William C. Massey’s Contributions to Baja California ... · William C. Massey’s Contributions to Baja California Prehistory Don Laylander Abstract William Clifford Massey (1917–1974)

Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly, Volume 51, Number 2

William C. Massey’s Contributions to Baja California Prehistory

Don Laylander

Abstract

William Clifford Massey (1917–1974) was a pivotal figure in the development of anthropology on the Baja California peninsula. His investigations were preceded by the observations and speculations of eighteenth-century Jesuit missionaries and nineteenth-century naturalists, as well as by the pioneering archaeological survey work of Malcolm J. Rogers in the early twentieth century. However, the range and depth of Massey’s studies in the mid-twentieth century were unprecedented. His descriptions and interpretations, although they have not gone unchallenged, established the framework for most of the investigations that have followed during the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. His contributions are reviewed here within their historical contexts, both in light of the work done by Massey’s predecessors and by looking at some of the ways in which his conclusions have been adopted or modified by subsequent research.

The Man and His Career

William Massey was born in San Mateo, California, in 1917. He studied at the University of California, Berkeley, during the late 1930s and early 1940s and then again in the late 1940s and early 1950s, after his academic career had been interrupted during World War II for work as a shipyard steamfitter. He died in 1974 at the age of 57, during a fishing trip in Placer County (Anonymous 1974; Heizer 1974).

Massey received his Ph.D. in anthropology at Berke-ley in 1955 with a dissertation on Culture History in the Cape Region of Baja California, Mexico. Among the members of his dissertation committee were Rob-ert F. Heizer and Carl O. Sauer. Heizer was a pioneer-ing investigator of the archaeology and ethnohistory of Alta California and the Great Basin. Heizer and

Massey had been fellow graduate students at Berke-ley, and they collaborated on an article that addressed Native watercraft on the coasts of both Californias (Heizer and Massey 1953). Sauer, one of the leading twentieth-century American geographers, sponsored and participated in some of Massey’s early fieldwork in Baja California. Several of Sauer’s geography students, including Fred B. Kniffen, Peveril Meigs III, Brigham Arnold, and Homer Aschmann, made notable contributions to Baja California anthropology.

Massey’s teaching career took him in succession to Merritt Community College in Oakland, the Universi-ty of Washington in Seattle, the University of Florida in Gainesville, and Texas Christian University in Ft. Worth. In addition to his fieldwork in Baja California, he carried out archaeological investigations in Alta California, Washington, Nevada, Texas, and Florida. However, the Baja California peninsula remained his preeminent research focus.

Massey’s initial survey and excavation work in Baja California took place in the years 1940–1941 and 1946–1949. He also directed small anthropological field schools on the peninsula in 1953 and 1954 under the auspices of the University of Washington and Mexico’s Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Histo-ria. Those field schools have been vividly described by one of the participating students (Tuohy 1998). Reconnaissance work took Massey through many parts of the peninsula, but his most intensive studies were concentrated in just two areas: the Cape Region

PCAS Quarterly 51(2)

Laylander38

in the far south and the mid-peninsular region around the small community of Comondú, in interior of the Sierra de la Giganta west of Loreto (Figure 1).

Between the late 1940s and the middle 1960s, Massey authored or coauthored 10 substantive studies bearing on Baja California’s prehistory (Massey 1947, 1949, 1955, 1957, 1961a, 1961b, 1966a, 1966b; Heizer and Massey 1953; Massey and Osborne 1961). In

addition, his publications made reference to at least eight unpublished manuscripts on the peninsula’s past: “An Historical Ethnography of Lower California,” “The Pericú Indians of Lower California,” “Jesuit Explorations in Lower California: 1698–1766,” “Fray Luis Sales’ Description,” “Caves of the Sierra de la Giganta,” “Petroglyphs of Baja California,” “Pottery from the Northwest Coast of Baja California Norte, Mexico,” and “Coiled Basketry from Central Baja

Figure 1. Map of the peninsula of Baja California.


William C. Massey’s Contributions to Baja California Prehistory 39

California and Its Affiliations.” The last four of these were coauthored with one of his students, Donald R. Tuohy.

Along with Massey’s own writings, direct outgrowths of his work can be seen in the publications of Tuohy (1970, 1978, 1984, 1998; Tuohy and Strawn 1989; Tuohy and Van Wormer 1995) (Figure 2) and of Massey’s former wife, Lee Gooding Massey (1968, 1972, 1974, 1976). More generally, subsequent archaeologists and other investigators probing the pen-insula’s prehistory have relied heavily on the founda-tions that were provided by William Massey’s pioneer-ing work. A symposium commemorating his contri-butions was held in 1998 at the Annual Meeting of the Society for California Archaeology in San Diego, and many papers from that session were published in two issues of the Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly (Ritter 1998).

Peninsula-Wide Archaeological Inventory

Most field investigations of Baja California’s pre-historic archaeology, both before and after Massey’s time, have been relatively narrow in geographical scope. They have usually focused on a single site, a small group of sites, or a limited region. One partial early exception was provided by the 1890s investiga-tions of Léon Diguet, who inventoried rock art sites

throughout more than half of the peninsula, from the Central Sierras to the Cape Region (Grant 1974). Another exception was the work of Malcolm Rogers (Laylander and Bendímez 2013). Rogers personally documented numerous sites in the northern quarter of the peninsula, and he had his father, Frederick Rogers, record sites along both Pacific and Gulf coasts of the remainder of the peninsula.

Near the start of his career, Massey published his “Brief Report on Archaeological Investigations in Baja California” (1947), an overview based primarily on his own initial reconnaissance of the peninsula. The article provided comparative comments on the artifacts, features, sites, and regional patterns ob-served in the Cape Region, Magdalena Plain, Great Volcanic Plateau (Central Sierras), Northern Deserts (the northern half of Aschmann’s [1959] Central Desert), and Northwestern Baja California. The presence or absence of shell middens and interior sites, their horizontal extents and stratigraphic depths, and noteworthy artifacts and features were recorded. Significant gaps in Massey’s coverage included the Colorado Desert in the northeast and the islands lying off the two coasts, particularly Isla Espíritu Santo in the southern Gulf and Isla Cedros off the west coast, both of which would figure prominently in subse-quent archaeological studies (e.g. Des Lauriers 2010; Fujita 2010).

Figure 2. William C. Massey (left) and Donald R. Tuohy in 1960 (reprinted from Tuohy 1998:84).


