselves a
source of revenue, at the expense of those people they have ethically sworn to be helping.
However, we do gratefully acknowledge those ethical anthropologists who have provided
a humanistic understanding ofPunown culture and assisted the people in historic
preservation issues ofmutual importance!
Researchers often claim they are not forCing their beliefs as Euroamericans upon
the Punown, but the dominant ideology now relies on the "objectivity" of scientists as
J1---------..IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII-.IIIIIIIIIIIIIII~~~~---------......
112
much as previous generations of Americans relied on the clergy for answers (Deloria
1995). Informed consent is often solicited from any Native individual who might grant
researchers permission to do studies. One tribe may be used against another. In a few
cases, informed consent and responsible consultations are averted. Findings from
archaeological studies, which are really just "best guesses," have been used by
archaeology-ignorant federal court judges to determine Indian Claims cases and
repatriation decisions by the federal government. This is done with no idea that
understanding on the Punown side comes from a life long "spiritual" learning process
that is ancient. Barker and Pinto (1994) provide a fearful agency archaeologist
interpretation of the courts being biased against archaeologists. The direct historical link
of contemporary tribes to Intermountain West prayer caches, established through the
continuing modem practice ofmaking such offerings, should be considered more valid
than archaeological studies conducted under the notion ofobjectivity. For one thing, a
people who relied on spirituality to guide them are the ones who left the prehistoric
record. Spirituality is not a part of objectivity, yet the faith in spirituality is as strong for
descendants of pre-Americans as faith in science is for researchers (see Deloria 1995;
Horgan 1995).
The problem lies in what is considered a fact or a consensus ofnon-facts, or
theory (Hughes 1994). Archaeologists have an idea they can objectively determine
whether or not some theory is correct, but the fact is that researchers inevitably bring
ethnocentric elements and biases into their research (see Mann 2003; Willey and Sabloff
1974:30). For years archaeologists and others presumed the "mound builders" ofthe
113
eastern U.S. had disappeared, just as some contemporary Fremont researchers believe the
Fremont people have disappeared (Mann 2003; Watkins 2000; Willey and Sabloff 1974).
Some thought that people from Atlantis and Mu, or the Aztecs, or even the Welsh, built
the mounds, while the native people who lived there at contact were thought of as simple
minded savages whose ancestors could not possibly have made such extravagant
structures.
Native people who do not understand their own culture sometimes jump into this
mix and are used by some archaeologists who parade them around (see Simms and
Raymond 1999). It becomes the old "divide and conquer" tactic. Apropos of such things,
a Nutsiyu and Nuwuvi Indian Do~tor once told me, "the day would come when Indian
people would be all crazy and doing things that were un-thought of People would be
wearing eagle feathers and not know why, people would have strange colored hair, and
their focus would not be on the Creator but on the attainment of things for selfish
purposes and not for the People. People would not understand the ways of the Punown".
The old doctor laughed because he had seen a bisexual Native person dancing at a Pow
wow in Utah who had purple hair and was wearing an eagle feather he had not earned.
This individual was not laughed at because of his sexual orientation but because ofhis
being lost. It was also a sad laugh because the time had come. When the people no longer
understand where they come from it is a sign that the universal change, as shown is an
ancient vision, is near.
114
John Horgan, in the final chapter of his book, "The End of Science," quoted a
physicist, Paul Davis, who pondered the question, "could man arrive at absolute
knowledge?" Davis wrote,
"through science, such an outcome was unlikely... given the limits
imposed on rational knowledge by quantum indeterminacy, Gedel's
theorem, chaos and the like. Mystical experience might provide the only
avenue to absolute truth" (Horgan 1996:261).
Ninth, the Numic Expansion hypothesis has no beneficial purpose for
contemporary Punown. The desecration ofburials, archaeological sites, and prayer
caches brings about negative spiritual effects within the communities. When a prayer
cache or burial is disturbed, desecrated, removed, curated, prodded and picked at,
spiritual corridors are opened, ancestors are awakened and the medicine that was put to
rest is set upon the earth with no direction. Native people often discuss the unbelievable
tragedies that surround researchers who desecrate sacred shrines. In the case of one cave
excavation in Eastern Nevada, two of the researchers have died and one has lived a life of
tragedy. The other researcher claims that it is his purpose now to tell the story ofwhat
happened (personal communication, Donald Grayson 1994). What passes as "respected"
science for Euroamerican researchers is viewed as ignorance by those Punown, who
understand the spiritual process working within. It has been said that,"a priest prays to
spirits but the Punown talk with spirits".
115
Some Concluding Questions: Would American Anthropologists do Destructive Analysis
on the Skeletal Remains ofFamous Americans and Clergy?
Would American anthropologists do scientific research that involved genetics and
excavation in Muslim mosques, temples, or churches? ill news accounts of the recent
Iraqi war, it was reported that care was taken by American troops not to bomb mosques
or sacred shrines. Americans would not enter a mosque without permission ofMuslim
clergy. It is extremely odd therefore, that American anthropologists freely enter sacred
sites in the Punown homeland and elsewhere in America. Anthropologists enter,
excavate, and sometimes do consumptive analysis on sacred artifacts and skeletal remains
they remove from Native shrines. It is hard to understand, however, how Americans
come to believe that they have the right to desecrate Native shrines and skeletal remains.
The tomb of the Unknown Soldier was opened, but only at the request of probable
American family members, to obtain DNA samples so as to possibly identify a family
member within.
The graves of famous Americans such as Brigham Young or Joseph Smith, who
are considered Mormon prophets, or George Washington, Andrew Jackson, the Catholic
Popes, or Kings in Europe are not desecrated. But in the minds ofresearchers involved in
studying the Numic Expansion, the details of who, what, and where ofPunown origins
are not sanctified. To treat in the same way the above referenced deceased non-Indian
individuals would be considered heresy, though perhaps under the right scientific
curiosity it would be allowed. For the Punown, the past, present, and future are all inter-
connected. Some researchers, who claim to be experts at Numa culture, believe their
116
rights as an American over-rule any ethics that might prohibit such actions within their
own discipline. Although scientists claim to be objective, they seem to be adhering to the
Christian beliefthat when one's soul leaves the body, the body is only biological remains.
To force this view upon Native Americans and their pre-American ancestors is not right.
In fact, it is ethnocentric. Even though consumptive analysis of skeletal remains is
acceptable to some Euroamericans, it isn't to the Punown (Watkins 2000:153).
In order to deny Punown their spiritual beliefs and honoring ofthe sacred
ceremonies that are ancient within North America, it takes some anthropologists a
psychological "cognitive dissonance" to ignore their own actions (Kehoe 1998; Watkins
2000:2-117-134). It is amazing to understand that somehow in modem America personal
interests in Native pre-Americans over-rule the rights of the very people being studied.
Watkins (2000:134) provides some insight into this type of clash. He found that the heart
ofa heated dispute between archaeologists and Natives in Washington over a "Paleo-
Indian cache" at the east Wenatchee Clovis site was personal:
The issue at the core of this conflict was not "scientific," but "ethical,";
the questions did not center around the science of archaeology (as a
discipline), but the ethics of an archaeologist (as an individual).
In another case (Fowler, Dansie, and Hattori 1997; Tuohy and Dansie 1997:39),
archaeologists studied Spirit Cave Mummy's basketry, comparing the textiles to those in
Japan because the comparative knowledge was thought to be "important to humanity." In
the Great Salt Lake Willard Bay area, numerous skeletal remains exposed by erosion
were being desecrated by collectors. But archaeologists pursuing a mitigation project also
became guilty ofdesecration. The Northwest Band Shoshone and other tribes were
f------------------------- ..." ---
117
consulted by the archaeologists, but, when asked about what they were told, the Shoshone
interlocutors said they had not been responsibly informed ofthe consequences of the
research (meeting with NW Band August, 1993, and continued work with NW Band
during writing ofdissertation).
Is Native spirituality available to all? Yes. If anthropologists are willing to respect
and demonstrate to the Punown that they are serious about Punown spirituality, they are
not excluded. Learning in the Punown spiritual way is a lifetime process, however, and
anyone who would choose this path must be prepared to spend the years that could be
required to be accepted into such circles. Perhaps the "participant" anthropologist who
demonstrates s/he can share, respect others, will be there for the people, and will sacrifice
materiality for the people, will gain visions which can teach him or her to understand how
to see the past, and things will be different. Perhaps the day will soon arrive when a new
generation of researchers will finally honor traditional Punown and earn the right to be
accepted within their circle.
We are living in a time when alternative spirituality is gaining ground on
traditional Judeo-Christian theology concerning the universe. Punown are a secretive
people, but within their own ancient oral traditions and ceremonies, light is being shed on
their origins. Punown spiritual knowledge in contemporary times is inter-tribal; yet it
remains as a viable alternative to a Christian or other contemporary religion, or to the
contemporary science of anthropology. It is possible to look at the orientation of the
Punown without insulting their knowledge, while providing an exploration experience for
p..------------------------- T
118
anthropologists to answer important questions in the discipline without violating values
of those they study.
As I was writing this chapter a dream I had a few years ago came back to me.
Punown sometimes rely on dreams to provide answers to spiritual questions or to
problems in their everyday life (Jung for example found dreams to hold much knowledge
about our inner self). I had a dream that I was in a cave, and the cave had corridors. The
corridors were not open vaults. To get into the corridor one had to pass through the cave
wall, and to accomplish this, one had to wear a special paint and touch the rock in a
particular way and place. The men who passed through the wall into the corridor were
dressed in ancient clothing. They paid no attention to me, only to look at me as if! was
their relative, and to feel comfortable and happy I was there. I asked another man in the
cave ifhe really thought I could get through the wall. The man told me, "try it." I did, but
inside myself I lacked the faith to do it. I felt that I was not good enough to pass through
the wall. I felt that only part ofmy body would go through and that I would be stuck in
the wall. I watched as ancient Native people passed through this wall. Finally I did as the
people who went into the wall did before me. Doing this, I passed into a corridor. The
corridor resembled the lava tubes at Captain Jack's Stronghold in Northern California.
When I was in the corridor, the lava tube begin to swirl much like a spiraling vortex or a
spiral design in the old 1970's toy called a spiral-graph. This corridor was the corridor all
people pass through to get to the Milky Way and the spirit path or Ghost road, the "Dusty
Path," Oisie Poh.
L119
My personal thought on Punown origins is that the People have always been here,
''just like the trees and the grass." Armand Minthorne, a religious leader of the Umatilla
Tribes, as quoted in Watson (2000:136), said this about the Umatilla Tribes' connection
to Kennewick Man:
If this individual is truly over 9,000 years old, that only substantiates our
belief that he is Native American. From our oral histories, we know that
our people have been part ofthis land since the beginning of time.... Some
scientists say that if this individual is not studied further, we, as Indians,
will be destroying evidence of our own history. We already know our
history. It is passed on to us through elders and through our religious
practices. [Minthorne 1996]
The Punown came from the earth, and we are here, where the Creator made us.
This opinion of mine can be sliced and diced and taken in many ways. For me, it implies
that Punown are related to all people. It implies that they are residents of Grandmother
earth, and that the reason we know this is because we have learned it from the spirits we
speak with. Ancient connections are important to the Punown. I personally know relatives
that are my fifth cousins. Some are full-blooded Indians while others have just a drop of
Indian blood. Some live with the Gosiute, some with the Maidu, Miwuk, or Shoshone,
some with the Washoe; some have never been around other Indian people. However, I
know who these relatives are and I know how I am related to them. I also know when I
am home and where my roots lie, and that is where Grandfather created me. Whether it is
my grandfather from Mono Lake or my grandmother from Walker River, I know who my
ancestors are who first encountered the Taibou. I am ofmixed blood. My father is
Chippewa-Cree and French (Metis). I also have some White blood from my mother's side
of the family. I know little of this part ofmyself, but I feel it, and my personal need to set
•120
the archaeological record within a humanistic framework is partially from realizing that I
too share a part in my European ancestry. I feel responsible as a mixed blood to work for
the Native people and ancestors in a way that allows their voices to be heard. But also, I
feel a responsibility to tell the story ofPunown in a way that teaches White Americans to
respect these first Americans. So, in this way, I also understand what it is like to not
know my heritage. I often wonder who my Grandfather was on my father's side, and
often think of how my Great-Grandmother came to be part white. There is also much
confusion as to who my white relatives are. But deep inside, I realize that we are actually
all related. For me this statement is true. I can choose to think of it as a myth, or as
something that science has demonstrated to us. My personal Northern Paiute origin story,
which I have learned, tells me that we are all related. Science has shown that all people
are genetically similar. So similar that humans all can share the same blood types and
vital organs and even so, while we are all so similar, we still have our own cultures that
come from our inculcation ofvalues by those who reared us. There is much evidence that
peoples around the world have transformed through time, and all humans share a
common connection to the Earth and the processes that came to make us look as we do.
For me, the diversity of all human beings is a tremendous spiritual gift from the
Creator. We can do an archaeology that respects those who are studied and we can do so
without provoking situations in which Native people refuse to deal with an unethical or
insensitive individual. Looking at the archaeological record ofthe Great Basin, I also
believe I can see strong evidence for a very long history ofmy people, living, striving,
thriving, and surviving in the dynamic and varied landscape they still call home.
1121
CHAPTER FIVE
EPISTEMOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES AND WHERE THE TRADITIONAL AND
SCIENTIFIC mSTORIES MEET
"Warm-glow heuristic people consider their affinity for a specific person
or place as an indicator offamiliarity. As with other mental shortcuts,
people resort to this heuristic when they lack enough data on which to
base their decisions". Marina Krakovsky (September 2003, Psychology
Today)
"Avoid developing a theory. Ifyou have one you tend to avoid what does
notfit. Investigate from a clean sheet ofpaper, then see where parts take
you. " Jim Oliver, as quoted from "The Columbia Tragedy,"
(George Stephanopoulos "This Week", ABC 2-2-02)
In this chapter I discuss epistemological differences between the Punown and
archaeology as a scientific discipline. The matter has already been introduced in
preceding discussion, but this chapter takes it further. Here I will primarily contrast the
Native transcendental wisdom and the positivistic archaeology of the Eastern Great
Basin. Attention is paid to Native American views of the mainstream American
worldview, and attending psychological models that provide self-reflection. As an
individual who is primarily Native American but also part Euroamerican, who was
inculcated with mainstream approval-seeking behaviors as to conformity in the education
and research processes, I also pay attention to self-reflection. I cannot pretend to be
objective; however, my own need to understand "why" has resulted in some inner
122
shadows that I have became aware of. I believe that we all have shadows of this kind we
need to be aware of.
