Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-n9wrp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T19:01:56.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Archaeological Reconnaissance of Northeastern Baja California and Southeastern California

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2017

Adan E. Treganza
Adan E. Treganza*
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley, California
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper deals with the. archaeology of the northeastern region of Lower California and the southeastern portion of California. Evidence derived from these aboriginal remains indicates two possible cultural horizons, late prehistoric Yuman pottery making groups and an earlier non-ceramic group.

Most of the data have been derived from Baja California, because the area north of the International Boundary line has been so severely pot-hunted that sites fail to yield data in sufficient quantities for analysis. The area covered in this report comprises some nine hundred square miles, bounded by the Coast or Peninsular Ranges, the Superstition Mountains, and the Sierra de los Cocopas, and including the southwestern part of Imperial Valley and the northern half of Laguna Salada in Baja California.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , October 1942 , pp. 152 - 163
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1942

Access options

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

References

Amsden, C. A. 1936. An Analysis of Hohokam Pottery Design. Medallion Papers, No. 23.Google Scholar
Campbell, E. W. C. 1931. An Archaeological Survey of the Twenty-Nine Palms Region. Southwest Museum Papers, No. 7.Google Scholar
Clapp, W. B. 1907. The Surface Water Supply of California. U. S. Geological Survey Water Supply and Irrigation Paper, No. 213.Google Scholar
Davis, E. H. 1921. Early Cremation Ceremonies of the Luiseno and Diegueno Indians of Southern California. Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, Indian Notes and Monographs, Vol. 7, No. 3.Google Scholar
Drucker, P. 1937. Culture Element Distributions: V, Southern California. Anthropological Records, Vol. 1, No. 1. Berkeley.Google Scholar
Du Bois, C. G. 1907. “Diegueno Mortuary Ollas.” American Anthropologist, n. s.; Vol. 9.Google Scholar
Gifford, E. W. 1931. The Kflmia of the Imperial Valley. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 97. Washington.Google Scholar
Gifford, E. W. 1933. The Cocopa. University of California, Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 31, No. 5.Google Scholar
Gifford, E. W. 1936a. Northeastern and Western Yavapai. University of California, Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 34, No. 4.Google Scholar
Gifford, E. W. 1936b. “Cultural Relations of the Gila River and Lower Colorado Tribes.” American Anthropologist, Vol. 38, pp. 679–682.Google Scholar
Kniffen, F. B. 1931. Lower California Studies: III, The Primitive Cultural Landscapes of the Colorado Delta. University of California, Publications in Geography, Vol. 5, pp. 43–66.Google Scholar
Miegs, P. III 1939. “The Kiliwa Indians of Lower California.” Ibero-Americana, Vol. 15. Berkeley.Google Scholar
Pierce, C. C. 1939. Masterkey, Vol. 13, No. 4, p. 152.Google Scholar
Rogers, M. J. 1929. “The Stone Art of the San Dieguito Plateau.” American Anthropologist, Vol. 31, No. 3.Google Scholar
Rogers, M. J. 1936. Yuma Pottery Making. San Diego Museum Papers, No. 2.Google Scholar
Rogers, M. J. 1939. Early Lithic Industries of the Lower Basin of the Colorado River and Adjacent Desert Areas. San Diego Museum Papers, No. 3.Google Scholar
Spier, L. 1936. Cultural Relations of the Gila River and Lower Colorado Tribes. Yale University, Publications in Anthropology, No. 3.Google Scholar
Steward, J. H. 1929. Petroglyphs of California and Adjoining States. University of California, Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 24, No. 2.Google Scholar