Laylander40

Although Massey’s article amounted to little more than a dozen pages, it was a more thorough and de-tailed firsthand archaeological overview than anything that had been produced by any single observer. Its geographical scope would not be matched during the decades that followed. Partly because the general framework of Massey’s overview was available to subsequent investigators, those archaeologists have felt free to focus their fieldwork within narrower geographical contexts. Partial exceptions have been the reconnaissance of Great Mural pictograph sites throughout the peninsula’s central sierras by Harry W. Crosby (1975) and Enrique Hambleton (1979) and Eric W. Ritter’s many successive studies in diverse areas on the central peninsula’s coasts, around Bahía Concepción, the Vizcaíno Lagoons, and Bahía de los Ángeles (e.g., Ritter 2006a, 2006b, 2006c). The resource management responsibilities of the Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia (INAH) centers for Baja California in Mexicali and for Baja California Sur in La Paz are also tending to impel their staffs to adopt broad geographical perspectives within the pen-insula’s northern and southern halves, respectively.

Ethnogeography

Eighteenth-century Jesuit missionaries and histori-ans devoted considerable attention to the ethnic and linguistic geography of aboriginal Baja California, although the conclusions they proposed were often ambiguous or inconsistent. Subsequent scholars during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries usually followed the secondhand syntheses offered by the Jesuit historians Miguel Venegas, Andrés Burriel, and Francisco Javier Clavijero (Venegas 1757, 1759; Clavijero 1789, 1937).

Massey made a notable contribution in his 1949 article, “Tribes and Languages of Baja California,” in which he returned to the original early historical sources and attempted to work out the prehistoric linguistic geography of the peninsula in greater detail

(Figure 3). Particularly notable were his efforts to define precise linguistic boundaries by plotting the locations of named Pericú, Guaycura, Monqui, and Cochimí rancheria sites in Baja California Sur. For the northern quarter of Baja California, where Yuman groups survived and were known through ethnograph-ic rather than historical reports, he was content to adopt the ethnolinguistic mapping that was provided by the Berkeley ethnographers and geographers.

Massey’s delineation earned its place as the peninsu-la’s standard linguistic map for several decades. How-ever, in a few areas, subsequent revisions of his maps and interpretations have been necessary (Mixco 1978, 2006; Laylander 1997). In part, these revisions result-ed from the more extensive publication of primary ethnohistoric sources by Ernest J. Burrus, W. Michael Mathes, Miguel León-Portilla, and others during the second half of the twentieth century. However, Massey had been able to consult most of the sources in manu-script form at the Bancroft Library in Berkeley.

In the Cape Region, Massey projected a separate Huchiti language or a group of languages, including Periue, Aripe, Huchiti proper, and Cora. A reevalua-tion of the evidence has suggested that this separation was not warranted. The Periue and Aripe may be more plausibly considered as Guaycura speakers. The Cora were identical with the Pericú, while the Huchi-ti proper may have been either Guaycura or Pericú (Laylander 1997:14–29). In the immediate vicinity of Loreto, Massey’s identification of the Monqui with the Cochimí also seems to have been based on a misread-ing of the early historic evidence. The Monqui appear to have spoken a separate language, possibly related to Guaycura (Laylander 1997:33–40).

In higher-level linguistic classifications, two of Massey’s conclusions have also been questioned, although not definitively rejected. Massey followed previous investigators in including Cochimí (“Pen-insular Yuman”) within the Yuman language family.



While a genetic relationship between Cochimí and Yu-man is evident, Mixco (1978, 2006) suggested that the weakness of the connection is such that the two should instead be considered sister linguistic families. In the far south, Massey linked Guaycura and Pericú (as well as Huchiti) into a single “Guaicurian” family, appar-ently on the basis of their geographical propinquity and the smallness of the region involved. No evidence to support such a link was adduced by Massey or by subsequent investigators, probably because the surviv-ing linguistic evidence concerning the Pericú language is extremely meager (León-Portilla 1976).

Artifact Description and Classification

Published descriptions of the prehistoric artifacts found at Baja California sites were generally cur-sory prior to Massey’s work. One of his major

contributions was providing detailed descriptions of several collections, including those resulting from his own fieldwork and those from two of his predeces-sors. His published descriptions and analyses included the materials from his dissertation work in the Cape Region (Massey 1955), the 1877 Edward Palmer col-lection from near Bahía de los Ángeles (Massey and Osborne 1961), and the early-twentieth-century col-lection of César Castaldí from the southern half of the peninsula (Massey 1966a). The materials described in detail included not only the usual lithic artifacts, ceramic artifacts, and invertebrate and vertebrate fau-nal wastes but also many less commonly encountered items (Table 1).

Because of the pioneering character of his work, Massey faced the question of adopting or creating appropriate standards for describing, classifying, and

Figure 3. Aboriginal linguistic geography of Baja California, according to Massey (1949:274) (left) and as revised (Laylander 1997:13; Mixco 2006:25) (right).


Laylander42

Category Dissertation Palmer Collection Castaldí Collection

Lithic

Projectile point, blade + a + a

Knife + +

Scraper, scraper-plane + +

Chopper + +

Drill +

Core +

Flake +

Hammer +

Pick +

Tubular pipe + + a

Mano + +

Metate + +

Drilled sandstone ring +

Worked pumice +

Worked gypsum +

Pottery +

Shell

Tool + a

Bead + a +

Other ornament + a +

Bone

Awl + + +

Spatula + +

Flaker +

Tooth ornament +

Other animal products

Skin + +

Feathers + +

Human hair cape +

Wood, cane

Atlatl +

Projectile shaft +

Flaker handle +

Hook +

Hinged stick snare +

Paddle +

Fire drill hearth +

Lozenge-shaped board +

Bull-roarer +

Bead + +

Pin +

Whistle +

Cactus spine + +

Table 1. Artifact Categories Discussed in Massey’s Publications.



naming the artifacts he reported. The issue was partic-ularly pertinent in the case of projectile points. Possi-ble alternative approaches have included: (1) simple description; (2) intuitive morphological classification; (3) rigorous (keyed) morphological classification; (4) technological classification; and (5) interpretive typ-ing, lumping together points that were believed to be associated chronologically or to belong to a common culture. It has been possible to mix more than one approach. For instance, within a general interpretive (chronological/cultural) category of “Pinto projectile points,” Rogers (1939:Plate 13) included large and small points; side-notched, corner-notched, triangu-lar, and leaf-shaped points; and concave, convex, and straight-based points. These Pinto points were then assigned to intuitively distinguished morphological Types 1, 2, 3, etc.

In his initial overview of peninsular archaeology, Massey simply characterized the points morpholog-ically. For instance, he wrote that “projectile points in the La Paz area were usually large; common, and unique to the area, are a long slender tang-stemmed

type, and a large broad type with a stubby convex stem” (Massey 1947:347).