As a basis for discussion, a limited psychological look at Euroamerican thinking
is offered. As the above quote suggests, people tend to place their idea of beauty in the
view of their minds (the approval seeking process). The same can be said for
archaeological cultures as viewed through westernized cultural evolutionary scales such
as Band, Tribe, Chiefdom, State, and so on. Researchers can apply a scenario to hunters
and gatherers that is negative, while glorifying the next stage of cultural evolution:
farmers, or people who appear to have more familiar economic and social patterns. Those
patterns we see in the mirror of our own minds, ifnot carefully reflected upon, can lead
us·to seeing similarities in others, or in our case the archaeological record, that may not
be there.
Projection
The projection of either positive or negative traits is idealized in the researcher's
mind. Projection, as described here, refers to either negative or positive traits within the
researcher, who then projects these qualities onto the archaeological record or ethnicity of
a culture. Researchers can project their own ideologies onto other cultures, positive or
negative (Goss 1999; Watkins 2000). Some can envision a Garden ofEden and others a
desolate desert from hell. It can be the eating of the tree ofknowledge, such as "we did
not know we were poor until President Kennedy told us so," or the "King has no clothes."
The desert terrain in which the Gosiute live has been called the most barren wasteland in
North America (Defa 1979), clearly a projection. A postulated Numic Expansion across
pi
123
the Great Basin is similar to the historic expansion by Euroamericans across America, a
familiar concept to everyone. Conquest, savage aggression, out-competing the Punown
for their homeland, feeling as if one's competitors are spiritually destitute, and tying
materialism to a pathological conception of a "gastric" orientation to life, are all
representations of the imperialist motivations ofEuroamerican Manifest Destiny as
expressed upon the Punown homeland.
In Utah as elsewhere, history is censored. A recent article in the Salt Lake City
Weekly (Johnson 2003), "Read No Evil: Students aren't learning the darker side of
Utah's history. Should they?" discusses censored history. Shane Johnson provides an
embarrassing glimpse of the "shadows" of some local Utah interest groups, and the
cognitive dissonance of their actions:
As any textbook author will attest, they do not work in a vacuum,
especially when history is involved. Outside pressures come to bear when
a person is tapped to tell so many stories from at least as many points of
view. Salt Lake Community College professor John McCormick knows
that all too well. A .small but vocal contingent led by a southern Utah
rancher, a natural resources political consultant, and the conservative
think-tank The Southerland Institute lobbied for a rewrite of McCormick's
fourth grade Utah history textbook in 1997. The Utah State Textbook
Commission acquiesced to those demands and ordered McCormick to
eliminate parts ofhis book dealing with American Indian religion, Anglo-
settler conquest, and environmentalism (Johnson 2003:21).
Unconscious Collective
Currently, Tooele County, Utah, the heart ofwhere the Skull Valley Gosiute
reside, is the most toxic area in America. It has been made so by the presence of the
Dugway Proving Ground, one of America's major centers for the testing and storage of
chemical weapons agents. To the east is the world's largest nerve gas incinerator and a
124
storage facility. To the south the Intennountain Power Project, a coal-fired electric plant,
fills the air with pollution. To the northwest is the Envirocare Low Level Radioactive
disposal site, which buries radioactive waste for the entire country. Two hazardous waste
incinerators and a hazardous waste landfill are also present in the area, and a Magnesium
Corporation installation that is identified by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency as the most polluting chlorine plant in the United States.
Utah's west desert was originally chosen for this role by the military authorities
because of its desolation and remoteness from human occupation. In this calculation the
Native Gosiute residents obviously counted for very little! In this situation we can clearly
see that the stereotypes brought by early non-Indian intruders have survived within the
inherited archetypes ofmodern Americans (Jung 1953; Goss 1999). The early intruders'
ideas of Gosiute and Western Shoshone have become imprinted in the minds ofmodern
Americans. Janetski (1981 :159) provides a general summary ofearly "Gates ofHell"
descriptions of the Gosiute and Western Shoshone and their country:
The image of the Shoshone or Digger is consistent almost without
exception. He is described as a poor, starving wretch, living in a state
barely above the animal in a barren land. Both the man and land he
occupied were viewed as expendable to the majority of the 19th century
travelers on their way to more prosperous regions.
A comment by a 60 year-old Nuwe man in response to a question posed by
Captain J.H. Simpson relates to the ethnocentricity shown above. Janetski (1981:160)
quoted,
I asked him ifhis country was a good one. He said it was; he liked it a
good deal better than any other. I asked him why. Because, he said, it had
a good many rats (Simpson 1869:54).
,
, '
125
Vine Deloria (1974: 17) relates how inherited "Gates ofHell" visions can be thrust
into the minds of researchers, by showing how the archaeologists who desecrated a
Native burial in Clarkston, Washington, seemed to operate from the unconscious.
The grave robbing can be seen in another, more profound, and disturbing
light. Carl Jung, Swiss psychologist, suggested that we have a collective
unconscious that lies behind, under, and in support of our conscious
ego/personality. In his Wotan essay (1953), Jung related how he was able
to predict the rise and fall ofNational Socialism by analyzing the dreams
of young Germans shortly after World War I. He suggested that at times
an idea, or archetype, might sweep into the consciousness of many
individuals who were otherwise not known to each other or related in any
way, and inspire or motivate them to perform simultaneously certain
actions that they really did not understand. If the propensity of Whites
during the summer of 1971 to grasp some bit of authenticity by locating,
excavating, and embracing Indian skeletal remains can be interpreted as a
frantic attempt to discard their own physical, cultural, and spiritual
heritage, then the collective psyche ofWhite America was indeed in deep
trouble.
The same can be reasoned about the need for removal of skeletal remains from
Nuwe territory along the Great Salt Lake shores, as reported in "Prehistoric Human
Skeletal Remains and the Prehistory of the Great Salt Lake Wetlands," and "Farmers,
Foragers, and Adaptive Diversity" (Simms et al1991, 1999). Another example is the
desecrated skeletal remains removed from Homestead Cave (1992). It took the United
States Air Force seven years to retrieve the remains from archaeologists, who claimed
they had lost them. A Federal Bureau ofInvestigation inquiry led to their retrieval from a
local University study collection (personal observations as Skull Valley Band of Gosiute
archaeological consultant and NW Band Shoshone Cultural Resources advisor (1996-
2003).
126
Any claim ofthe Gosiute to the lush Salt Lake Valley, where early Mormon
pioneers quickly extinguished Kumanpagi (Weber Ute) tenure, is immediately dismissed.
As Mark Twain wrote in 1863, as he rode along the Overland Trail,
We came across the wretchedest type ofmankind I have ever seen, up to
this writing. I refer to the Goshute Indians.... inferior to all races of
savages on our continent; inferior to even Tierra del Fuegans.... These
Goshutes are, produce nothing at all, and have no villages, and no
gatherings together into strictly defined tribal communities-a people
whose only shelter is a rag cast on a bush to keep off a portion of the
snow, and yet who inhabit one ofthe most rocky, wintry, repulsive wastes
that out country or any other can exhibit. The Bushmen and our Goshutes
are manifestly descended from the selfsame gorilla, or kangaroo, or No-
way rat, whichever animal-Adam the Darwinians trace them to (As quoted
in Alley 1987:380).
Indeed, this self:·fulfilling prophecy, constructed by the bias ofearly Americans, has
come to pass. The Gosiute community is now restricted to the most rigorous and
challenging parts of the rich territory the people once occupied.
At the same time, Nuwe are denied any significant historical time depth in the
region. Archaeologists discuss the superiority ofthe earlier Fremont farming culture of
the region, while discounting the Desert Culture of the Gosiute, the extant Native life-
way during the contact-historic period. Usually, these arguments also claim that there was
no transition or transformation from the Fremont to the late Gosiute pattern oflife, but
rather that the Gosiute swept in and drove out the Fremont people, who vanished without
a trace. Researchers dismiss Gosiute farming as being "historic" and not derived from
earlier Native tradition, but it is a fact that the first Euroamericans to arrive in the Snake
Valley area ofUtah observed the Gosiute growing com there (Crum 1997). The Gosiute
could hardly have learned to do so from Euroamerican farmers, who weren't even there
127
yet! Although local Northwest Band (Promontory) Shoshone told Steward that they
indeed make the same type ofmoccasins identified through his Promontory Cave
excavations, he dismissed their statements (Steward 1937).
The idea ofprogression in Euroamerican culture is one where cultures do not
willingly become less complex, and constant building and refinement ofcultural patterns
is therefore presumed to be a sort of cultural law. In essence, the Gosiute and Punown
similarities to the preceding Fremont archaeological culture have been discounted, and
differences have been emphasized, to produce a "consensus" that the modern Gosiute and
Punown are not derived from the older Fremont culture that existed in their northeast
Great Basin homeland (Adovasio 1994; Madsen and Rhode 1994; Steward 1940; but
compare the view of Upham 1994). Courts, educators, and governments in tum have tried
to use this "conclusion" to justify their treatment ofNatives in NAGPRA and other
matters. It is as if contemporary Gosiute and Punown are invisible and to be ignored.
The existence of an American National Mythology is undeniable, and it is
supported by our financial institutions, educational establishments, and government. It is
maintained in some cases by the mechanistic research that is termed "objective," because
it is done through systematic scientific inquiry (Fowler 1987). The scenario I have
applied to the conduct of some researchers is tenable; as for where this thinking
originates, lung (1982) speaks to the "unconscious collective." On the Gosiute side of
things there is, however, an advantage. The advantage is that this area is their home and
although early anthropologists recommended that they be moved elsewhere, the people
remain (Fowler and Fowler 1971; Clemmer, Myers and Rudden 1999). Anthropologists
128
may come and go, but the Gosiute are not going anywhere. It was never "a desert" to the
Gosiute, but home, and their Garden of Eden. By holding on to what little they have left
of their precious land, the Gosiute remain today in their ancient home.
Can an "Etic" Social Science be Objective?
Science is said to be value-free and objective. Objectivity can be attained by using
correct data, procedures, and methodologies, designed to answer a particular research
question. Scientists test hypothesis and theorize from these tests in a functional manner
by seeking interdependent, inter-related and functioning connections. Although many
researchers in the present day take issue with archaeology as a science, and some go as
far as to claim that objectivity cannot be reached, the discipline remains divided into
various camps (Trigger 1989; Van Pool and Van Pool 1999). As a matter of practice it is
still believed that one may be a cultural materialist, and seek through the archaeological
record and historical documentation to arrive at satisfactory conclusions that are
supported by scientific inquiry. To do so the archaeologist constructs hypothesis and tests
data that could lend support to a model that is proposed.
In the conduct of Great Basin archaeology, bioarchaeology and culture history
have been utilized as key modes of analysis. Cultural ecology, environmental
archaeology, optimal foraging theory, ethnoarchaeology, and so on, have each been
utilized toward explaining the origins of the Punown. In general, most archaeological
studies of recent decades have been done under the banner ofprocessual archaeology,
while the cultural historical approach has also remained a central focus. Post-processual
approaches thus far have not been taken to any degree in Great Basin research.
P'
1
129
Nevertheless, postmodernism and alternative histories are avenues ofresearch that
promise to bring Great Basin studies into the new millennium (Schmidt and Patterson
1995). Many of the earlier established approaches are materialistic and primarily spring
from the current research interests of Great Basin archaeologists, who in tum follow the
theoretical elite consensus of archaeologists working at the higher academic levels. On
the Punown side of the equation, in contrast, spiritual beliefs and ceremony offer all there
is to be understood. The Punown intellectual tradition is non-materialistic and relies on
cooperation, faith, and the inherent connection ofthe past to the present and to the future.
Is there a way these two very different value systems can be joined?
Scientific Values or Punown Worldview?
Punown make decisions relying heavily on the accumulated knowledge that has
come to them through oral traditions, and rarely make a decision as to the importance of
anything without first thinking about it for a long time. Concerning the Punown
worldview, StoffIe et al. (1990:12) state,
At the most general level, Indian people perceive cultural resources to be
part of and integrated into something greater than the artifacts and plants
themselves. This holistic frame of analysis derives from an even more
general view ofthe world as being integrated .... All the elements of the
world are functionally integrated; weather, soil, plants, animals, and
people being bound together so that change in one component necessarily
modifies the other components. Just as the elements of the contemporary
world are functionally integrated with world components that existed in
the past, before the existence ofhumans, back to the beginning of time.
Indian people claim this timeless, worldwide integration was created by
the supernatural.
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that seeks to understand truth and
knowledge. A rationalist considers that innate ideas do not need to be found in
,pL T
130
experience. An idea can be innate and exist separate from an experience
(http://www.en.wikpedia.org/wiki/epistemo10gy), as a sort of unconscious collective or
archetype (Jung 1938). If an experience exists outside of the mind, then it can be
understood by a human mind when that mind reaches a sufficient understanding (in a
personal sense, self actualization or balance). An empiricist would contend that no idea
exists outside an experience and that all human knowledge is a product of experience
through human learning (http://www.en.wikpedia.org/wiki/ epistemology). There is no
spirituality here.
Transcendental knowledge includes the unknowns, such as "how are we created,"
"does God exist," "when will time end," "what was here before our universe?"
Archaeology is empiricist and operates from a materialist observational experience camp,
while traditional Natives are in the transcendental camp. Natives experience their
epistemology through faith, and with sufficient experience arrive at an understanding. A
positivist, however, may consider such questions to be void of cognitive significance
because he feels things cannot be known, outside of experience. In the latter case, closed
mindedness, "cognitive dissonance," or "tunnel vision" allows the positivist to dismiss
that which is not "objective".
James Loewen (1995), in "Lies My Teacher Told Me," characterizes American
history as being handicapped. He writes that history is a parade of"white male political
leaders," who provide a mythological "process of hero making" Loewen (1995: 18-19). A
good example is that of Columbus who, lost at sea, finally landed in what he thought was
India, but was actually the Americas. Loewen states (1995:57),
T
I
131
American culture perpetuates the image of Columbus boldly forging ahead
while everyone else imagined the world as flat. A character in the movie
Star Trek V, for instance repeats the Washington Irving lie; "The people
ofyour world once believed the world was flat; Columbus believed it was
round." Every October, Madison Avenue makes use of the flat earth
theme. This ad seeks clients for daring and courageous stockbrokers!
For some, philosophy and logic lead to an understanding of how to think and a
way to arrive at hypothetical truths about behavior. All people have some form of
epistemology by which they come to understand the world, but even among western
philosophers there is no consensus as to which side is most productive in aiding our
understanding of the world. If an archaeologist asks a question concerning an artifact, for
example, s/he first makes an observation, then tests the observation with an experiment,
trying to conscientiously answer objections. So if the belief stands, it is rational, and, if
an idea is verified through repetition, it then becomes truth. As an archaeologist,
however, I have observed no factual evidence that can refute the Punown claim that they
are autochthonous in their own homeland.