Next, in his dissertation on the Cape Region, Massey (1955:359–360) implemented a more rigorous, systematic, keyed typology based on the points’ morphological attributes, modified from the point clas-sification used by Emil Haury (1950) at Ventana Cave in Arizona. Massey applied this same scheme with minor changes to the more extensive Castaldí collec-tion of points from throughout southern Baja Califor-nia (Massey 1966a:40). Attributes considered in the typology included overall shape, presence or absence of a stem, the stem’s relative width, the stem’s shape, the shoulder’s shape, and the base’s shape (Table 2). Conspicuously not considered was the attribute of point size (cf. Thomas 1981).

In later publications Massey (1961a, 1966a, 1966b) relied more heavily on intuitively recognized, morphological-interpretive projectile point types. A system of named point types had been developed primarily in the Mojave Desert and Great Basin, and

Category Dissertation Palmer Collection Castaldí Collection

Sewn barkMat + +

Container +

Cotton cloth +

Cordage

Netting + + +

Twined fiber bundle +

Braid +

String + + +

Knot + + +

Tump band +

Basketry

Coiled + +

Sandal +

Mat +

Table 1. Continued.

a Formal typology used.Note: + = described.Sources: Massey 1955, 1966a; Massey and Osborne 1961.


Laylander44

Type

Without stem

Leaf-shaped

Pointed base I B 1

Convex base I B 2

Straight base I B 3

Concave base I B 4

Triangular

Convex base I C 1

Straight base I C 2

Concave base I C 3

Diamond

Pointed I D 1

Straight or convex base I D 2

Concave base I D 3

With stem

Stem wider than body

Convex base II A 1

Straight base II A 2

Concave base II A 3

Stem narrower than body

Tapering (tanged) stem

Rounded shoulderPointed base II B 1 a 1

Convex base II B 1 a 2

Straight shoulderPointed base II B 1 b 1

Convex base II B 1 b 2

Barbed shoulderPointed base II B 1 c 1

Convex base II B 1 c 2

Parallel-sided stem

Rounded shoulder


Straight base II B 2 a 2

Concave base II B 2 a 3

Straight shoulder


Straight base II B 2 b 2

Concave base II B 2 b 3

Barbed shoulder


Straight base II B 2 c 2

Concave base II B 2 c 3

Expanding stem

Rounded shoulder


Straight base II B 3 a 2

Concave base II B 3 a 3

Straight shoulder


Straight base II B 3 b 2

Concave base II B 3 b 3

Barbed shoulder


Straight base II B 3 c 2

Concave base II B 3 c 3

Table 2. Massey’s (1966a) Projectile Point Typology.



Massey incorporated two of those designations, Pinto Basin and Gypsum Cave, into his own work, and he added two new point type designations, La Paz and Loreto.

Subsequent to Massey’s work, several investigators have analyzed and classified large collections of pre-historic Baja California projectile points (Davis 1968; Ritter 1979; Carmean 1994; Serafín 1995; Ritter and Burcell 1998; Moranchel 2014). Those studies adopt-ed a variety of approaches to point classification, but Massey’s attempt to establish a rigorous morphologi-cal classification has been generally ignored. Instead, the most prevalent approach has been based on named, intuitively distinguished, morphological-interpretive point types. Named types that were defined mostly in the Great Basin and southern California and that have had their ranges extended into the peninsula include Clovis, Lake Mojave, Silver Lake, Elko, San Pedro (from southern Arizona), Cottonwood, Desert, and Dos Cabezas. New types proposed for Baja Califor-nia have included Comondú, Descanso, El Arco, El Zacateco, Guajademí, Guerrero Negro, Huamalgüeño, Manuela, Roma, San Felipe, Vallecito, Vizcaíno, and Zacatecas. Whether this intuitive morphological-in-terpretive approach to point typology has been or is likely to be a fruitful one remains an open question.

Atlatls and Darts

One outcome of Massey’s 1947 fieldwork in the Cape Region was the discovery of four wooden atlatls (dart-throwers) in a cave burial bundle. The rarity of such artifacts at North American archaeological sites led him to consider the culture-historical im-plications of the finds. In this, as in much else, he was following in the footsteps of his colleague Paul Kirchhoff (1942:xxxiii–xxxiv; see also Kirchhoff, this Quarterly issue). Massey’s observations, research, and speculations were published in an article on “The Dart-thrower in Baja California” (Massey 1957) and then in a slightly revised version as “The Survival of

the Dart-thrower on the Peninsula of Baja California” (Massey 1961b).

According to Massey, early ethnohistoric evidence provided the key to understanding the anomaly:

Many of the reports [concerning southern Baja California] for the period between 1535 and 1697 contain information on the use of the dart-thrower by the natives, or of the wooden darts with fire-hardened tips which seem to have been associated with the throw-er. There is no such evidence for the use of the dart-thrower from central and northern Baja California for this or later periods [Massey 1961b:84].

Massey acknowledged that the bow and arrow had been in use throughout the peninsula by the time of initial European contacts. However, the persistence of this alternative technology side-by-side in the extreme south until the mid-seventeenth century suggested the likelihood that the arrival of the bow and arrow in that region had been relatively recent and that prehistoric cultural diffusion down the peninsula had therefore been extremely slow, perhaps requiring as many as 1,000 years in this instance.

Massey somewhat overstated the evidence in support of this view (cf. Laylander 2007). He only identified two historic references to the atlatl itself, and one of those now appears likely to have been based on a misread-ing of the evidence. Ethnohistoric references to darts (dardos) and other large projectiles were considerably more numerous, more widely distributed throughout the Californias, and more persistent throughout the historic period than Massey had recognized. However, the physical survival of wooden atlatls at Cape Region archaeological sites was confirmed by subsequent additional finds (Fujita 1995; Molto and Fujita 1995), and this does suggest the possibility of an unusual per-sistence of atlatl-and-dart technology in that region.


Laylander46

Watercraft

Another anomalous geographical pattern was discussed by Heizer and Massey in their 1953 article on “Ab-original Navigation off the Coasts of Upper and Baja California.” Along most of the Pacific and Gulf coasts of both Californias, the prevalent form of prehistoric watercraft was the balsa, made from bundles of tule (bulrush; Scirpus sp.) or similar materials. Heizer and Massey documented exceptions in four regions on the basis of ethnohistoric and ethnographic evidence. On the coast of Alta California north of Bodega Bay, dugout canoes and log rafts were constructed. In the Southern California Bight, elaborate plank canoes were made in the Santa Barbara Channel area, and dugout canoes were made farther south by the Luiseño. On Isla Cedros, lying off the west coast of Baja California, and again in the Cape Region from Cabo San Lucas to Bahía de La Paz, log rafts were made (Figure 4).

The differences in watercraft within Baja California seemed to have been attributable, at least in large part, to differences in the locally available materials. The

higher elevations of Isla Cedros offered “cedar” (ac-tually pine; Monterey pine, Pinus radiata, or Bishop pine, P. muricata). Forested areas in the Cape Region offered pine and other trees.