It is possible that a rational belief may be substantiated yet still be wrong. It could
be that an aspect of scientific truth is obtained even while the same truth does not explain
the essence ofwhat the archaeologist is viewing. For the Native it is the spiritual aspect
ofpast that is most important, while for the scientist it is the objective aspect. It is this
transcendental unknown feature that objectivity fails to grasp and is exactly where Native
epistemology ventures. Traditional Punown are more in the spiritualist camp because
through ceremony their minds have come to understand what the spirits have
commanded.
.....
132
In contemporary times, social researchers have used the tenn "Pan-Indian" to
describe the borrowing ofreligious ideology, artifacts, and social integration between
tribes. However, instead ofPan-Indian the term that needs to be utilized (and is used
here) is "Inter-Tribal," because it is understood amongst Native people that borrowing
from others is a tradition oflong standing that survives into the present day. Vine Deloria
(1974:60) in "God is Red," offered this understanding ofmainstream American culture
by quoting Chief Luther Standing Bear:
The white man does not understand America. He is too far removed from
its formative processes. The roots of the tree of his life have not yet
grasped the rock and soil. The white man is still troubled by primitive
fears; he still has in his consciousness the perils of this frontier continent,
some of its fastness not yet having yielded to his questioning footsteps and
inquiring eyes. He shudders still with the memory of the loss of his
forefathers upon its scorching deserts and forbidding mountaintops. The
man from Europe is still a foreigner and an alien. And he still hates the
man who questioned his oath across the continent.
But in the Indian the spirit of the land is still vested; it will be until other
men are able to divine and meet its rhythm. Men must be born and reborn
to belong. Their bodies must be formed of the dust of their forefathers'
bones.
Neocolonialism
One of the primary shared concerns ofPunown and anthropological researchers is
"who owns and controls the past?" In a democracy such as America the majority
generally rules, and the needs of a colonialized minority such as American Indians often
go unheard, due to either design or benign neglect. American supremacy in some
instances is maintained by the academy through the power ofcognitive dissonance. When
the majority ignores the voices of the minority and produces archaeological research that
....
i
~~ - - --~--------------------------
133
maintains an historical status quo at the expense of the ancestral populations, the
conqueror archaeology ofneocolonialism is present.
Colonialism is defined as:
a system in which a state claims sovereignty over territory and people
outside its own boundaries, often to facilitate economic domination over
their resources, labor, and often markets. The term also refers to a set of
beliefs used to legitimate or promote this system, especially the beliefthat
the mores of the colonizer are superior to those of the colonized
(http://www.en.wikpedia.org/wiki/colonialism).
For many Punown the idea that anyone but the Creator owns the past is
unpalatable (e.g., Stoffle et al. 1990). Many anthropologists, however, share a common
view that all Americans own pre-American humanity and indeed that all people own the
human past in common (Simms and Raymond 1999). It is an ethnocentric view that
violates the spirituality ofpre-Americans. Spiritual concerns, for researchers, are often
viewed as untenable metaphysics and deemed unimportant; the acquisition of data has
precedence over spiritual concerns. Some archaeologists claim that "no one owns the
past," by which they mean that "everyone owns the past." Punown claim to have a
responsibility to their ancestors, to the present generation, and to the people who will
come in the future, based on metaphysical contact with the Creator. While Euroamericans
value their own individuality, insufficient social responsibility is felt for the needs of
others. Punown spirituality is looked at as superstition by some, and their right to protect
their Native interconnection to the archaeological record is sometimes viewed as a
useless impediment.
134
Some outsiders would like to see Punown assimilate beliefs similar to theirs, and
replace Punown spirituality with the outsider's own ideas ofobjectivity. Little energy is
spent on trying to learn the Native cosmology, or doing symbolic analysis of the
archaeological record (but see Myers 1988). Some researchers argue that all humanity
has the right to learn of a shared human heritage, and that in a democracy the values of
the majority take precedence over those of the minority. However, Haunani Kay Trask, in
a recent lecture at the University of Oregon Law School (10-7-03) stated,
Imperialist American indignities toward indigenous people resulting from
their settlement of America, even though acknowledged, are not
considered worthy of restitution [especially in the case of the Hawaiian
bid for a land base] even though Japanese American internment during
World War II, and German restitution to holocaust victims, are considered
worthy. Israeli settlement in the Middle East and Japanese settlement in
America makes these minorities "worthy victims," who have earned
restitution. Native Americans have a claim to Indian land, restitution, and
the right to survival and dignity. America's indigenous people represent a
contradiction to the Americans' entire philosophy of the Vacant Land.
The mainstream culture's presumed right to violate the sacred artifacts, religions,
and material culture of ancestors is a neocolonialist view, not a Punown view (e.g.,
Simms and Raymond 1999). For some archaeologists the Punown are just another
interest group. When it comes to cultural affiliation, much effort is spent trying to show
how modem Punown are unrelated to earlier material culture and skeletal remains found
in their homeland. Historic Preservation laws such as the National Historic Preservation
Act and Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, amongst other laws,
regulations, presidential memoranda, executive orders and so on, have made Native
American consultation a reality. Nevertheless, consultations made as a matter of
135
compliance with historic preservation law are for some simply another hoop to jump
through (e.g., Barker and Pinto 1994; Simms and Raymond 1999).
Conformity
Economic profit is a primary reason for many of the ground- disturbing projects
that require Native American consultations. Often, the concerns of anthropological
consultants are not Punown human rights but the need for themselves to survive in a tight
market for cultural resources research services that are increasingly paid for by project
proponents. With these motivations in mind, conformance to the existing paradigm
governs any balanced research.
Much academic research has taken the form ofcultural resource management
investigations in the modem era, since the advent of the National Historic Preservation
Act and Executive Order 11593. In order for a cultural resources management
investigation to receive official concurrence from a State Historic Preservation Office, it
is first reviewed by the land-managing agency for compliance with applicable cultural
resource laws. In academia, research findings go through a referee process conducted by
the elite in the field, in order for them to be published. Then the investigation is judged
according to SHPO standards and those required in Historic Preservation Law. To work
through the whole process, the research contractor must conform to the standardized
archaeological investigation framework of the agency involved, and those Historic
Preservation laws that regulate investigations. These standards come from mainstream
non-Indian archaeological, anthropological, and historical researchers. For the
researchers, conformance to the findings of their predecessors, and a constant refinement
r
136
of their arguments, leads many to defend their own findings, which they have built their
careers on along with a healthy dose of ego.
Conformity is an important issue; Wayne Dwyer (1976:61) had this to say from a
psychological point ofview about American culture and its need for conformity:
Our culture is one that reinforces approval-seeking behavior as a standard
of life. Independent thinking is not only unconventional; it is the enemy of
the very institutions that constitute the bulwark of our society. You've
been tainted by this attribute and the backbone of our culture. Make
someone else's opinion more important then your own, and then ifyou
don't get their approval, you have every reason to feel depressed, or
guilty, since they are more important then you.
Approval seeking starts early in the childhood years in American schools. Dwyer
(1976:65) explains:
Any student who begins to show signs of self-actualization and personal
mastery is quickly put in his place. Students who are filled with self-love,
not susceptible to guilt and worry, are systematically labeled as
troublemakers.
As a student reaches High School, Dwyer (1976:67) writes:
He willieam to write papers based not on his own judgment and opinions,
but on quotes, and references that will substantiate everything he says. If
he doesn't learn these things he will be punished with low grades and the
teachers disapproval ...
By the time a student gets to college he is a conformist who cannot think for himself,
Dwyer (1976:67) explains:
At college the same pattern of indoctrination continues. The big assembly
line. Conform; please your professors and you'll make it .... [The
student's] queries are the end product of a system that demands approval
seeking for survival. He is terrified of thinking for himself. It is easier and
safer to do what someone else expects.
.....
1
137
Dwyer's statements are surely overstated, and would not apply to all cases, but
they contain important truth. In the present discussion they imply that for an American
archaeologist to be "objective" he must follow the inculcation of educational values he
learned within the school system, which are somewhat problematic. Archaeologists are
trained to utilize the scientific method, and this method can arrive at objective
conclusions. However, to arrive at an objective conclusion the researcher must seek
approval through hypothetical arguments designed to demonstrate the truthfulness of his
contentions. Punown thought is diametrically opposed to westernized objective thought.
Stoffie et al. (1990: 13) write,
In general, then, western scientists and American Indian people have
diametrically opposite views of the world. To western scientists the world
as a whole is not confidently understood, but gradually becomes known by
analysis of the interrelationships of its components. To Indian people the
whole world is confidently known, but the interrelationship between some
of the components may not be understood.
In the Eastern Great Basin most archaeologists, historians and other researchers
have closed the case on the Gosiute and Shoshone (Nuwe) relationship to prehistory.
Until the advent of agency Native American consultations with Indian traditionalists and
tribal governments, and the advent of Native archaeologists within recent years, regional
archaeologists presumed that the Numic speaking peoples of the region were latecomers.
However, I believe that pertinent research has shown continuities between historic and
ethnographic evidence, oral tradition, and archaeological records that provide a robust
continuity sufficient to counter local Utah archaeological theory (Aikens 1994; Aikens
and Witherspoon 1986; Aikens 2000; Berry and Berry 2001; Brewster 1998, 2003a,
r~'----~---~---.------
138
2003b; Dean 1992; Grayson 1993, 1994; Goss 1977; Gruhn 1987; Hill 2003; Holmer
1994; Jennings 1957; Jones 1994; Knack 1994; Rudy 1953; Shaul 1986, 2001; Swanson
1962; 1972; Taylor 1961; Thomas 1994; Upham 1994; Zingg 1933, 1938). Nevertheless,
the rigid social atmosphere still leaves considerable inertia to be overcome. The effects of
the 19th century American intrusion on Punown territory resulted in a border town
mentality that still persists today, with injustice toward the Punown. Colonialism in
archaeology is a result of the original cultural imperialism that brought about the present
United States.
Even now, in the Eastern Great Basin, neo-colonialist archaeology is alive and
well within writings and behavior directed towards those who do not conform to the local
paradigm. Native researchers and traditionalists who disagree with the dominant
paradigm concerning the Punown in the Great Basin suffer for it. Schmidt and Patterson
(1995:1) for example noted, that some will disagree:
only to find that advocacy for alternative views on the use of
archaeology and history sometimes leads to censure by colleagues on
methodological grounds. Methodological censure of course, is one of the
ways in which a dominant paradigm reproduces itself....
Conclusion
The aim ofthis chapter has been to evoke some healthy skepticism about the
premises and methods of Euroamerican ways ofknowing and expressing knowledge.
This is not done in an attempt to discredit them, but rather to help readers fully appreciate
that they are not infallible, and not the only ways. Punown ways of seeing and knowing
are in some respects very different; yet, in striving to understand the world as an
,...
I,
139
interconnected whole, they share with western science the fundamental common middle
ground that can both allow Punown spirituality to be respected, and fulfill the need for
objective criteria within the bounds of archaeological anthropology. There is, however,
still much work that needs to be done on both sides.
The traditional and scientific histories can meet if a paradigm shift occurs. This
paradigm shift would involve intensive Punown involvement in the conduct of
archaeology. Time needs to be spent by archaeologists in learning the symbological
system that underlies the archaeological record. To understand the underlying principles
that may be embodied within the remnants ofprehistoric material culture and residues
left in place and time, the best starting point is to work closely with Punown, who are the
most likely relatives and descendants ofthe people who left the materials under
investigation. It is a mutual undertaking in which scientific approaches are adapted to the
Punown knowledge ofthe archaeological manifestations we encounter. What
archaeologists and Punown have in common is a wish to obtain the best possible
interpretation ofthe archaeological record. What we also have in common is our
awareness of cultural relativity, and I believe that with mutual learning and acceptance
between Native American Indian and Euroamerican culture and western science, a
humanistic anthropological archaeology will provide the holistic framework necessary to
find common ground. In order to develop mutually appreciated archaeological research
that can benefit all Americans, including those who are ancestral to the prehistoric
archaeological record, it is the responsibility ofanthropological archaeologists to work
diligently to understand the Punown and other Native American Indians.
p140
CHAPTER VI
TOWARD INCREASING PRODUCTIVE INDIAN ARCHAEOLOGISTS
RELATIONSHIPS
We are all related, we all comefrom the first human beings. It is sad,
some have become so far removedfrom the spirit. Yet we must accept all
people and teach them to honor the Creator. Before it is too late, we must
share what we can with the non-Indians, because this is our last chance
(Northern Numu/Miwuk Indian Doctor July 2003).
As has been emphasized in the preceding chapters, there is an inter-cultural need
to pool knowledge about the archaeological record between Punown and archaeologists.
In this final chapter, I reiterate the key points developed in the course ofthis long\
discussion. Cooperation is needed to repair a strained relationship. There is an important
need to develop Native-generated archaeological models in response to a silent
archaeological record, currently devoid of human voices. In order for this new area of
archaeology to be developed, Punown and Euroamerican researchers must share an equal
responsibility. Funding is not always available to tribes that wish to conduct archaeology
and start their own cultural resources management programs, and professional expertise
in archaeology is almost non-existent amongst Punown. Efforts need to be made by the
anthropological community to share expertise and get involved with helping the Punown
(and all tribes) to reach mutually agreed upon historic preservation goals. This trust is
built through long and continual contact with Punown, working in a common cause.
pp
141
Infusing a Punown Worldview into the Conduct of Great Basin
Archaeological Anthropology
Adding Gosiute, Shoshone and Punown viewpoints to Great Basin anthropology
is of utmost importance. In order to accomplish this task, both anthropologists and
Punown need to develop a mutually beneficial relationship. Above I have summarized
Native views, and psychological models ofmainstream research, to provide an
understanding of barriers that prevent mutual trust. In order for a bridge to be built it is
the responsibility of both Punown and Euroamerican, archaeological anthropologists to
reach a mutual understanding ofhow they can work (play) together on issues of
importance, without fighting. Archaeological research in the present day is primarily
done in the context of land disturbing activities, and both sides want careful and
respectful management of the threatened material culture sites.