Heizer and Massey minimized the importance of ma-rine watercraft to most of aboriginal California:

With the partial exceptions of the Chumash of the Santa Barbara Channel, who were accustomed to fish in deep waters in their sea-going plank canoes, and the Pericue of Cape San Lucas, who went out of sight of land on fishing expeditions, the coastal tribes of Upper and Baja California could hardly be called maritime. Boats, whether dugouts, balsas, or rafts, seem incidental and generally nonessential cultural features of the whole area [Heizer and Massey 1953:290–291].

The researchers had perhaps underestimated the role of watercraft on the peninsula’s coasts. Thomas Bowen (2009) found ethnohistoric or archaeological evidence, or both, for Native activity on virtually ev-ery island in the Gulf of California. A similar pattern seems to hold true for the islands off the peninsula’s west coast (Laylander 2013). In particular, archaeolog-ical evidence of substantial prehistoric island settle-ment has been noted on Isla Cedros and Isla Espíritu Santo (Des Lauriers 2010; Fujita 2010).

Subsequent archaeological investigations also suggest that Massey may have misinterpreted the character and significance of Isla Cedros’s “log rafts.” The is-land’s watercraft seem to have been more complex in their construction than simple log rafts (Des Lauriers 2005). Additionally, the source of the wood used in the boats apparently did not simply come from Isla Ced-ros’s own forests, as Heizer and Massey had supposed, but in addition or instead came from large driftwood logs that had been carried south by the California Current to the coasts of Bahía de Sebastián Vizcaíno Figure 4. Native use of a log raft at Cabo San Lucas, as

reported by the English privateer George Shelvocke (1726).



with or without ochre painting of the bones, which had been particularly noted by the nineteenth-century investigators, as well as primary burial in ventrally extended, side-flexed, and tightly flexed modes, and possibly also cremation. Considerable variability in the artifacts that accompanied the burials was noted and described. Outside of the Cape Region, Massey and Osborne (1961) restudied the materials in the important 1887 Edward Palmer collection, taken from a burial cave near Bahía de los Ángeles.

Advances in these studies have continued, particularly in the study of the human remains themselves. The skeletal materials recovered by Massey were subse-quently analyzed in the 1970s for their morphology and pathologies by Rose Noble Tyson (Noble 1973; Tyson 1977), Arturo Romano Pacheco (1977), and José Antonio Pompa y Padilla (1977). Subsequent physical anthropological studies in Baja California have been expanded to include chemical isotope analysis to infer diet and DNA analysis to reconstruct descent (e.g., Molto and Kennedy 1991; Monroe and Kemp 2013).

Peoples, Cultures, and Industries

Closely related to the issue of intuitively recognized and named projectile point types is the issue of larger descriptive and interpretive categories variously proposed to represent prehistoric periods, cultures, peoples, industries, or simply archaeological patterns. The peninsula’s earliest archaeological explorers gave little thought to creating and christening such cate-gories. One minor exception was Arthur Walbridge North (1908:244); he wrote of the northern peninsula’s rock art creators, explaining that “for want of a better name I shall designate them the ‘Petroglyph Makers.’ ” The first archaeologist to apply a relatively elaborate terminology to the sites and assemblages of Baja Cali-fornia was Malcolm J. Rogers (1939, 1945, 1966). He distinguished a chronological sequence composed of three major units, each of which was in turn subdivid-

from as far away as northern Alta California. On Isla Cedros, Des Lauriers reported the probable remains from two boats, one constructed from cedar (perhaps incense cedar, Calocedrus decurrens?) and the second from redwood (presumably coast redwood, Sequoia sempervirens). Across Bahía de Sebastián Vizcaíno on the shores of the peninsula itself, several finds of large worked logs that may represent the remains of prehistoric watercraft have been observed (Moriarty and Moriarty 1980; Porcayo and Bendímez 2013; Julia Bendímez Patterson, personal communication 2013). Whether those logs represent driftwood that was locally worked into watercraft or whether they may represent watercraft that had been manufactured in northwestern Alta California is not known. An in-triguing possibility is that watercraft technology might have diffused to central Baja California from north-western Alta California without any personal contacts, via the California Current.

Human Burials

Eighteenth- and nineteenth-century archaeologists working in Baja California had two main preoccupa-tions, rock art and human burials (Laylander 2014). Massey (1966b:51) published little on rock art, although that topic would continue to be a major focus for subsequent investigators. He made more substan-tial contributions toward the study of human remains and their archaeological contexts.

Massey’s fieldwork in the Cape Region resulted in the excavation of more than 40 burials. These re-mains were initially curated at the Lowie Museum in Berkeley and later with INAH in Mexico City. Massey himself did not describe in detail the skeletal materials he found as some of his predecessors had done (ten Kate 1884; Rivet 1909).

Massey’s excavations in the Cape Region document-ed several different modes of burial (Massey 1947, 1966b). These included secondary bundle burials,


Laylander48

ed into multiple phases: San Dieguito I, II, III, and IV; La Jolla I and II; and Yuman I, II, and III.

In his initial overview Massey (1947) adopted parts of Rogers’ scheme but modified and expanded it, both with other units from western North America and with patterns that were specific to the peninsula. One early suggestion was to designate the producers of secondary cave burials in the Cape Region as the “Cerro Cuevoso people” (Massey 1947:345). Another entity recognized in Massey’s earliest formulation was the “Chapala culture” or “Chapala Industry” at Laguna Chapala in the northern Central Desert (Massey 1947:354). Sim-ilarities were recognized between the Chapala culture and the “Pinto-Gypsum Culture” of the Mojave Desert, but Massey did not explicitly propose that the latter unit was present on the peninsula. Similarities with the “Lake Mohave and Playa complexes,” “Playa Industry,” or “Lake Mohave Culture” were also noted, and in this case Massey (1947:356) averred that “we have found that the Playa-San Dieguito Industry (Lake Mohave) is recognizable as far south as Dry Lake Chapala.”

In his dissertation Massey (1955) proposed a new unit based on the results of his excavations in the Cape Re-gion. This was the Las Palmas culture, which replaced the previous designation of the Cerro Cuevoso people. Massey provided detailed descriptions of the features and the recovered Las Palmas assemblages, and he discussed the problem of their relationship with other manifestations both within and beyond the peninsula. Nonetheless, the definition of the unit was vague and merely intuitive.

Later, discussing “The Cultural Distinction of Aborig-inal Baja California” in 1961, Massey rejected some of Rogers’ claims concerning the peninsula’s early cultures:

The poorly defined La Jolla culture can be traced as far south as the 30th parallel on the Pacific coast [i.e., the latitude of El Rosario].