After many years of experience working in the field ofcultural resources
management as an archaeological consultant and a federal agency archaeologist, it has
become apparent to me that an infusion ofPunown worldview into archaeological
research is ofutmost importance for studies to be fully informative and valuable to both
Punown and the archaeological establishment. After working with numerous projects,
conducting numerous consultations between agencies and tribes, and participating in
Punown ceremonies, I realized the key to working with the People is this infusion of
worldview. Like blood provided to a patient who needs life, archaeology is ready for this
type of transfusion. The Punown worldview comes from insights passed down through
T
142
millennia. It is intrinsically a view ofinterconnectedness through time and
interrelatedness in all material and non-material vestiges of life. However, we operate in
a modem mainstream culture where the "Cartesian bifurcation ofnature" (Deloria
(1995:18) has been employed as a way ofknowing. In Deloria's opinion this has proven
almost "fatal because it encouraged succeeding generations of societies to treat an
obviously living universe as if it were an inert object." There is a lot to be said for his
view, even while recognizing the successes of the scientific method in various fields.
Much as Kehoe (1998) observed in her discussion of the Indian and archaeologist
relationship, "Indians are invisible" to archaeologists, and the treatment of archaeological
sites by modem man-even archaeologists-- is often done in ways that shirk the personal
responsibility for the earth and things in it that traditional Indians learn as they grow up.
Native American Indians think all things are living: artifacts, earth, wind, water, fire, and
so on. For anthropologists and Punown to work together, we need to put the "Cartesian
bifurcation ofnature" aside.
The most problematical aspect of achieving this integration is defeating
unconscious projections by practicing self-actualization through catharsis. Normally it
takes years of experience through observation and participation to reach such
understanding, but these years of experience are not always part of everyone in all the
situations that require action. What is more readily possible, however, is for educational
institutions to hire faculty capable of training students who can be culturally relative.
After many years ofstudying in the university system and working in the archaeological
profession, my observation is that many students are nevertheless ill prepared to be
L143
culturally relative. Often, one exceptional Native teacher can change the worldview of a
student who is a mainstream culture member, and non-Native teachers can do this as
well. I have been fortunate enough to have both kinds ofteachers. Without carefully
chosen teachers, the best education money can buy will still be inadequate. Gosiute and
Punown, and Native people generally, are exhausted from dealing with those who have
tunnel vision.
The infusion I am talking about requires, but is not limited to, the following
values:
First, a willingness of both sides to work with one another on mutually beneficial
research. Is it helpful to compare the basketry found with Spirit Cave Mummy to Ainu
baSketry from Japan as a way of showing that skeletal remains from the western Great
Basin are not related to the Native people? Is it this kind of disproof that is more
important to humanity, or is it finding similarities in orientation between people, through
a concept that "we are all related?" The same kind of study could look at relationships
between human groups while not being discourteous to either. Academic institutions need
to hire instructors who can provide an "ernie" understanding of the cultures they teach
about. Contract professionals need to prepare themselves in this way, as well as agency
professionals. Let go of the ego and preconceptions. Open the mind and listen. Learning
to think with your mind and your heart is important. This technique is one of the first
important pieces ofwisdom provided to Native people who are introduced to the Red
Road. May we take such knowledge and grow with it.
IJ
144
An authentic consultation relationship will involve mutual trust, honesty, and
integrity. To accomplish this task, professionals need to make long-tenn commitments to
work with particular Native communities. Often, Native people are distressed when
anthropologists transfer to other positions, or local University staffbehave as hit and run
artists, leaving established relationships behind to take up new research interests. In
Nuwe and Punown culture, it is a severe lack of ethics to build trust with the People only
to abandon them in the end for an economic gain on the part of the researcher. More on
this aspect ofmy personal experience is shared later.
Second, responsible disclosure of political, spiritual, and ideological impacts to
the interests ofNative people must be provided for each separate project. To accomplish
this end, cultural resources managers, academic researchers, and federal and State
Historic Preservation Office staffmust hire and support appropriate Native interlocutors
to provide an "emic" view that that might otherwise be missing. Right now, few
universities and federal agencies, and even fewer state and public governments, have
Native people on their staffs for the purpose ofproviding an "emic." Tribal governments
and their spiritual communities need to be careful in choosing who is their tribal
interlocutor. Tribal interlocutors who represent the interests of their people as interpreters
must make a commitment to respect that honor bestowed upon them. Being an interpreter
is a difficult responsibility that requires sacrifice and being able to maintain strength in
dealing with sensitive issues. One must keep his/her anger in check when dealing with
ethnocentrism, and behave as an honorable Punown person, which translates in any
culture to being polite and courteous toward others. The economic costs ofmaking proper
145
interlocutors and interpreters available are a reality to be dealt with, but contractual
cultural resource management proposals can include appropriate fees. It is no longer
tenable to insist that an educated non-Indian staff member is fully equipped to work with
Native American consultation. The experience of the Northwest Band of Shoshone in
Utah is an example. Contractors from a local university met with them concerning
skeletal remains and subsequent consumptive analysis of skeletal parts. The Shoshone
merely nodded. This was taken by the contractors to be an agreement with their proposed
analysis, but as the Shoshone explained to me recently, "we usually do not make any
decision in a meeting, but wait until afterwards when the people are gone." It is in these
later reflections where Nuwe decide what they really think. In the case of the Great Salt
Lake burials, a desecration was committed by labeling the Shoshone as approving
consumptive analysis, without their knowledge (without responsible consultation) of
what was being done. The same can be said about the consumptive analysis of Nevada
skeletal remains. When the Punown became fully informed of the consequences of such
analysis and the destruction and desecration that was occurring, objections were raised.
Often, researchers think they have reached an agreement with local Native Americans
and carry through with the research, often thanking Tribal Councils for their help and
support only to find the Punown later claiming that they were irresponsibly infonned.
Anthropological research has many limitations and it is our ethical responsibility to
disclose these limitations. Informed consent is now a reality and without it, the researcher
who has forged ahead with a publication, thanking Punown for allowing the research,
should feel more then embarrassed when s/he realizes the failure of communication. This
p146
often results in anthropologists' feeling besieged. Engaging appropriate interlocutor
expertise as a bridge would have allowed for informed consent. In the latter case, the
Indian archaeologist who tried diligently to help the researchers was reported as being
aggressive toward Whites. Eventually tribal authorities wrote to the Dean of the
University where the archaeologist had made accusations against the Indian
archaeologist, primarily to point out the aggression by the Euroamerican archaeologist
toward the Native people and their interpreter
Third, local university and contract anthropologists are responsible for providing
funding for research. There are few opportunities for tribes to fund professional
anthropologists, when the social health and welfare of their people are the primary
objectives to be served by their limited financial resources. The financial picture under
the current political administration in the United States looks even grimmer than before.
Nevertheless, every avenue ofproviding expertise for an awarded contract must be
covered, even though added interlocutor or Native professional costs often frighten
contractors who are seeking to make the low bid. However, interlocutor expertise is
essential to achieve a proper ernie understanding. In the near future it will be the
contractor who does not have this expertise who does not get a contract, or who has
hislher findings rejected by professional Native gatekeepers. The necessities of funding
can be obtained when all contract proposals from professionals include interlocutor
costs/and or Native professional expertise.
Fourth, intercultural issues need to be examined and both sides need to address
the uneasy relationship that exists. Self-reflection, introspection, and work with
JI
!
147
relationship professionals are each avenues by which both sides can reach catharsis.
These principles have long been recognized in the fields ofpsychology, social work, and
counseling, and it is recognized as beneficial for professionals in these fields to seek such
help. Punown who are traditionalists work through metaphysics on self-reflection and
often reach balance. Often, Punown who visit psychologists find that they are healthy but
living in an unhealthy environment. Many of the psychological benefits that come
through disclosure, and rely on self-reflection to provide balance, are built into Native
culture. Contrariwise, many of the abhorrent behaviors associated with rigidity and
objectivity lead to psychosis. A double psychological social bind is extremely hard to
reconcile without resorting to denial and cognitive dissonance.
Fifth, Great Basin research institutions are encouraged to recruit and retain Native
American (Punown) students and professionals. The University ofOregon has been doing
this for some years, and in fact encouraged me to come there. Without serious efforts by
educational institutions to share mainstream values and knowledge, expertise, training,
economic assistance, jobs, and mentoring with Nativ~American students, this situation
can only become worse. At the University of Oregon I was fortunate to have been
mentored by C. Melvin Aikens and Jon Erlandson, who each have been active in
recruiting Native students from the regions where they conduct research. During
numerous consultations with Punown, I have found that an individual's aspiration to
enter anthropology as a profession often encounters the exclusion aspect ofnot being
welcome in the profession. Much of this exclusion is accomplished simply by ignoring
r
148
Punown and other Native Americans as ifthey are invisible, until they become
discouraged and go away.
Sixth, the needed infusion cannot be accomplished simply by using one
uninformed tribe or consultant against those tribes who knowingly have chosen to deal
with academic, agency, or public requests for Native American consultations as per
Historic Preservation Law. Divide and conquer is bad medicine and is now old hat.
Running through all the measures I have listed above must be the recognition that
Punown spirituality is important. Non-anthropologists and land management agency
personnel often are confused about the importance of doing anthropology. But one
important reason why Native American thought is, or should be, important to local
managers is that Punown flourished and did little if any damage to the environments in
which they lived for thousands of years. Alteration ofnatural vegetation was done in
ways that were healthful. Plants and animals were managed through reasoned hunting
and collecting practices. The interdependent relationships that Punown recognize, based
on the interconnectedness of all things, allowed for harmony and balance. Euromerican
culture and modern industrial societies around the world are facing an environmental
holocaust, and one sure way to help fend off this impending disaster is to learn the
environmental ethics and values that Punown (and other Native people) can teach. Not
only are the spiritual views oftraditionalists important, but also the archaeology ofNative
American sacred geography illuminates pieces ofthe tapestry (system) that was a success
for thousands of years. Native management of land, water, animals, and vegetation over
rr.~ ,
149
thousands of years, and its attending epistemology, have been a gift to all the Americans
who occupy this rich continent today.
Denying Punown their identity with the archaeological record of the Great Basin,
based on weak evidence, is bad medicine. Each time a researcher conforms to an existing
paradigm that feeds upon the constant buildup of negative stereotypes, a sort ofblack
magic is brought into the world. I know it is hard to break away from approval-seeking
behavior and to write and speak from the heart, but it has long been known that cultural
continuity for the Punown in their homeland is entirely credible. Punown recognize this,
and anthropologists can grow and learn "if only they wi11listen." Anthropology is said to
be a science that benefits humankind, but when pathological self-serving is the primary
motive of a researcher through conformance, all people suffer.
With the infusion ofPunown thought into the archaeological research paradigm,
archaeology becomes alive, and includes the most likely descendants ofthe
archaeological cultures we study. The Fremont Culture of Utah, for example, which
precedes contemporary Nuwe society in the Northeast Great Basin, is an objectified
entity that is based only on material culture identified through time and space. When
archaeologists discuss the Fremont Culture, it is usually viewed as a culture that
"disappeared" without issue. When the Gosiute and other Punown are responsibly
informed of this interpretation, it is unbelievable to them. Punown are not raised to think
they have newly expanded into their homeland and replaced the Fremont Culture, and in
any event, even from the archaeological point of view, the basic ecological and
technological orientation subscribed to by the Punown is also attested in the Fremont.
150
Local Native American children in Utah are often hurt and feel violated when
they are subjected to negative stereotypes taught in their classrooms about their ancestry.
We are not all materially wealthy and those ofus who have varying levels ofprosperity
often have a variable material culture. Some of us are from different ethnic groups. But
we are all Americans, and to some extent the crystal sitting upon the desk ofan affluent
American looks identical to the one in the pocket of the poor man. If we were to look in
the closet ofboth the rich and poor man or the knapsack ofa homeless person we would
likely find a similar pair ofpants. If this were a few hundred years from now and we had
no written record of the current situation, we might think that these particular items were
traded, or belonged to a particular culture, or were so widespread as to not be viable
cultural indicators. The same can be said for the alleged difference between Fremont and
Punown; it is based on a very few kinds of material culture items. A general orientation
toward life can also be an ethnic marker, although numerous variables affect how, where,
and why material culture is emplaced in the landscape. Environmental variables, place,
sacred geography, social variability, symbolic relationships found in oral tradition and
folk lore, can all be approached archaeologically ifwe make the recognition of
continuities an important research focus.
The Archaeology is Alive
If anthropologists decided to study orientation, and infuse human actors into
material culture as a life process, we would avert numerous problems and issues that
plague the profession today. For the Punown, according to their oral tradition, "we are all
related," and the many biological commonalities between Native American people and
F151
those around the world convince western science of this as well. All humans have similar
biology, and it is important to understand the history ofdisease and physical ailment as a
key to a healthier future for everyone. Often, Native people, when they are responsibly
informed about such studies, are not threatened. If a research project were agreed upon as
mutually beneficial, and the research might one day lead to conquering disease, such as
diabetes for example, the Punown would likely agree to such a study. However, if they
are lied to and not responsibly informed about the nature of the research, the trust issue--
which is a problem from the beginning due to the "border town" mentality many Punown
live amidst--will arise and no progress can be made. A little white lie to a Punown is an
indication that the individual who spoke it is not to be trusted. The little white lie to some
may be just a way of seeking approval from the Punown, but it backfires.
Although some may dismiss the proposals and recommendations I have offered
here as merely personal, these words come from a qualitative understanding of the
Punown. It is important to listen. As each year passes and tribes gain strength, the day is
coming when the picking and choosing of Great Basin researchers contractually and
academically will rely on recommendations from them.
The Punown have lived in their homeland since they were created. This creative
and transformational process is ongoing through the ages and will continue into the
future. We ask you as our relatives to join us in our expanding exploration into self-
reflection and the learning process of spirituality. One way this may be accomplished is
through the exploration of alternatives to the Numic Expansion Hypothesis, which has
been at the core of many of the problems discussed above.
pz
152
A Personal Reflection
To end this dissertation I would like to share a brieflook into my personal
experience as an archaeological anthropologist, which has led me to the point of writing
it. I firmly believe that my prayers have been answered in the time and the way of the
Spirits, and that through them I have crossed paths with traditional healers, elders, and
mentors who have helped me reach my current level of understanding. In order to further
elucidate this process I offer the following disclosures.
While a student at the University ofNevada Reno I had an opportunity to travel to
the Southwest, to New Mexico, as a volunteer with Dr. Cynthia Irwin-Williams. Dr.
Irwin-Williams, who has now passed to the other side, took me under her gentle and
nurturing wing and taught me about archaeology. She understood that I was a tough
reservation kid but she had it in her heart to be a mentor. As a Northern Paiute I was
spoiled with the nurturing treatment I had received as a child from my mother and aunts.
I wonder how this white professor knew that this special way of relating to a son would
be met with respect! Dr. Irwin-Williams understood that I would have a hard time, but
she encouraged me to get into this profession because "my people needed me". I also
learned during her project that most of the field school students who participated had
little actual interest in Native people who are alive, even those who worked right beside
them. I was sorely confused and hurt by this. Dr. Irwin-Williams explained, "You need to
be an archaeologist because your people need you! And without you we honkeys (with a
big warm smile on her face) will never learn how Indian people think. And if we do not
know how Indian people think, then our work will always be questionable." Eventually I
153
went home to the reservation knowing in the back ofmy mind that if anyone had the right
to study archaeology it was an Indian.