But while there are enormous shell middens in various parts of the peninsula, there is no basis for assigning them to the La Jol-la culture without first excavating them in various areas. As we understand the archae-ology now, the San Dieguito Culture appears to have played little part. There are few, if any, such materials south of the International Border [Massey 1961a:416].

While he limited or rejected the application of La Jolla and San Dieguito to the peninsula’s archaeology, he extended the ranges of some other constructs. Rog-ers (1939) had defined Pinto-Gypsum and Amargosa industries in the Mojave Desert and the Great Basin but had not included Baja California within their geographical ranges. Massey understood phases I and II of Amargosa as corresponding to Pinto Basin and Gypsum Cave assemblages respectively, and he recognized those as extending from the 30th paral-lel south to the Cape Region. In the 1961 article he also proposed another new unit, the late prehistoric Comondú culture, distinguished in the eastern portions of central Baja California, from Bahía de los Ángeles south to Mulegé (Massey 1961a).

His last published synthesis (Massey 1966b) used a full array of complexes or cultures to sort out the pen-insula’s prehistoric archaeology. He recognized:

• the San Dieguito complex (Playa complex) in phases I, II, and III (but not Rogers’ phase IV), represented in particular at Laguna Chapala;

• more doubtfully, the La Jolla complex;• the Pinto Basin complex (Amargosa I), found on

the peninsula from Laguna Chapala south; • Gypsum Cave (Amargosa II), represented by pro-

jectile points whose “main concentration seems to be on the gulf coast around Loreto and Mulege” (Massey 1966b:45);

• Amargosa (Amargosa III), although “at present, the Amargosa culture, as originally outlined by M.



J. Rogers ..., is represented only by a few projec-tile points in the Castaldí Collection” (Massey 1966b:46);

• the Las Palmas culture; and• the Comondú culture.

The article described the latter two units, confined to the peninsula and only recently proposed by Massey himself, in greater detail than Rogers’ units. While de-scriptions and illustrations of representative elements of the various units were provided, the complexes or cultures remained essentially undefined and only intuitively distinguished.

Massey’s archaeological successors have widely, although not universally, followed his use of named, intuitively distinguished cultures, complexes, peri-ods, industries, or ambiguous mixtures of those cat-egories. However, at least two factors have increas-ingly complicated this practice. First, the emerging availability of radiocarbon dates, now numbering in the hundreds for Baja California, makes it possible to construct an absolute chronological framework rather than relying upon a merely relative one for regional prehistory. Second, the wider distribution of inten-sive surveys and excavations makes more acute the problems of distinguishing cultural boundaries and of dealing with gradational variation within individual patterns.

Migration, Diffusion, and the Layer Cake Model

Another lasting contribution from Massey’s Baja Cal-ifornia investigations was his formulation of the Layer Cake model of the peninsula’s culture history. This model, given its designation by Tuohy (1978; see also Kowta 1984), was derived to a substantial degree from the ideas of Massey’s predecessors and contemporar-ies, but Massey gave it its definitive form.

The questions of prehistoric migrations and van-ished cultures engaged the imaginations of many of

Massey’s predecessors. These included the eigh-teenth-century Jesuits Sigismundo Taraval, Miguel Venegas, Andrés Marcos Burriel, Lambert Hostell, Johann Jakob Baegert, José Mariano Rotea, and Francisco Javier Clavijero, as well as the later in-vestigators Léon Diguet and Arthur Walbridge North (Laylander 2014). The consensus view was that prehistoric Baja California had been settled by immi-grants entering from the north who had arrived either as adventurous pioneers or as refugees in flight from their stronger foes. The presumption of northern origins was probably based primarily on the peninsu-la’s geographical configuration, although some of the early writers thought that they had received confir-mation in the surviving Native peoples’ oral tradi-tions. An alternative, more radical interpretation was suggested by the anthropologist Paul Rivet (1909), who proposed that the peninsula’s far south had been settled by trans-Pacific voyagers from Australia or Melanesia.

The first person to develop a more detailed scenario for the peninsula’s culture history, integrating informa-tion from archaeology, ethnography, and ethnohistory, was Malcolm J. Rogers (Laylander and Bendímez 2013). Rogers’ initial formulations of the question (Rogers 1939, 1945) predated Massey’s own con-tributions; a subsequent elaboration (Rogers 1966) overlapped in time with Massey’s most active period, and some cross-fertilization in ideas between the two researchers is evident in both men’s writings.

According to Rogers (1939:71), the earliest San Dieguito patterns reflected “a definite drift to the south into the cul-de-sac of the Lower California peninsula.” The San Dieguito IV pattern in the Cape Region rep-resented a survival of the early pattern into the historic period, the pattern having undergone only limited subsequent modifications to become the culture of the ethnohistoric Pericú people. Elsewhere on the penin-sula, the San Dieguito people had been replaced by the littoral-oriented La Jollans.


Laylander50

Later, around AD 1450, in response to the desiccation of Lake Cahuilla in the Salton Basin of southeastern Alta California and northeastern Baja California, Rogers suggested:

… the sudden impact caused by large groups leaving the west half of the Colorado desert was transmitted into a less leisurely migra-tion than that practised earlier. ... the flow was directed principally into the Lower Cali-fornia peninsula, whose central mountainous area had but meager pre-Yuman population if archaeology is any index. The La Jolla people’s habitat was confined to a thin Pacific frontage, and the war-like Yumans should have met with but slight opposition in driving them into the southern half of the peninsula [Rogers 1945:194].

Noting the similarities between central Baja Califor-nia’s Cochimí and the Seri hunter-gatherers living on the Sonoran coast, Rogers (1945:194) also suggested a prehistoric west-to-east emigration of the Seri from the peninsula across the middle Gulf of California’s island chain.

Paul Kirchhoff was the key intellectual ancestor of the Layer Cake model. In the 1950s Kirchhoff would play a role in Massey’s Baja California field school, and he was Massey’s colleague in the anthropology faculty of the University of Washington until Kirchhoff was denied reentry into the U.S. as a result of McCar-thy-era anti-communism (Tuohy 1998). Back in 1942 Kirchhoff published a seminal essay, “Las tribus de la Baja California y el libro del P. Baegert,” in which he expounded views on the peninsula’s culture history, based primarily on inferences drawn from the ethno-historically recorded distributions of cultural traits (Kirchhoff 1942, see also Kirchhoff, this Quarterly issue). He discussed waves of migration and cultural diffusion extending down the peninsula’s callejón sin salida (cul-de-sac) and the insulation of more

southerly areas from some of those waves. He also noted the possibility of additional migrations or diffu-sion southward along the Pacific coastline or westward across the Gulf of California.