My mother told me, "Respect those white people. They know more then you do,
don't talk back to them." However, I have always felt the need, and the right, to express
my opinions. Eventually I found that just being a traditional Indian in mainstream culture
labels me as trouble. I have to admit here that I can be trouble. I can be antagonistic when
I have been labeled, and when anthropological "experts" who claim to understand Native
people fail to understand Punown etiquette. I am a large man, which by itself makes me
seem dangerous to some, and often my antagonism toward "experts" is expressed in a
sort ofmean Indian way ofjoking: "so, you really think you can tell Irish and English
apart with their mtDNA?" That one brought me a lifetime enemy. Other times, my being
assertive can bring out the shadow in some who feel I should be a grateful Indian.
Through time, I stayed in the field and continued to gain education and to learn
about the culture history of the Great Basin and neighboring areas. Dr. David
Fredrickson, of Sonoma State University, recruited me for the Cultural Resources
Management Program at Sonoma State. I had convinced the US Forest Service to hire me
because ofa recruitment sign that stated "Women and minorities are urged to apply".
Originally I was hired as a fire fighter but I showed that I had the proper qualifications to
be an archaeological technician. Dr. Fredrickson taught me about working in a federal
agency and also taught me that Native American consultation is an aspect of all that
work. I learned that Sonoma State hired Native interlocutors for each project they
r
;' " r
154
perfonned. Dr. Fredrickson also made sure I stayed in the Master's program, and he
stood strong when adversity hit me for my honesty.
I have been sought out by some to be paraded around as a token Indian for various
projects, but eventually my own people (Numu and Punown) came to respect and rely on
me as an interpreter. An interpreter is an important tribal job both in the current day and
in the past. There is a headman or a chief; there is a warrior, a hunter, a spiritual leader,
and an interpreter. Some, like Sitting Bull, had all those jobs. Sitting Bull was also very
modest; he wore one eagle feather, unlike others who wore a full headdress for a photo
opportunity.
In time I found that I was famous, and famous without even writing one
publication. I have not attempted to produce fonnal publications because of my personal
fear of the white elite referee process, which along with its good aspects also often
involves exclusion, confonnity to a foreign paradigm, and dealing with those who
consider me invisible. Nevertheless, I could walk into an anthropology conference and
people would seek me out and say, "Wow, so you are Melvin Brewster." Some were
rivals, some allies, and some fearful, sort of like a dog who thought he might be kicked.
The funny thing about it is that I did not understand that I was in competition. The mere
fact that I was an Indian archaeologist was a magical thing in the minds of some. But for
others, I was a direct threat because in their minds they believed I was going to get a job
just because of my heritage. The reality, however, as I have also observed, is that few
Indian professionals are hired by universities or agencies in general. Even now, when the
r
., .
155
situation is starting to improve, I rarely see a Native interlocutor hired for a project, nor
do I observe many Indians out in the trenches.
For the federal agency I came to work at, I was a feather in their hat for "equal
employment opportunity" representation. Regrettably, the same agency had also hired
"Native Americans" ofvery dubious authenticity, which seemed to me a kind of "ethnic
fraud." In my agency work I learned well about the regional archaeology and I learned
well about the historic preservation legal process and what it took to keep management in
compliance. However, at no time during my education in American public schools, or in
reservation life, had I been told that in the workplace I needed to confonn, and that there
would be times when I would need to do whatever I was told, even if it meant violating
the law. That: "Mel, if you do not straighten out, we cannot pick you up!"
Speaking of double psychological social binds, as I have earlier alluded to, my
boyhood Episcopal Church teachings taught me to be honest, and my family taught me to
be honest: Jesus was honest. But in my agency work there were times I was asked not to
utter my opinion, asked to withhold information, asked to bear unfair criticism, and even
asked to forsake what I saw as the good of my own people. I was also called stereotypical
names like "Chief," discouraged from disagreeing with my white superiors, and even
forbidden to speak with my own people about archaeology. I was certainly not looked
upon as a hero, as are some "whistle blowers" who report fraud in a major corporation,
but instead deemed "a problem Indian." I strongly felt myself in a double psychological
and emotional bind, because I had followed the rules and made every effort to be a good
, I
156
American citizen, as I was taught in the American education system, but nevertheless
found myself afoul of the evil reality of that workplace.
Eventually I learned so well and was so honest that I fell out offavor with the
management at the federal agency where I had worked. I left with tenure and a lump sum
payment. Around that time, I met Dr. C. Melvin Aikens. Visions are a funny thing;
Northern Paiutes pay attention to dreams, natural occurrences, coincidences, and we
listen to them. It is how the Creator speaks to us! A counselor I had at that time, Dr.
William Hughes, was also a sort of clairvoyant. He pulled out a map one day and told me
he had a feeling I needed to go to the Northwest; he pointed to Eugene. It was then that I
knew my path was leading to Dr. Aikens. Years before that, when reading Jennings
(1978) "Ancient North Americans," and the chapter Dr. Aikens had written on "The Far
West," I wondered about what a great man he must be, and the fabulous university he
must teach at. So I decided that I would come to study with him at the University of
Oregon. In my opinion, he was the Dean of Great Basin archaeology. I could become a
Ph.D. and maybe then I could help the People! Dr. Aikens was raised in Utah, and what I
came to understand about him is that he must surely have come from a Mormon family
"that fed the Indians," and did not fight with them. Dr. Aikens also watched my back
when adversities arrived, so now I tease him and call him Uncle just as I would a Punown
elder. Most of all Dr. Aikens nurtured me when I almost walked away from archaeology,
and encouraged me to keep going! I did not walk away because I was not intelligent
enough to do the work; it was the treatment I received from some non-Indians in the
profession. But I decided to stand my ground! So here is my point.
I
I
I
157
In order to help my people, I borrowed a large amount ofmoney to gain a Ph.D.
There was little money available for this field, and it was not psychology or being an
attorney or being a medical doctor. However, the Gosiute allowed me to work for them,
and I would not be where I am today if it were not for them. Also, my research focus was
contrary to the values of some in the archaeological community. Many looked at my
"being here" for my people as a threat! I recently learned that Haunani-Kay Trask (2003)
has experienced a similar reception to her advocacy for Native Hawaiian recognition, and
I'm sure there are other such cases. This imagined "threat" was probably intensified by
the fact that through education and experience, I was getting to the point where I could
challenge the existing paradigm. Talk about adversity for being who I am! I had learned
in the 1970's ''not to go along with the in crowd." I suppose now, in retrospect, that
meant "say no to drugs." All I knew then, as I still know, is that a square peg does not fit
into a round hole.
It was refreshing for me to read Ian Hodder in graduate school at the University of
Oregon, nice to read something that reinforced my own bias. It felt so good to see that the
big Rock Star of archaeology thought in similar ways, especially when I was reading his
stuff for the first time. For me as a Native American, it was then I saw that the traditional
and scientific histories could meet (Hodder 1985, 1986, 1991, 1992). Not only was it
going to be OK to write a Native account of the archaeology of the Great Basin, it was
also very important that a Native do so. Being a Native American studying his own
people would provide an authenticity to my research that outsiders could only fake.
158
Now here is where commitment comes in. I am sharing this with you readers to
relay how to gain respect in the Native community. It is hard; it is even harder than
earning a Ph.D. It means that your values need to change and that material gains may not
be in the course you are expected to take. In fact, if taking or earning money means that
as a contractor or academic you need to devalue, fudge data, or go along on issues that
are contrary to the benefit of the Punown, then you must be honest and not take the
money. The only part you can take in such cases is to protect the People. Now this may
sound odd, or too narrowly drawn, but this is qualitatively the job of the Native American
interpreter, as I understand it.
When you give your life to the care ofthe Creator and do so to help your people it
is no easy task. I have learned how to protect myselfwith medicine and prayer and
ceremony, just to do archaeology. Instead oftaking offense at the wrongs others have
done to me, I now pray for them, just as I pray for direction. I have gained extensive
knowledge from traditional healers (Indian Doctors). However, I am still an infant at
understanding the spirituality of the Creator. I never do a project or work on sacred issues
without consulting traditional people and elders and Indian Doctors. I never do any aspect
ofmy job without disclosing each and every aspect of the situation to the tribal
government I am doing the work for. I cannot disclose the prayer cycle or exact details by
which I consult the spiritual to do this work, but I can tell you that I use only my skills as
an archaeologist when I review the adequacy ofwork done by non-Indian researchers. I
have learned numerous details about material culture from archaeological data and have
learned all sorts ofmethod and theory and the cultural resources management process for
159
compliance pmposes. However, the way I know about the Punown is through my own
people teaching me. This experience is invaluable and this experience started when my
mother laced me up in the cradle basket. That is where I learned from the willows what it
is like to be here on earth. In the cradle basket I learned to feel secure and I learned to
watch with my eyes and to look around. I was rarely laid down on my back, but instead
set up so I could see. I was taught to listen to my elders and to learn from them because
they are wiser then I. In turn, elders and spiritual people told me that they themselves are
just babies when it comes to understanding the Creator and spirituality.
I once almost quit archaeology and decided to go home to the reservation and
swear never to be a part ofmainstream culture again (not that being invisible is really
being a part of it in the first place). After all, the reservation provides a safe haven from
some of the abnormal mechanisms ofmodem American society. However, as I was
taught, the Creator places you in situations and brings you to the places where you are
needed. The place I have found is that I am to be an Indian archaeologist, an interpreter.
During my career to date, I have suffered degradation, humiliation, exclusion, and
poverty. I've been restrained, censored, told I am worthless and stupid, and stuck
between two cultures. However, Native spiritual ceremonies have protected me and made
me strong; they have allowed me to see myself in an Indian way. When I prayed during
ceremonies, and when I shared my pain with the Creator and spiritual leaders, I learned
that I am a good man. A good man is honest, humorous, sacrifices for his people and
protects them, and does so even when it may mean his own economic well being is
threatened or taken away from him! Integrity is most important. Without it no catharsis
r
r
160
can occur and no self-reflection can take place; the very nature of the shadow in all of us
cannot otherwise be known.
I currently work as the Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) Director for
the Skull Valley Gosiute. The tribe cannot afford to pay me the wages other professionals
earn for the same level of expertise. I earn far less. However, by merging my own well
being with that of the People, the Gosiute now have a THPO. The Gosiute have kept me
alive and functioning, and I am fat and happy; long ago, Indian people would think I was
quite wealthy because of the way I look. There are numerous instances where I provide
expertise to other tribes in addition to the Gosiute. I am welcome at ceremonies, the
elders care for me and are kind to me, and Indian Doctors teach me. Progress is slow
when it comes to protecting the sacred, but with each day, the one step I take in this
direction is one step that was not taken before. I am happy, I am proud to help the
Gosiute, and I am willing and proud to stand by them. The commitment I have made to
them is to help protect their heritage. With the Gosiute and the Punown generally, in my
own self-seeking and selfish way, my life has meaning! It means more to me to be of
service to help the People than it means to be materially successful. In following such a
path one must fight many battles, and many of those are not of one's own making, but it
is important to stand strong, dust off, and stick your head down and keep going. I
recommend this path to others.
I end this dissertation with a few more words on the concept ofNumucentrisim,
which I briefly mentioned earlier in the text. I offer Numucentrisim as a tool to bridge the
gap that I see in the practice of Great Basin archaeology. Numucentricity can help solve
T
161
the communication problems between some anthropologists and the Numu, and show
how this philosophy can unify. First, a "Numucentric Position" calls for an abandonment
ofsole reliance on "etic" analysis that disallows the voices of contemporary Numu, and
research that relies solely on opinions expressed through Westernized ideas about what
historic ethnographic notes imply. Analysis must take account ofNumu ideology and
state all relative positions ofboth Natives and Euroamericans. Numucentricity implies
that everything is written from a perspective that benefits the Numu, and is constructed
qualitatively attending to the views ofthe people. It uses all angles, is eclectic, considers
all previous models, and changes as new data are generated. Research does not ordinarily
start from a simple hypothesis but grows from itself and arrives at a conceptual whole.
The archaeological record, iflooked at as a continuum through time and space, with
modulation and transformation seriously considered, and without excessive reliance on
the simplistic all-explaining idea of ethnic replacements that is so strong in Great Basin
research, can tell us much more about the orientation(s) ofa people then we now know.
I close with a last word on the Numic Expansion hypothesis. One ofthe hallmarks
of archaeological interpretations, not only in the Great Basin but in all parts ofthe world,
is that cultural changes have again and again (and again) been attributed to migrations of
people. Ofcourse people do migrate, but migration theories rarely provide a satisfactory
account of the cultural changes that they are invoked to account for. I believe the high
incidence, in world archaeology generally, ofconstructed theories ofmigration tells us
more about the ancestral histories and inherited traditions of the European and
162
Euroamerican archaeologists who write them than it does about the events they purport to
explain.
r T
163
Bibliography
Adovasio, James M.
1986 Prehistoric Basketry. In Handbook ofNorth American Indians, vol. 11,
Great Basin, edited by Warren L. D'Azevedo, pp. 194-205. Washington
D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.
Adovasio, James M., and David R. Pedler
1994 A Tisket, a Tasket: Looking at the Numic Speakers through the "Lens" of
a Basket. In Across the West, Human Population Movement and the
Expansion ofthe Numa, edited by David B. Madsen, and David Rhode,
pp. 114-123. Salt Lake City, University ofUtah Press.
Adovasio, James M., David R. Pedler
1997 Monte Verde and the Antiquity ofHumankind in the Americas. Antiquity
71 :573-558.
Aikens, C. Melvin
1966 Fremont-Promontory-Plains-Relationships. Anthropological Papers No.
82. University ofUtah Press, Salt Lake City.
·1970 Hogup Cave. Anthropological Papers No. 93. University ofUtah Press.
Salt Lake City.
1978a The Far West. In Ancient Native Americans, edited by Jesse D. Jennings,
pp.130-181. W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco.
1978b Archaeology of the Great Basin. Annual Review ofAnthropology 7:71-87.
1994 Adaptive Strategies and Environmental Change in the Great Basin and its
Peripheries as Determinants in the Migration ofNumic Speaking Peoples.
In Across the West: Human Population Movement and the Expansion of
the Numa, edited by David B. Madsen. and David Rhode, pp. 35-43.
University ofUtah Press. Salt Lake City.