Massey, in his reformulations of the Layer Cake model, was able to infuse Kirchhoff’s ethnographic model with archaeologically documented time depth and detail. Massey first addressed the issue in his 1947 archaeological reconnaissance article. He noted:

It has been usual to regard the Pericú Indians at the tip of the peninsula of Baja California as descendants of old immigrants who were forced, or wandered, into the cul-de-sac. Sur-vival was made possible because of their ex-treme marginal position shut off from the rest of North America by hostile deserts, the Gulf of California, and the Pacific Ocean.... The linguistic ‘strata’ wherein the Guaicurá, Pericú, and Cora are cut off from the north by the deep penetration of Yuman groups, lends credence to the belief that the southern tribes had been pushed to the south [Massey 1947:356].

A footnote added, “It is noteworthy that in historic times the movement in progress was the reverse—Pericú and Huchití were moving north and in constant aggressive warfare with the more peaceful Yuman groups” (Massey 1947:356). He also noted other com-plications to Rogers’ model:

It is still not certain that the historic groups [in the Cape Region] ... were direct descen-dants of the earliest migrants. In the south there is a considerable complexity in the cultural inventory, with probably divergent cultural traditions, which it is difficult to assign to a single original branch.

... The Yuman invasion of the peninsula may have been late, but the peninsula had been



well settled for a long time prior to their arrival. This is borne out both by the archaeo-logical remains and by the historic ethnogra-phy of the peninsula [Massey 1947:357].

In his 1947 comments Massey manifested his primary commitment to migration rather than diffusion or local innovation as an explanation for cultural variability.

In concluding his 1949 article on “Tribes and Lan-guages,” Massey expressed a reservation concerning Rogers’ suggestion of a very late entry for the Yumans (i.e., the Cochimí):

Any theory which explains the Peninsular Yu-mans as a recent migration southward from the California and Colorado deserts must explain, among other things, how these groups lost such important traits as pottery-making and possession of the dog. It is more reasonable to believe that [the Cochimí groups] ... had been in Baja California for a long, long time, and that they arrived prior to the adoption of such traits and pottery-making by their linguistic relatives to the north [Massey 1949:305].

Again, the implication is clear that differences in traits must be explained by migration rather than either by the slowness of diffusion or by adaptive unsuitability of traits to some regions.

In his 1955 dissertation on the Cape Region, Massey returned to these themes:

There can be no doubt that the ancestors of the peoples of the Cape Region arrived from the north in an overland migration. It is possible that there were coastwise, partial-ly sea-borne, migrations of fisher people. However, the bulk of the evidence points to a continental orientation of economy for

historic and prehistoric peoples of the Cape Region {Massey1955:344].

Presumably the historic inhabitants of the south were descendants of the earliest migrants; but there could have been absorp-tion or elimination of early groups by later migrants [Massey 1955:345].

There is cultural, linguistic, and somato-logical evidence that unity which may have existed on the peninsula at an early time was subsequently altered by later migrations and cultural diffusions [Massey 1955:346].

The culture of the historic and prehistoric Cape peoples may be derived in severalty from a number of sources. Firstly, there may be retention of early traits which came into the area with the original migrants or which have been obtained by diffusion at some ear-ly time by their descendants. Such traits are assumed to have a northern origin. Second, traits may have entered by diffusion or with later migrations from the north. Third, it is probable that some traits and complexes may have been introduced into the area directly across the Gulf of California, or by indirect diffusion from the east by way of some inter-mediary group to the north on the peninsula. Last of all, some few traits may be local in origin [Massey 1955:346–347].

I am inclined to think that the Guaicura groups are historical representatives of an Amargosa migration. In any event, we can eliminate as implausible the suggestion of Rogers that non-Yuman historic peoples of the peninsula held culture of San Dieguito origin. On the basis of archaeological surveys such influences appear to extend only to


Laylander52

about the thirtieth parallel on the Pacific coast [Massey 1955:355].

Secondary burial in the Cape Region seemed to constitute an important exception to the Layer Cake model:

The entire secondary burial complex appears to be intrusive to the area. At the moment there appears little likelihood that it could be local in origin. It is equally unlikely that it could be a retention of an old complex which disappeared from the record in the Great Basin, California, or the Southwest. It is a known practice directly across the Gulf…. The idea of secondary burial … may have been transmitted to the Cape Region by some rude intermediary. A people like the little-known Guasave coastal dwellers [in Sinaloa] could have been such cultural inter-mediaries [Massey 1955:352–353].

Going beyond the simple Layer Cake model, Massey’s interpretation of Cape Region culture history thus in-cluded consideration of multiple possible mechanisms for cultural differentiation and multiple directions of possible migrations or influences. However, the ori-gins of traits were still apparently to be ascribed, with decreasing probability, to the following: (1) migration from the north, (2) diffusion from the north, (3) diffu-sion from the east, and (4) local innovation.

Massey’s 1961 essay on “The Cultural Distinction of Aboriginal Baja California” was devoted specifically to issues of culture history, and it presented the Layer Cake model both verbally and graphically (Figure 5):

As Kirchhoff pointed out, the peninsula has an aspect of cultural layering (Kirchhoff 1942). Certainly it can be likened to a strati-fied archaeological site. The farther south one proceeds—and consequently the deeper into

the cultural strata—the older are the cultural materials, and the greater the differentiation from those of the north. This is virtually true on all time levels. Cultural impulses diffused but slowly toward the Cape Region, where older cultural patterns and lifeways were retained into historic times [Massey 1961a:414].

References to the “diffusion” of “cultural impulses” may be slightly misleading, if it is taken to imply non-migrational processes. Massey continued to equate cultural differences with linguistic identities:

On the historic ethnographic level these linguistic differences of major order coin-cide with cultural differences of major order. Minor linguistic differences correlate with minor differences in other aspects of cul-ture…. These differences in cultural items ap-pear to represent distinct migrations into the

Figure 5. Massey’s Layer Cake model of peninsular prehistory (after Massey 1961a:419, 1966b:56).



cul-de-sac and the retarded diffusion of traits southward (Massey 1961a:414–415).

Massey’s final 1966 synthesis of peninsular prehis-tory reiterated much of his 1961 discussion, backed with more detailed supporting evidence. Subsequent investigators have continued to debate the relative roles of migration, diffusion, and local innovation in creating geographical variations in the archaeologi-cal and ethnohistoric records within Baja California (e.g., Tuohy 1978; Kowta 1984; Laylander and Moore 2006; Macfarlan and Henrickson 2010). It seems fair to say, however, that the layer-cake image of a cultural stratum that was expressed ethnohistorically in one region but that must underlie archaeologically all the regions farther north has received little confirmation or support.