2000 Uto-Aztecan Cultural Continuity and Adaptive Diversity in the Desert
West ofNorth America: Reaching into Deep Time From the Edge of
History. In The Entangled Past: Integrating History and Archaeology,
edited by M. Boyd, J.C.lrwin, and M. Hendrickson, pp. 41-50. University
of Calgary, Alberta. .
rll'I ,
-----------------
164
Aikens, C. Melvin and David B. Madsen
1986 The Eastern Area. In Handbook ofNorth American Indians, Volume 11,
Great Basin, edited by Warren L. d'Azevedo, pp. 140-161. Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, D. C.
Aikens, C. Melvin, Marci Miranda Jaynes and Timothy J. Thomes
1998 Linguistic Connections and Archaeological Continuities in the northern
Great Basin. Presented at the 26th Annual Great Basin Conference,
Rethinking Numu Antiquity, Symposium. Bend, Oregon.
Aikens, Melvin C. and Younger T. Witherspoon
1986 Great Basin Numic Prehistory: Linguistics, Archaeology, and
Environment. In Anthropology ofthe Desert West: Essays in Honor of
Jesse D. Jennings, edited by Carol Condie and Don D. Fowler, pp. 7-20.
University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 110. Salt Lake City:
University of Utah Press.
Alley, John
1986 Great Basin Numa: The Contact Period. Ph.D. Dissertation. Department of
History, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Antevs, Earnest
1948 Climatic Changes and Pre-Whiteman. In The Great Basin, With Emphasis
on Postglacial Times. University of Utah Bulletin 38:20. Biological Series
38(20):167-91. Salt lake City.
1955
Arkush, B. S.
1995
1999
Geologic-climatic dating in the West. American Antiquity 20:317-335.
The Archaeology ofCa-Mno-2122: A Study ofPre-contact and Post-
contact Lifeways Among the Mono Basin Paiute. University of California
Archaeological Records, Volume 31, Berkeley.
Numic Pronghorn Exploitation: A Reassessment of Stewardian-Derived
Models of Big-Game Hunting in the Great Basin. In Julian Steward and
the Great Basin, edited by Richard O. Clemmer, L. Daniel Myers, and
Mary Elizabeth Rudden, pp. 35-53. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake
City.
Arrington, Leonard and Davis Bitton
1992 The Mormon Experience: A History ofthe Latter-Day-Saints. University
of Illinois, Urbana.
i
,I
:L
T
I
165
Barker, Pat and Cynthia Pinto
1994 Legal Implications of the Numic Expansion. In Across the West: Human
Population Movement and the Expansion ofthe Numa, edited by David B.
Madsen and David Rhode, pp. 16-19. University of Utah Press. Salt Lake
City.
Bateman, Ronald, R.
1991 Deep Creek Reflections: 125 Years ofSettlement at Ibapah, Utah. R.
Bateman, Salt Lake City.
Baumhoff, Martin A., and Robert F. Heizer
1965 Postglacial Climate and Archaeology in the Desert West. In Quaternary of
the United States, edited by H. Wright and D. Frey, pp. 697-707. Princeton
University Press, Princeton.
Beck, Charlotte and George T. Jones
1996 The Terminal Pleistocene/Early Holocene Archaeology ofthe Great
Basin. Journal ofWorld Prehistory 11 (2): 161-236.
Bedwell, S.F.
1970 Prehistory and Environment of the Pluvial Fort Rock Lake Area of
Southcentral Oregon. Ph.D., Dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
University of Oregon, Eugene.
Bedwell, Stephen F., and Luther S. Cressman
1971 Fort Rock report: prehistory and environment of the Pluvial Fort Rock
Lake area ofsouth-central Oregon. In Great Basin Anthropological
Conference 1970: selectedpapers, edited by C. Melvin Aikens. University
of Oregon Anthropological Papers 1:1-25.
1973 Fort Rock Basin Prehistory and Environment, Foreword by Luther S.
Cressman. University of Oregon Books, Eugene.
Bennyhoff, James A.
1958 The Desert West: A Trial Correlation of Culture and Chronology. In
Current Views on Great Basin Archaeology, pp. 98-112. University of
California Survey Reports 42. Berkeley.
Berry, Michael S. and Claudia F. Berry
2001 An Archaeological Analysis ofthe Prehistoric Fremont Culture for the
Purpose ofAssessing Cultural Affiliation with Nine Claimant Tribes.
Bureau ofReclamation, Salt Lake City.
rJ
166
Bettinger, R.L.
1993 When and Why Numic Spread, In Across the West: Human Population
Movement and the Expansion ofthe Numa, edited by David B. Madsen
and David Rhode, pp 44-56 University ofUtah Press, Salt Lake City.
Bettinger, R.L., and M.A. Baumhoff
1982 The Numic Spread: Great Basin Cultures in Competition. American
Antiquity 47:485-503.
1983 Return Rates and Intensity ofResource Use in Numic and Pre-Numic
Adaptive Strategies. American Antiquity 48(4):830-834.
Berkhoffer, Robert F.
1978 The White Man's Indian: images ofthe American Indianfrom Columbus
to the present. Knopf: distributed by Random House, New York.
Bilosi, Thomas and Larry J. Zimmerman (eds.)
1997 Indians and Anthropologists: Vine Deloria Jr. and the Critique of
Anthropology. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Binford, L.R.
1978 Archaeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity 28(2):217-225.
Bordewich, Fergus M.
1996 Killing the White Man's Indian: Reinventing Native Americans at the End
ofthe Twentieth Century. Anchor Books, New York.
Brewster, Melvin G.
2003a Class III Cultural Resources Inventory on Confederated Goshute Indian
Reservation, Ibapah, Utah. Band THPO, Internal Indian Affairs, Schurz,
Nevada.
2003b Ute (Nutsiyu), Southern Paiute (Nuwuvi), Punown (related Numic speaking
people): Cultural Affiliation ofthe Pectol Shields. Private Tribal
document, Band THPO, Salt Lake City.
1998 Numu Views on Numu Culture History. Paper presented at the 26th
Annual Great Basin Conference Rethinking Numu Antiquity Symposium,
Bend, Oregon. Ms. in author's possession.
1996 Archaeology, Conformity, and the Numic Alternative in the Eastern Great
Basin. Paper presented at the 25th Annual Great Basin Anthropology
Conference Method and Theory Symposium. Kings Beach, Nevada.
r,,I,i It, 1I I
I
L
167
Bryan, Alan L.
1979 Smith Creek Cave. In The Archaeology ofSmith Creek Canyon, Eastern
Nevada, edited by Don Tuohy and Doris Rendall, pp. 163-251.
Anthropological Papers No. 17. Nevada State Museum, Carson City.
Butler, Robert B.
1986 Prehistory of the Snake and Salmon River Area. In Handbook ofNorth
American Indians, Volume 11, Great Basin, edited by Warren. L.
d'Azevedo, pp. 127-135. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C.
Butler, Sam
2003 Quote ofthe Day. Located at http://excite.com/Quote of the day October 4,
2003.
Carter, J.
1997 TS-5 Target Complex Cultural Resource Inventory, Wendover Air Force
Range, Tooele County, Utah. U.S. Department ofDefense, Hill Air Force
Base, Ogden.
Chamberlin, Ralph V.
1911 The Ethno-botany of the Gosiute Indians of Utah. Philadelphia Academy
ofNatural Sciences Proceedings, Vol. LXIII.
Clemmer, Richard 0., L. Daniel Myers, and Mary Elizabeth Rudden, eds.
1999 Julian Steward and the Great Basin. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake
City.
Clemmer, Richard 0., and Orner C. Stewart
1986 Treatises, Reservations, and Claims. In Handbook ofNorth American
Indians, Volume 11, Great Basin, edited by W. L. d'Azevedo, pp. 525-
557. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Churchill, Ward
1995 Since Predator Came. Aegis Publications, Littleton, Colorado.
1997 Fantasies ofthe Master Race: Literature, Cinema and the Colonization of
the American Indians. City Lights Books, San Francisco.
Cline, Gloria G.
1963 Exploring the Great Basin. University ofNevada Press, Reno, Las Vegas.
Cressman, Luther S.
1951 Western Prehistory in Light of Carbon 14 Dating. Southwestern Journal of
Anthropology 7(3):289-313.
....
168
Cressman, Luther S., Frank C. Baker, Henry P. Hansen, Paul S. Conger, and Robert F.
Heizer
1942 Archaeological researches in the Northern Great Basin. Carnegie
Institution of Washington Publication No. 538.Washington, D.C.
Crum, Steve
1997 Historical Information on American Indian Cultural Affiliation with Lands
now Within the Great Basin National Park, Nevada. Great Basin National
Park, USNPS, Baker, Nevada.
d'Azevedo, Warren (ed.)
1986 Handbook ofNorth American Indians, Volume 11, Great Basin,
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C.
Dalley, Gardner F.
1976 Swallow Shelter and Associated Sites. University of Utah Anthropology
Papers 96. Salt Lake City.
Dansie, Amy
1997 Early Holocene Burials in Nevada: Overview of Localities, Research and
Legal Issues. Nevada Historical Quarterly, 40(1):4-14.
Dean, Patricia, A.
1992 Prehistoric Pottery in the northeastern Great Basin: Problems in
Classification and archaeological interpretation ofundecorated Fremont
and Shoshone Wares. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
University of Oregon, Eugene.
Defa, Dennis Ray
1980 A History ofthe Gosiute Indians to 1900. M.A. thesis, Department of
History, University ofUtah, Salt Lake City.
Deloria, V. Jr.
1969 [1971] Custer Diedfor Your Sins: An Indian Manifesto. Avon Books,
New York.
1974 God is Red. Fulcrum Publishing, Golden, Colorado.
1992 Indians, Archaeology, and the Future. American Antiquity 57(4):595-598.
1995 Red Earth, White Lies: Native Americans and the Myth ofScientific Fact.
Scribner, New York.
+169
1996 Conclusion: Anthros, Indians, and Planetary Reality. In Indians and
Anthropologists: Vine Deloria Jr. and the Critique ofAnthropology,
edited by Thomas Biolosi and Larry J. Zimmennan, pp. 209-222.
University ofArizona Press, Tuscon.
2002 Evolutionisim and Creationisim and Other Modern Myths: A Critical
Inquiry. Fulcrum Publishing, Golden, Colorado.
Dillehay, Tom
1997 Monte Verde: A Late Pleistocene Settlement. In Chile, Vol. 2, The
Archaeological Context and Interpretation. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington, D.C.
Dominguez, Virginia R.
1994 Differentiating Women: BodieslBodies ofKnowledge. American
Anthropologist 96:127:130.
Durst, D. M. and E. P. Voss
1990 The Mormon Communities: The Building ofa New Jerusalem. Ohio State
University: School ofArchitecture Paper. Cincinnati.
Dwyer, Wayne W.
1976 Your Erroneous Zones. Funk and Wagnalls, New York.
Erlandson, Jon M.
2002 Anatomically Modem Humans, Maritime Voyaging, and the Pleistocene
Colonization of the Americas. In The First Americans: The Pleistocene
Colonization ofthe New World, edited by Nina G. Jablowski. California
Academy of Sciences.
Esteves, C. P.
1991 Women Who Run With Wolves: Myths and Stories ofthe Wild Woman
Archetype. Ballantine Books, NY.
Euler, R. C.
1964 Southern Paiute Archaeology. American Antiquity 29(3):379-381.
Fagan, John L.
1974 Altithermal Occupation ofSpring Sites in the Northern Great Basin.
University of Oregon Anthropological Papers 6.
r"r',II
170
Fawcett, William B., and Steven R. Simms
1994 Archaeological Test Excavations in the Great Salt Lake Wetlands and
Associated Sites. Utah State University Contributions to Anthropology
No. 14. Logan.
Foder,1.
1961 The Validity of Glottochronology on the Basis of the Slavonic Languages.
Studia Slavonica 7:295-346.
Fowler, Catherine S.
1972 Ecological Clues to Proto-Numic Homelands. In Great Basin Cultural
Ecology: A symposium, edited by Don D. Fowler, pp. 105-122. Desert
Research Institute Publications in Social Sciences NO.8. Reno and Las
Vegas.
1995 Material Culture and the Proposed Numic Expansion. In Across the West:
Population Movement and the Expansion ofthe Numa, edited by David B.
Madsen and David Rhode, pp 103-113. University ofUtah Press, Salt
Lake City.
Fowler, Catherine S., Amy Dansie and Eugene Hattori
1998 PlaitedMattingfrom Spirit Cave, NV: TechnicalImplications. Paper
presented at the Society for American Archaeology Conference, Nashville,
TN.
Fowler, Don D. and Catherine S. Fowler (eds.)
1972 Anthropology of the Numa: John Wesley Powell's Manuscripts on the
Numic Peoples ofWestern North America 1868-1880. Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington D.C.
Fowler, Don D.
1986 History ofResearch. In Handbook ofNorth American Indians, Vol. 11,
Great Basin. Edited by Warren L. d'Azevedo, pp. 15-30. Smithsonian
Institution. Washington, D.C.
1987 Uses of the Past: Archaeology in the Service of the State. American
Antiquity 52(2), pp. 229-248.
Fremont, John. C.
1887 Memoirs ofMy Life. Belford, Clarke & Co., New York.
171
Goss, James, A.
1977 Linguistic Tools for the Great Basin Prehistorian. In Models and Great
Basin Prehistory: A Symposium, edited by Don D. Fowler, pp. 48-70.
Desert Research Institute Publications in the Social Sciences No 12. Reno
and Las Vegas.
1998 The Yamparika---Shoshones, Comanches, Or Utes--- or Does it Matter? In
Julian Steward and the Great Basin, edited by Richard, 0., Clemmer,
Daniel L. Myers, and Mary Elizabeth Rudden, pp. 74-88. University of
Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Grayson, Donald K.
1993 The Desert's Past: A Natural Prehistory ofthe Great Basin. Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington D.C.
1994
Gruhn, Ruth
1961
Chronology, G1ottochronology, and the Numic Expansion. In Across the
West: Human Population Movement and the Expansion ofthe Numa,
edited by David B. Madsen and David Rhode, pp. 20-31. University of
Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
The Archaeology ofWilson Butte Cave, South-Central, Idaho. Occasional
Papers of Idaho State College Museum 6.
i
L
1987 Aboriginal Culture History Through Linguistics and Archaeology in the
Great Basin. Idaho Archaeologist 10(1 ):3-8.
Greenberg, J.H., C. G. Turner II, and S.L. Zegura
1986 The Settlement of the Americas: A Comparison of the Linguistic, Dental,
and Genetic Evidence. Current Anthropology 27:477-497.
Gunnerson, James H.