Conclusions

Massey’s investigations into Baja California’s prehis-tory can rightly be seen as part of a larger historical movement in New World archaeology. What Willey and Sabloff (1980) termed the Classificatory-Histori-cal period of American archaeology, but what Trigger (1989) termed Culture-Historical archaeology in North America, was introduced into Baja California by Mal-colm Rogers, reaching a peak in Massey’s work. The direct historical approach, which relied heavily on the use of ethnohistoric evidence about Native cultures to interpret the prehistoric archaeological record, played a large role in Massey’s research. His contributions also reflect trends toward a greater role for profession-al anthropological training and toward more detailed descriptive studies as the foundation for culture histor-ical inferences.

In Massey’s work there are few if any premonitions of subsequent trends representing an Explanatory Period, the New Archaeology, or Processualism, much less Post-Processualism. As well, many of the specifics of Massey’s conclusions inevitably need to

be reconsidered in the light of further evidence from another half century of increasingly intensive archaeo-logical investigations on the peninsula. However, much of what he wrote concerning regional differences in the archaeological record, ethnogeography, the description and comparison of artifacts and assemblages, and cul-ture-historical classification and interpretation in Baja California remains fundamental to present-day studies.

Acknowledgments

Thanks are due, as always, to the conscientious editors of the Quarterly. Thanks also go to Zee Malas for refining Figure 2. The several reviewers’ comments are much appreciated.

References Cited

Anonymous1974 Deaths: William Massey. Anthropology News

15(8):4. American Anthropological Associa-tion.

Aschmann, Homer1959 The Central Desert of Baja California: De-

mography and Ecology. Iberoamericana Vol. 42. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.

Bowen, Thomas2009 The Record of Native Peoples on Gulf of

California Islands. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series No. 201. Tucson.

Carmean, Kelli1994 A Metrical Study of Baja California Sur Pro-

jectile Points. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 30(1):52–74.

Clavijero, Francisco Javier1789 Storia della California. 2 vols. Appresso

Modesto Penzo, Venice.


Laylander54

1937 The History of (Lower) California. Edited by A. A. Gray. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.

Crosby, Harry W.1975 The Cave Paintings of Baja California: The

Great Murals of an Unknown People. Copley Press, Salt Lake City.

Davis, Emma Lou1968 An Archaeological Reconnaissance in the

Central Desert of Baja California. Archaeo-logical Survey Annual Report 10:176–208. Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Des Lauriers, Matthew Richard2005 The Watercraft of Isla Cedros, Baja Califor-

nia: Variability and Capabilities of Indige-nous Seafaring Technology along the Pacific Coast of North America. American Antiquity 70(2):342–360.

2010 Island of Fogs: Archaeological and Ethno-historical Investigations of Isla Cedros, Baja California. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Fujita, Harumi1995 Lanzadardos encontrados en la península de

Baja California. Revista COBACH 11:31–34.2010 Prehistoric Occupation of Espíritu Santo

Island, Baja California Sur, Mexico: Update and Synthesis. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 30(1):17–33.

Grant, Campbell1974 Rock Art of Baja California. Dawson’s Book

Shop, Los Angeles.

Hambleton, Enrique1979 La pintura rupestre de Baja California. Fo-

mento Cultural Banamex, Mexico City.

Haury, Emil W.1950 The Stratigraphy and Archaeology of Ventana

Cave, Arizona. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Heizer, Robert F.1974 Recent Deaths and Memorials: William Clif-

ford Massey (1917–1974). American Indian Quarterly 1(3):267–268.

Heizer, Robert F., and William C. Massey1953 Aboriginal Navigation of the Coasts of Upper

and Baja California. In Anthropological Pa-pers, Numbers 33–42. Smithsonian Institu-tion Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 151:285–312. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Kirchhoff, Paul1942 Las tribus de la Baja California y el libro

del P. Baegert. In Noticia de la península americana de California, by Jacob Baegert, pp. xiii–xxxvii. Antigua Librería Robredo de José Porrúa e hijos, Mexico City.

Kowta, Makoto1984 The “Layer Cake” Model of Baja California

Prehistory Revised: An Hypothesis. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 20(1):1–16.

Laylander, Don1997 The Linguistic Prehistory of Baja California.

In Contributions to the Linguistic Prehistory of Central and Baja California, edited by Gary S. Breschini and Trudy Haversat, pp. 1–94. Coyote Press Archives of California Prehistory No. 44, Salinas, California.

2007 Large Projectiles and the Cultural Distinction of Southern Baja California: A Reexamina-tion. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 39(2&3):11–21.



2013 The Role of Islands in Baja California’s Pre-history. In Memorias de balances y perspec-tivas de la antropología e historia de Baja California, 2005–2011. Centro INAH Baja California, Mexicali. Electronic document, http://www.xaguaro.com/ MemoriasCD/styled-70/styled-71/index.html, accessed September 28, 2014.

2014 The Beginnings of Prehistoric Archaeolo-gy in Baja California, 1732‒1913. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 50(1&2):1–31.

Laylander, Don, and Julia Bendímez Patterson2013 Malcolm Rogers in Baja California. Pacif-

ic Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 48(3&4):43–55.

Laylander, Don, and Jerry D. Moore (editors)2006 The Prehistory of Baja California: Advances

in the Archaeology of the Forgotten Peninsu-la. University of Florida Press, Gainesville.

León-Portilla, Miguel1976 Sobre la lengua pericú de la Baja California.

Anales de Antropología 13:87–101.

Macfarlan, Shane J., and Celeste N. Henrickson2010 Inferring Relationships between Indige-

nous Baja California Sur and Seri/Comcáac Populations through Cultural Traits. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 30(1):51–67.

Massey, Lee Gooding1968 Baja’s Plants and Indians. Desert Magazine

31(10):30–33.1972 Tabla and Atlatl: Two Unusual Wooden Arti-

facts from Baja California. Pacific Coast Ar-chaeological Society Quarterly 8(1):25–34.

1974 Jesuits and Indians: A Brief Evaluation of Three Early Descriptions of Baja California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quar-terly 10(1):1–12.

1976 Chacuaco: The Tubular Stone Pipe in Baja California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 12(1):21–29.

Massey, William C.1947 Brief Report on Archaeological Investiga-

tions in Baja California. Southwestern Jour-nal of Anthropology 3(4):344–359.

1949 Tribes and Languages of Baja California. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 5(3):272–307.

1955 Culture History in the Cape Region of Baja California, Mexico. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley.

1957 The Dart-thrower in Baja California. David-son Journal of Anthropology 3(1):55–62.

1961a The Cultural Distinction of Aboriginal Baja California. In Homenaje a Pablo Martínez del Río en el vigésimoquinto aniversario de la primera edición de “Los orígenes ameri-canos,” pp. 411–422. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City.

1961b The Survival of the Dart-thrower on the Peninsula of Baja California. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 17(1):81–93.

1966a The Castaldí Collection from Central and Southern Baja California. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility No. 2. Department of An-thropology, Berkeley.