1962 Plateau Shoshonean Prehistory: A Suggested Reconstruction. American
Antiquity 28(1): 41-45.
Hanington, Mark R. (ed.)
1930 Introduction. In Archaeological Explorations in Southern Nevada: Report
ofthe First Sessions Expedition, 1929, pp. 1-25. Southwest Museum
Papers No 4. Los Angeles.
1937 Excavation ofPueblo Grande de Nevada. Bulletin of the Texas
Archaeological and Paleontological Society 9, pp. 130-145.
L172
Hattori, Eugene M.
1981 The Archaeology of Falcon Hill, Winnemucca Lake, Washoe County,
Nevada. Nevada State Museum Anthropological Papers No. 18. Carson
City.
Hawkins, Bruce R., and David B. Madsen
1990 Excavation of the Donner-Reed Wagons: Historic Archaeology Along the
Hastings Cutoff. University ofUtah Press, Salt Lake City.
Hayden, Irwin (ed.)
1930 Mesa House. In Archaeological Explorations in Southern Nevada: Report
ofthe First Sessions Expedition, 1929. Southwest Museum Papers No.
4(2), pp. 26-92. Los Angeles.
Heizer Robert F. and Lewis K. Napton
1970 Archaeology and the Prehistoric Great Basin Lacustrine Subsistence
Regime as seen from Lovelock Cave, Nevada. Contributions of the
University of California Archaeological Facility 10. Berkeley.
Heizer, Robert F. and Alex D. Krieger
1955 Archaeology ofHumboldt Cave, Churchill County, Nevada. University of
California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology No.
47(1). Berkeley.
Hemphill, Brian R., and Clark, Spencer Larsen (eds.)
1999 Prehistoric Lifeways in the Great Basin: Bioarchaeological
Reconstruction and Interpretation. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake
City.
Hill, Jane H.
2003 Proto-Uto-Aztecan Cultivation and the Northern Devolution. In
Examining the Farming/Language Dispersal Hypothesis, edited by Peter
Bellwood, and Colin Renfrew (to appear). McDonald Institute for
Archaeological Research, Cambridge, UK.
Hittman, Michael
1995 Corbett Mack: the life ofa Northern Paiute. University ofNebraska Press,
Bloomington.
Hodder, Ian
1985 Postprocessual Archaeology. In Advances in ArchaeologicalMethod and
Theory, edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 1-25. Academic Press, New York.
iL
~-
173
1986 Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
1991 Interpretive Archaeology and Its Role. American Antiquity 56(1):7-18.
1992 Theory and Practice in Archaeology. Routledge, London
Holmer, R. N.
1996 In Search ofthe Ancestral Northern Shoshone. In Across the West: Human
Population Movement and the Expansion ofthe Numa, edited by David B.
Madsen and David Rhode, pp. 179-187. University of Utah Press, Salt
Lake City.
Hopkins, Nicholas A.
1965 Great Basin Prehistory and Uto-Aztecan. American Antiquity 31(1): 48-60.
Horgan, John
1996 The End ofScience: Facing the Limits ofKnowledge in the Twilight ofthe
SCientific Age. Helix Books, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc,
Menlo Park.
Hughes, Richard E.
1994 Methodological Observations on Great Basin Prehistory. In Across the
West: Human Population Movement and the Expansion ofthe Numa,
edited by David B. Madsen and David Rhode, pp. 67-70. University of
Utah Press, Salt Lake City
Hulkrantz, Ake
1986 Mythology and Religious Concepts. In Handbook ofNorth American
Indians, Volume II, Great Basin, edited by Warren. L. d'Azevedo, pp.
630-641. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Husted, Wilfred M. and Robert Edgar
2002 The Archaeology ofMummy Cave, Wyoming: An introduction to
Shoshonean Prehistory. National Park Service Midwest Archaeological
Center and Southeast Archaeological Center, Special Report No.4,
Technical Reports Series NO.9.
Irwin-Williams, Cynthia
1966 Picosa: The Elementary Southwestern Culture. American Antiquity
32(4):441-457.
L174
Irving, W.
1961 The Adventures ofCaptain Bonneville, U. S. A., in the Rocky Mountains
and the Far West. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman
Jacobs, Wilbur R
1972 Dispossessing the American Indian. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York.
James, Steven R, and David 1. Singer
1980 Cultural Resources Existing Data Inventory: Salt Lake District, Utah. Salt
Lake District Office, BLM.
James, Steven R, Joel C. Janetski, and James A. Vlasich
1982 Prehistory, Ethnohistory, and History ofthe Elko and Ely Districts.
Bureau ofLand Management, Cultural Resources No.3. Reno.
Janetski, Joel C.
1981 EthnographylEthnohistory. In Prehistory, Ethnohistory, and
History ofthe Elko andEly Districts, edited by Steven R James, pp. 71-
78. Bureau ofLand Management, Cultural Resources NO.3. Reno.
1994 Recent Transitions in Eastern Great Basin Prehistory: The Archaeological
Record. In Across the West: Human Population Movement and the
Expansion ofthe Numa, edited by David B. Madsen and David Rhode, pp.
157-178. University ofUtah Press, Salt Lake City.
Jennings, Jesse D.
1957 Danger Cave. University ofUtah Anthropological Papers No. 27. Salt
Lake City.
1973 Prehistory ofNorth America. 2nd edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
1978 Prehistory ofUtah and the Eastern Great Basin, A Review 1968-1976.
University ofUtah Anthropological Papers, No 98, University ofUtah
Press, Salt Lake City.
1986 Introduction. In Handbook ofNorth American Indians, Volume I I, Great
Basin, edited by Warren. L. d'Azevedo, pp. 113-119. Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, D. C.
Jennings, Jesse D. and Edward Norbeck
1955 Great Basin Prehistory: A Review. American Antiquity 21(1):1-11.
i,
I
l
I
I
T
175
Johnson, Shane
2001 Read No Evil: Students aren't learning the darker side ofUtah's history.
Should They? Salt Lake City Weekly, pp. 21, Vol. 20, No. 18:21-25.
Jett, Stephen C.
1977 Comments on "Linguistic Tools for the Great Basin Prehistorian." In
Models and Great Basin Prehistory: A Symposium, edited by Don D.
Fowler, pp. 71-78. Desert Research Institute Publications in the Social
Sciences No 12. Reno.
Jenkins, Dennis L. and Jon M. Erlandson
1996 Olivella Grooved Rectangle Beads from a Middle Holocene Site in the
Fort Rock Valley, Northern Great Basin. Journal ofCalifornia and Great
Basin Anthropology, pp. 296-302.
Jones, K. T.
1994 Can the Rocks Talk? Archaeology and the Numic Languages. InAcross
the West: Human Population Movement and the Expansion ofthe Numa,
edited by David B. Madsen and David Rhode, pp. 71-75. Salt Lake City,
University ofUtah Press.
Jung, Karl, Gustav
1933 Modern Man in Search ofhis Sou!. Harcourt Brace Publishers, New York.
1953 Collected Works. Edited by Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, and Gerhard
Elder, Vol. 10. Pantheon Books, New York.
1982 The Portable Jung. Edited by Joseph Campbell. Penguin Books, New
York.
Kelly, Robert L.
1997 Late Holocene Great Basin Prehistory. Journal ofWorld Prehistory,
11(1):1-49, Plenum Press, New York.
Kehoe, Alice B.
1998 The Land ofPrehistory. Rutledge Press, New York.
1999 Where Were Wovoka and Wuzzie George? In Julian Steward and the
Great Basin, edited by Richard O. Clemmer, L. Daniel Myers, and Mary
Elizabeth Rudden, pp. 164-169. University ofUtah Press, Salt Lake City.
--------------------------------------
176
Kidder, Alfred V. (ed.)
1962 An Introduction to Southwestern Archeology, with a Preliminary Account
ofthe Excavations at Pecos. Papers of the Southwest Expedition NO.1.
[Revision of 1924 edition]. Yale University Press, New Haven.
Knack, Martha C.
1994 Some Thoughts on Cultural Processes for the Numic Expansion. In Across
the West: Human Population Movement and the Expansion ofthe Numa,
edited by David B. Madsen and David Rhode, pp. 62-66. University of
Utah Press, Salt Lake City
Kravakowski, Marina
2002 Haven't we met? Why you recognize that handsome stranger. Psychology
Today 36(5): 17.
Krober, Alfred L.
1907 Shoshonean Dialects ofCalifornia. University of California Publications
in American Archaeology and Ethnology No. 4(3). Berkeley.
1977 [1925] Handbook ofthe Indians ofCalifornia. Bureau ofEthnology
Bulletin 78. Washington D.C. Dover Publications New York.
Lamb, Sidney, M.
1958 Linguistic Prehistory in the Great Basin. International Journal of
American Linguistics, pp. 24:95-100.
Larson, Mary Lou and Marcel Kornfeld
1997 Betwixt and Between the Plains: The Limits ofNumic Expansion. In
Across the West: Human Population Movement and the Expansion ofthe
Numa, edited by David B. Madsen and David Rhode, pp. 200-212.
University ofUtah Press. Salt Lake City
Larsen, Spencer, Clark and Robert L. Kelly
1995 Bioarchaeology ofthe Stillwater Marsh: Prehistoric Human Adaptation in
the Western Great Basin. American Museum ofNatural History,
Anthropological Papers, No. 77, New York.
Loud, Llewellyn L. and Mark R. Harrington
1929 Lovelock Cave. University of California Publications in Archaeology and
Ethnology 25(10), Berkeley.
Loewen, James W.
1996 Lies My Teacher ToldMe: Everything Your American History Textbook
Got Wrong. Touchstone Books, Simon and Schuster, NY.
177
Lindsay, Lamar and Kay Sargent
1977 An Archaeological Survey ofthe Deep Creek Mountains Area. Juab
County, Utah. Bureau ofLand Management, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Lyneis, M. M.
1994 East onto the Plateaus? An Archaeological Examination of the Numic
Expansion in Southern Nevada, Northern Arizona and Southern Utah. In
Across the West: Human Population Movement and the Expansion ofthe
Numa, edited by David B. Madsen and David Rhode, pp. 141-149.
University ofUtah Press. Salt Lake City.
Madsen. David
1975 Dating Paiute-Shoshone Expansion in the Great Basin. American Antiquity
40:82-97.
1982 Get it Where the Getting's Good. A Variable Model of Great Basin
Subsistence and Settlement Based on Data from the Eastern Great Basin.
InMan andEnvironment in the Great Basin, edited by David. B. Madsen
and James F. O'Connell, pp. 207-226. Society for American Anthropology
Papers no. 2. Washington D.C.
1994 Mesa Verde and Sleeping Ute Mountain: The Geographical and
Chronological dimensions of the Numic Expansion. In Across the West:
Human Population Movement and the Expansion ofthe Numa, edited by
David B. Madsen and David Rhode, pp. 124-35. Salt Lake City,
University ofUtah Press.
Madsen, David B., and David Rhode (eds.)
1994 Across the West: Human Population Movement and the Expansion ofthe
Numa. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
Madsen, David B. and Stephen R. Simms
1998 The Fremont Complex: A Behavioral Perspective. Journal ofWorld
Prehistory 12(3):255-336.
Madsen. D. B. And David N. Schmitt (eds.)
1998 Archaeology ofCamels Back Cave. Dugway Proving Grounds. (Draft
Report), Dugway Proving Ground, U.S. Army, Utah.
Malouf, Carling
1946 The Deep Creek Region, the Northwestern Frontier of the Pueblo Culture.
American Antiquity, Volume 12 NO.2. Menasha.
-------- -----~--
178
1950 The Archaeology of Sites Along Fifteen Mile Creek. In The Archaeology
ofthe Deep Creek Region, Utah, edited by Carling Malouf, Charles
Dibble, and Elmer R. Smith. University ofUtah Anthropology Papers,
No.5, Salt Lake City.
1974 The Gosiute Indians. In Shoshone Indians, American Indian Ethnohistory:
California and Basin-Plateau Indians, edited by D. A. Horr, pp. 25-172.
New York, Garland.
Malouf, C. and J. M. Findlay
1986 Eum-American Impact Before 1870. In Handbook ofNorth American
Indians, Volume 11, Great Basin, edited by Warren L. d' Azevedo, pp.
499-516. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Mann, Barbara, Alice
2003 Native Americans, Archaeologists, and the Mounds. Peter Lang
Publishing, New York.
Marwitt, 1. P.
1970 Median Village and Fremont Culture Regional Variation. University of
Utah Anthropological Papers 91, Salt Lake City.
McGuire, R. H.
1991 Archaeology and the First Americans. American Anthropologist
94(4):816-836.
1997 Archaeology and American Indians. In Indians and Anthropologists: Vine
Deloria Jr. and the Critique ofAnthropology, edited by Thomas Biolsi
and Larry J. Zimmerman, pp. 63-91. University ofArizona Press, Tucson.
Morgan, Dale L.
1986[1947] The Great Salt Lake. University ofNebraska Press, Lincoln.
Morss, Noel
1956 The Ancient Culture ofthe Fremont River in Utah. Papers of the Peabody
Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 12(3).
Cambridge, Mass.
Means, Russell, and Marvin 1. Wolf
1995 Where White Men Fear to Tread: The Autobiography ofRussell Means.
S1. Martin's Griffin, New York.
'I
I
,
, '
179
Meltzer, David J, James M. Adovasio, and Tom Dillehay
1997a On a Pleistocene human occupation at Pedra Furada, Brazil. Antiquity
(68)(261):695-714.
Meltzer, D. J, D. K. Grayson, G. Ardila, A. W. Barker, D. F. Dincauze, C. V. Haynes, F.
Mena, L. Nunez and D. J Stanford
1997b On the Pleistocene Antiquity ofMonte Verde, Southern Chile. American
Antiquity 62(4):659-663
Mihesuah, Devon
1996 Indians, Stereotypes and Realities. Clarity Press, Atlanta.
Miller, Wick R.
1965 Anthropological Linguistics in the Great Basin. In The Current Status of
Anthropological Research in the Great Basin, 1964, edited by Warren L.
d' Azevedo, Wilbur A. Davis, Don D. Fowler, and Wayne Suttles, pp. 75-
112. Desert Research Institute Social Science and Humanities Publications
No 1. Reno.
1972a Comments on Cultural Ecology Papers. In Great Basin Cultural Ecology:
A Symposium, edited by Don D. Fowler, pp. 159-60. Desert Research
Institute Publications in the Social Sciences No.8. Reno and Las Vegas.
1972b Newe Natekwinappeh: Shoshoni Stories and Dictionary. University of
Utah Anthropology Papers # 94, Salt Lake City.
1986 Numic Languages. In Handbook ofNorth American Indians, Volume 11,
Great Basin, edited by W. L. d'Azevedo, pp. 98-107. Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, D. C.
Miller, S. J
1978 The Archaeological fauna of four sites in Smith Creek Canyon, Eastern
Nevada. In the Archaeology ofSmith Creek Canyon, Eastern Nevada,
edited by Don Tuohy and D.L. Rendall pp. 272-331. Nevada State
Museum Anthropological Papers 17.
Minsky, Marvin Lee
1986 The society ofMind. Simon and Schuster, New York.
Myers, Daniel, L.
1987 Levels ofContext: A Symbolic Analysis ofNumic Origin Myth. Ph.D.
dissertation, Anthropology Department, Rutgers University, New
Brunswick.
·1
I
.,
, ,
"
I
I
T
180
1999 A Frame for Culture: Observations on the Culture-Element Distribution of
the Snake River Shoshone. In Julian Steward and the Great Basin, edited
by Richard O. Clemmer, Daniel L. Myers, and Mary Elizabeth Rudden,
pp. 128-143. University ofUtah Press, Salt Lake City.
Napton, Lewis K., and Robert F. Heizer
1970 Archaeology and the Prehistoric Great Basin Lacustrine Subsistence
Regime as Seen from Lovelock Cave, Nevada. Contributions of the
University of California Archaeological Facility, NO.1 O.
Nichols, J.
1990 Linguistic Diversity and the First Settlement of the New World, Language
66:475-521.
Nichols, Michael
1981 Old Californian Uto-Aztecan. Reports from the Survey of California and
other Indian Languages No. 1:5-41 Berkeley.
Numkena, Will
1996 Native American Burials Statement. Utah Division ofIndian Affairs, Salt
Lake City.
Pettigrew, Richard M.
1985 Archaeological Investigations on the East Shore ofLake Abert, Lake
County, Oregon. University of Oregon, Anthropological Papers No. 32.
Eugene.
Pearce, Roy Harvey
1966 Savagism and Civilization: A Study ofthe Indian Mind and the American
Mind. John Hopkins Press, Baltimore.
Powers, Stephen
1976[1877] Tribes of California: With an Introduction and Notes by Robert F.
Heizer. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Price, Sarah Sue
1952 A Comparison ofGosiute Material Culture and the archaeology of
Western Utah. M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of
Utah, Salt Lake City.
""
181
Raven, Christopher
1994 Invisible from the West: Numic Expansion from the Perspective of the
Carson Desert. In Across the West: Human Population Movement and the
Expansion ofthe Numa, edited by David B. Madsen and David Rhode, pp.
152-156. University ofUtah Press, Salt Lake City.
Rea, 1.A.
1955 Concerning the Validity ofLexicostatistics. International Journal of
American Linguistics 24: 145-150.
1974 The Romance Data ofthe Pilot Studies for Glottochronology. Current
Trends in Linguistics 11 :355-67.
Reed, Alan D.
1992 The Numic Occupation ofWestern Colorado and Eastern Utah during the
Prehistoric and Protohistoric Periods. In Across the West: Human
Population Movement and the Expansion ofthe Numa, edited by David B.
Madsen and David Rhode, pp 188-199. University ofUtah Press, Salt
Lake City
Rhode, D.
1994 Direct Dating ofBrown Ware Ceramics Using Thermoluminescence and
its Relation to the Numic Spread. In Across the West: Human Population
Movement and the Expansion ofthe Numa, edited by David B. Madsen
and David Rhode, pp. 124-132.University ofUtah Press, Salt Lake City.
Rhode, D. and D. B. Madsen
1994 Where Are We? In Across the Desert West: Human Population Movement
and the Expansion ofthe Numa, edited by David B. Madsen and David
Rhode, pp. 213-221. University ofUtah Press, Salt Lake City.
Schmidt, Peter R, and Thomas C. Peterson (eds.)
1995 From Constructing to Making Alternative Histories. In Making Alternative
Histories: The Practice ofArchaeology andHistory in Non-Western
Settings. School of American Research, Santa Fe.
Schroedl, Alan R and Nancy 1. Coulam
1988 Bonneville Estates Rockshelter. Elko District Office, Bureau ofLand
Management, Nevada.
Shaffer, Dave and John Stang
1997 Anthropologists Fight Over Bones. In Tri-City Herald, (Oct 18, 1996).
Kennewick Man Virtual Interpretive Center. Kennewick, Washington.
i:~
i'
I
~
182
Shaul, David, Leedom
1985 Azteco-Tanoan ***-1Ir-. International Journal ofAmerican Linguistics
51 :584-6.
1986 Linguistic Adaptation in the Great Basin. American Antiquity 51(2):415-
16).
2001[2003] Linguistic Footprints ofthe Fremont Archaeological Culture.
Bureau ofReclamation, Salt Lake City.
Simms, Steven, R
1990 Fremont Transitions. Utah Archaeology 1990:3:1-18.
1993 Unpacking the Numic Spread. In Across the West: Human Population
Movement and the Expansion ofthe Numa, edited by David B. Madsen
and David Rhode, pp. 76-83. University ofUtah Press, Salt Lake City.
1999 Farmers, Foragers, and Adaptive Diversity: The Great Salt Lake Wetlands
Project. In Prehistoric Lifeways in the Great Basin: Bioarchaeological
Reconstruction and Interpretation, edited by Brian Hemphill and Clark
Spencer Larson, pp. 21-54. University ofUtah Press, Salt Lake City.
Simms, Steven R, Carol Loveland, and Mark E. Stuart
1991 Prehistoric Skeletal Remains and the Prehistory ofthe Great Salt Lake
Wetlands. Department of Sociology, Social Work, and Anthropology,
Utah State University.
Simms, Steven R and Mark E. Stuart
1992 Prehistory and Past Environments in the Great Salt Lake Wetlands and
Associated Sites. Edited by William B. Fawcett and S.R Simms, pp. 5-30.
Utah State University Contributions to Anthropology No. 14. Logan,
Utah.
Simms, Steven R, and Anan W. Raymond
1999 No One Owns the Deceased! The Treatment of Three Human Remains
from Three Great Basin Cases. In Prehistoric Lifeways in the Great Basin:
Bioarchaeological Reconstruction and Interpretation, edited by Brian R
Hemphill, and Clark Spencer Larsen, pp. 8-20. University ofUtah Press,
Salt Lake City.
Smith, Anne M.
1993 Shoshone Tales Collected and edited by Anne M Smith. University of
Utah Publications in the American West, Volume 31. Salt Lake City.
" •
I
..-.-
183
Smith, Elmer R.
1941 The Archaeology ofDeadman Cave, Utah. University of Utah Bulletin
32(4):1-43. Salt Lake City.
Stanford, Dennis
2002 Ocean Trails and Prairie Paths: Thoughts about Clovis Origins. In The
First Americans: The Pleistocene Colonization ofthe New World, edited
by Nina G. Jablowski. California Academy of Sciences.
Stansbury, H.
1988[1852] Expedition to the Valley ofthe Great Salt Lake. Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington, D.C
Stephanopoulos, George
2002 The Columbia Tragedy. This Week, February 2,2002, American
Broadcast Company, New York
Steward, Julian
1937a Ancient Caves ofthe Great Salt Lake Region. Bureau ofAmerican
Ethnology Bulletin No. 116.Washington D.C.
1937b Applied Anthropology in America. Unpublished paper, JHS Box 10, File
Indian Reorganization, 1937, Washington, D.C.
1937c World's Most Primitive Indians Inhabit Utah, Says Savant:
Anthropologists Declares Goshutes' Habits Once More Simple Than That
of Cavemen. Salt Lake Tribune 24 October, 2B.
1938 Basin-Plateau Aboriginal Sociopolitical Groups. Bureau of American
Ethnology Bulletin 120. Washington D.C
1940 Native Cultures of the Intermontane (Great Basin) Area. In Esstrys in
Historical Anthropology ofNorth America, Published in Honor ofJohn R
Swanton. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections No. 100, pp. 445-502.
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
1943 Culture Element Distributions: XIII. Northern and Gosiute Shoshone.
University of Califomia Anthropology Records 4(2):209-359. Berkeley.
1955 Theory ofCulture Change: The Methodology ofMultilinear Cultural
Evolution. University of Illinois Press. Urbana.
--------------------------------- -_.- - -
!
I
I
I
'I
,
l
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
T
184
Stoffie, Richard W. and Zedeno, Nieves M.
1998 Historic Memory and Ethnogr~hicPerspectives on the Southern Paiute
Homeland. Presented at the 26 Annual Great Basin Anthropology
Conference in the symposium on "Numu Origins: Rethinking Numu
Antiquity in the Intermountain West." Bend, Oregon.
Stoffie, Richard W. David B. Halmo, John E. Olmstead, and Michael J. Evans.
1990 Native American Cultural Resources Studies at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.
Institute for Social Research, University ofMichigan, Ann Arbor.
Sutton, Mark Q.
1989 A Consideration ofthe Numic Spread. Ph.D. dissertation, University of
California, Riverside.
1994 The Numic Expansion as Seen From the Mojave Desert. In Across the
West: Human Population Movement and the Expansion ofthe Numa,
edited by David B. Madsen and David Rhode, pp. 133-140. University of
Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Sutton, Mark Q., and David Rhode
1994 Background to the Numic Problem. In Across the West: Human
Population Movement and the Expansion ofthe Numa, edited by David B.
Madsen and David Rhode, pp. 6-15. University of Utah Press.
Swanson, Earl H., Jr.
1962 Early Cultures in Northwestern America. American Antiquity 28(2): 151-
158.
1972 Birch Creek: Human Ecology in the Cool Desert of the Northern Rocky
Mountains 9000 B.C.-A.D. 1850. Idaho State
University, Pocatello.
Swindler, Nina, Kurt Dongoske, Roger Anyon, and Alan S. Downer (eds.)
1995 Native Americans andArchaeologists: Stepping Stones to Common
Ground. Alta Mira Press, Walnut Creek.
Talbot, RK. and L.D. Richens
1996 Steinaker Gap: An Early Fremont Farmstead. Brigham Young University
Museum ofPeoples and Cultures Occasional Papers 2. Provo.
Taylor, Walter W.
1961 Archaeology and Language in Western North America. American
Antiquity 27(1): 71-81.
,.
,
~
185
Thomas, David Hurst
1972 Prehistoric Subsistence-Settlement Patterns ofthe Reese River Valley,
Central Nevada. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California Davis.
1973 An Empirical Test for Steward's Model ofGreat Basin Settlement
Patterns. American Antiquity 38(1):155-176.
1994 Chronology and the Numic Expansion. In Across the West: Human
Population Movement and the Expansion ofthe Numa, edited by David B.
Madsen and David Rhode, pp. 56-61. University ofUtah Press, Salt Lake
City.
1998 Archaeology. Third Edition. Harcourt Brace College Publishers. New
York.
1999 Foreword. In Prehistoric Lifeways in the Great Basin: Bioarchaeological
Reconstruction and Interpretation. edited by Brian R. Hemphill, and Clark
Spencer Larsen, pp. xiv-xxii. University ofUtah Press, Salt Lake City.
Thomas, David, Hurst, Lorann S.A. Pendleton, and Stephan C. Cappanari
1986 Western Shoshone. In Handbook ofNorth American Indians, Volume 11,
Great Basin, edited by W. L. d'Azevedo, pp. 262-283. Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, D.C.
Thomas, Trudy
1983 Material Culture of the Gatecliff Shelter: Incised Stones. Anthropological
Papers ofthe New York Museum ofNatural History 59(1):246-278.
Tuohy, Don and Amy Dansie
1997 Information Regarding Early Holocene Manifestations in the Western
Great Basin. Nevada Historical Quarterly 40(1):24-53.
Trask, Haunani K.
1997 Lecture on Indigenous Rights ofNative Americans. Delivered at the
University of Oregon School ofLaw October 7,2003, Eugene.
Trigger, Bruce
1989 A History ofArchaeological Thought. Cambridge University Press.
1980 Archaeology and the Image of the American Indian. American Antiquity
(45(4):662-676.
Twain, Mark
1959 Roughing It. Harper and Brothers, New York.
ri'
186
Tyler, S. L.
1951 The Yuta Indians Before 1680. Western Humanities Review 5(2): 153-163.
Upham, Steadman
1994 Nomads of the Desert West: A Shifting Continuum in Prehistory. Journal
ofWorld Prehistory 8: 113-167.
Van Pool, Christine S. and Todd L. Van Pool
1999 The Scientific Nature ofPost Processualism. American Antiquity 64:33-
55.
Vellanoweth, Rene L.
2001 Coastal Archaeology ofSouthern California: Accountsfrom the Holocene.
Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon.
Watkins, Joe
1998 Indigenous Archaeology: American Indian Values and Scientific Practice.
Alta Mira Press, New York.
Whitley, David
2000 Rock art ofthe Shaman: Rock art ofCalifornia. University ofUtah Press,
Salt Lake City.
Wild, James D. and D. E. Newman
1990 Late Archaic corn in the eastern Great Basin. American Anthropologist
91:712-720.
Wilde, James D. and Reed D. Soper
1994 Baker Village: A Preliminary Report on the 1991-1992 Field Seasons at
26WP63, White Pine County. Nevada. Museum ofPeoples and Cultures
Technical Series No. 93-10. Brigham Young University, Provo.
Wikpedia Online Encyclopedia
2003 Epistemology and Colonialism definitions. Located at
http://www.en.wikpedia.org/wiki/epistemology and
http://www.en.wikpedia.oeg/wiki/colonialism.
Willey, G. R., and lA. Sabloff
1980 A History ofAmerican Archaeology. Second ed. W. H. Freeman and
Company, New York.
I
Ii
I'
187
Willig Judith, A., and C. Melvin Aikens
1991 The Clovis-Archaic Interface in Western North America. In Early Human
Occupation in Far Western North America: The Clovis-Archaic InterJace,
edited by Judith A. Willig, C. Melvin Aikens, and John L. Fagan, pp. 1-
40. Nevada State Museum Anthropology Papers 21.
Windgard, George F.
1999 Carlon Village: Land, Water, Subsistence, and Sedentisim in the Northern
Great Basin. University of Oregon Anthropology Papers 57.
Zingg, Robert M.
1933 A Reconstruction ofUto-Aztecan History. Ph.D. dissertation, University
of Chicago. Published in 1939 asA Reconstruction oJUto-Aztecan
History. University ofDenver Contributions to Ethnography No.2. G. E.
Stechert, New York.
Zenah, David W.
1996 Predicting Settlement Patterns and Mobility Strategies: An Optimal
Foraging Analysis ofHunter-Gatherer Use ofMountain, Desert, and
Wetland, Habitats in the Carson Desert. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, University ofUtah.