1966b Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Lower California. In Archaeological Frontiers and External Connections, edited by Gordon F. Ekholm and Gordon R. Willey, pp. 38–58. Handbook of Middle American Indians, Vol. 4. University of Texas Press, Austin.


Laylander56

Massey, William C., and Carolyn M. Osborne1961 A Burial Cave in Baja California: The Palmer

Collection, 1887. Anthropological Records Vol. 16, No. 8. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.

Mixco, Mauricio J.1978 Cochimí and Proto-Yuman: Lexical and Syn-

tactic Evidence for a New Language Family in Lower California. University of Utah Anthro-pological Papers No. 101. Salt Lake City.

2006 The Indigenous Languages. In The Prehistory of Baja California: Advances in the Archaeol-ogy of the Forgotten Peninsula, edited by Don Laylander and Jerry D. Moore, pp. 24–41. University of Florida Press, Gainesville.

Molto, J. Eldon, and Harumi Fujita1995 La Matancita: A Las Palmas Mortuary Site

from the West Cape Region of Baja Califor-nia Sur, Mexico. Pacific Coast Archaeologi-cal Society Quarterly 31(1&2):20–55.

Molto, J. Eldon, and Brenda Kennedy1991 Diet of the Las Palmas Culture in the Cape

Region, Baja California Sur. Pacific Coast Ar-chaeological Society Quarterly 27(4):47–59.

Monroe, Cara, and Brian M. Kemp2013 Genetic Relationships of Prehistoric Baja

California Populations. In Memorias de balances y perspectivas de la antropología e historia de Baja California, 2005–2011. Electronic document, http://www.xagua-ro.com/MemoriasCD/page4/styled-53/styled-66/, accessed October 16, 2014.

Moranchel Mondragón, Érika Berenice2014 Del paralelo 28° al 30°: puntas de proyectil

de Baja California. Master’s thesis, Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City.

Moriarty, James E., IV, and James R. Moriarty III1980 Investigation of a Redwood Log Canoe

Discovered at Scammon’s Lagoon in Baja California, Mexico. University of San Diego, San Diego.

Noble, Rose Adele1973 Physical Anthropology of Baja California.

Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, California State University, San Diego.

North, Arthur Walbridge1908 The Native Tribes of Lower California.

American Anthropologist 10(2):236–250.

Pompa y Padilla, José Antonio1977 Características dentarias de los indígenas

pericú. Calafia 3(4):29–44.

Porcayo Michelini, Antonio, and Julia Bendímez Patterson

2013 Una embarcación cochimí de casco estabili-zado, de San José del Faro, Baja California. Manuscript on file, Instituto Nacional de An-tropología e Historia, Centro Baja California, Mexicali, Mexico.

Ritter, Eric W.1979 An Archaeological Study of South-Central

Baja California, Mexico. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

1998 Preface. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 34(3):vi–vii.

2006a South-central Baja California. In The Prehisto-ry of Baja California: Advances in the Archae-ology of the Forgotten Peninsula, edited by Don Laylander and Jerry D. Moore, pp. 99–116. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

2006b The Vizcaíno Desert. In The Prehisto-ry of Baja California: Advances in the



Archaeology of the Forgotten Peninsula, edited by Don Laylander and Jerry D. Moore, pp. 135–152. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

2006c Bahía de los Angeles. In The Prehistory of Baja California: Advances in the Archaeolo-gy of the Forgotten Peninsula, edited by Don Laylander and Jerry D. Moore, pp. 167–178. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Ritter, Eric W., and Julie Burcell1998 Projectile Points from the Three Sisters’

Lagoons of West Central Baja California. Pa-cific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 34(4):29–66.

Rivet, Paul1909 Recherches anthropologiques sur la

Basse-Californie. Journal de la Société des Américanistes de Paris 6:147–253.

Rogers, Malcolm J.1939 Early Lithic Industries of the Lower Basin

of the Colorado River and Adjacent Desert Areas. San Diego Museum Papers No. 3. San Diego Museum of Man, San Diego.

1945 An Outline of Yuman Prehistory. Southwest-ern Journal of Anthropology 1(2):167–198.

1966 Ancient Hunters of the Far West. Edited by Richard F. Pourade. Union-Tribune, San Diego.

Romano Pacheco, Arturo1977 Algunas características craneales de los indí-

genas pericú. Calafia 3(4):23–28.

Serafín Esquivel, Eduardo1995 Análisis tipológico de puntas de proyectil

del área central de la península de Baja California, México. Master’s thesis, Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City.

Shelvocke, George1726 A Voyage Round the World by Way of the

Great South Sea, Perform’d in the Years 1719, 20, 21, 22. J. Senex, London.

ten Kate, Herman Frederik Carel1884 Matériaux pour servir l’anthropologie de

la presqu’île californienne. Bulletin de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris 7:551–569.

Thomas, David Hurst1981 How to Classify the Projectile Points from

Monitor Valley, Nevada. Journal of Califor-nia and Great Basin Anthropology 3(1):7–43.

Trigger, Bruce G.1989 A History of Archaeological Thought. Cam-

bridge University Press, Cambridge, En-gland.

Tuohy, Donald R.1970 The Aboriginal Containers of Baja Califor-

nia, Mexico: A Search for Origins. Tebiwa 13(2):41–51.

1978 Culture History in the Comondú Region, Baja California, Mexico, with an Appendix on Metate Cave String and Twine Analysis by Carolyn M. Osborne. Master’s thesis, Depart-ment of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

1984 On Sleeping Circles in Baja California …and Elsewhere. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 20(1):37–49.

1998 Professor William C. Massey’s Anthropo-logical Field Schools in Baja California, 1953 and 1954. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 34(3):83–96.

Tuohy, Donald R., and Mary B. Strawn1989 Thin Section Analysis of Mission Period Pot-

tery from Baja California, Mexico. Nevada Archaeologist 17(2):36–48.


Laylander58

Tuohy, Donald R., and Stephen Van Wormer1995 An Unusual Burial Type from the Cape

Region of Baja California, Mexico. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 31(1&2):79–102.

Tyson, Rose A.1977 Human Skeletal Material from the Cape

Region of Baja California, Mexico: The American Collections. Journal de la Société des Américanistes 64:167–181.

Venegas, Miguel1757 Noticia de la California y de su conquista

temporal, y espiritual hasta el tiempo pre-sente. 3 vols. M. Fernández, Madrid.

1759 A Natural and Civil History of California. 2 vols. James Rivington and James Fletcher, London.

Willey, Gordon R., and Jeremy A. Sabloff1980 A History of American Archaeology. 2nd ed.

W. H. Freeman, San Francisco.

Documents

William C. Massey’s Contributions to Baja California ... · William C. Massey’s Contributions to Baja California Prehistory Don Laylander Abstract William Clifford Massey (1917–1974)