This file was created by scanning the printed publication.
Errors identified by the software have been corrected;
however, some errors may remain.
Role of Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands in
Aboriginal Societies of the Desert West
Joel C. Janetski
Abstract-Archaeological data and ethnographic accounts testify
of the importance of resources available in the pinyon-juniper
woodland to native peoples since the early Holocene. Food, shelter,
raw material for tool construction, tinder, and preferred settlement location are a few of these. Although early evidence is
sometimes inconclusive, information from more recent periods
argue for increasing reliance on this vegetative community and its
resources through time.
The pinyon and juniper community is widespread across
the Colorado Plateau and Great Basin regions ofthe Desert
West. This community provided aboriginal peoples with
some of the most basic raw material to sustain life. The
intent of this paper is to review some of the ways these
resources were used in recent times as well as the evidence for use in the more distant past. I will focus on
plants in the paper, and more specifically, pinyon and
juniper. Clearly many other resources (animals of various kinds, grasses, sage) were present, but a discussion
of all such resources and the ways in which they were
used would take me far beyond the allotted time.
Aboriginal Peoples of the
Desert West
The Desert West was and is home to various Shoshone (or
Uto-Aztekanspeaking) groups, Ute, Southern Paiute, Northern Paiute, Kawaiisu, and W~sho (Hokan speaking) in the
Great Basin and Colorado Plateau and the Puebloan (Hopi,
Zuni, Rio Grande Pueblos) and Athabaskan (Navaho and
Apache) peoples of Arizona and New Mexico. Lifeways in
these diverse regions were likewise variable. Nearly all of
the peoples of the Great Basin, for example, were hunters
and gatherers and relied exclusively on indigenous plants
and animals for their livelihood. Exception were the Southern Paiute in the St. George Basin who raised some crops:
corn, squash, maybe some others. Of course, the Puebloan
peoples were farmers but, nonetheless, gathered many
native or wild resources both for food and for other purposes. The Navaho and Apache, recent migrants to the
American Southwest, are more eclectic in their subsistence
practices, with pastoralism mixed with some farming and
In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Stevens, Richard, comps. 1999. Proceedings:
ecology and management of pinyon-juniper communities within the Interior
West; 1997 September 15-18; Provo, UT. Proc. RMRS-P-9. Ogden, UT: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research
Station.
Joel C. Janetski is with the Department of Anthropology, Brigham Young
University, Provo, UT.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-9. 1999
gathering and hunting. The pinyon-juniper community
provided important resources for all.
Ethnographic Uses of Pinyon
and Juniper
Food
Nuts from pinyon pine, both Pinus edulis (Colorado
pinyon) and P. monophylla (singleleaf pinyon), were one of
the most important foods for peoples of the Great Basin and
Colorado Plateau. Wherever they were available they were
gathered in large quantities. But they were particularly
important to the Great Basin people. Premier Great Basin
ethnographer, Julian Steward, calls pinyon "The most
important single food species where it occurs ... " (Steward
1938:27).
Pine nuts are high in protein and fats, although the
percentages vary with the species (table 1). Singleleaf
pinyon is higher in fat and protein while Colorado pinyon is
higher in carbohydrates. The fat content exceeds that of
chocolate and both contain all 20 amino acids required for
human growth. Also, both contain tryptophan, an essential
amino acid that is deficient in the diet of corn farmers
CHuckell 1992:125). Singleleaf produces somewhat fewer
seeds than Colorado, a tendency that is offset by the thinner
hulls of singleleaf resulting in larger nutmeats. Both are
ranked high on the list of available foods for people in the
arid west. That is, pine nuts yield excellent returns for
people who gathered wild foods for a living.
Productivity of the trees varies also. Good crops for a
particular tree can occur every 4 or 5 years for P. edulis and
every 2 or 3 for P. monophylla, although some nuts may be
produced every year. Steward (1938:27) states: "In some
years there is a good crop throughout the area, in some
years virtually none." Productivity also apparently varies
with the age of the stand, with old trees producing fewer
filled hulls CHuckell1992:132). An illustration of this variability is presented by Lanner (1983:170) for a stand of
mOllophylla in the Raft River Mountains of northwestern
Utah. A 5 year study reported per acre cone production as
follows: 1975, 765 cones; 1976, 0 cones; 1977, 2,560 cones;
1978,2,325 cones; 1979,585 cones. In general, singleleaf is
more prod uctive and more predictable than Colorado pinyon (Sutton 1984). Sullivan (1992:200-201), on the other
hand, has argued that archaeologists have tended to overplay the variable nature of pinyon nut production. Citing
various sources, he maintains that pinyon production can
be predicted rather accurately 2 years in advance and with
considerable accuracy 1year in advance (Sullivan 1992:200).
Gathering of Pine Nuts-Pine nuts were usually gathered in the early fall at about the time ofthe first frosts. Two
249
Table 1-Nutritional values of P. edulis and P. monophylla (kernels only-percentages by weight)
(from Madsen 1986).
Species
P. edulis
P. monophylla
Water
Protein
Fat
Crude fiber
3.0
10.2
14.3
60.9
23.0
1.1
1.1
9.5
methods were employed: green or brown cone harvesting
(see Madsen 1986). The former took place before the cones
opened. The green cones were either removed from branches
using a hook or sometimes branches containing cones were
broken off the tree. Once removed the sticky cones were
placed in pits and roasted until the cones began to open.
They were then pulled out ofthe fire with sticks, cooled, and
opened, and the nuts were removed and tossed in a heap.
A graphic account of pine nut harvesting by the green
cone method is suppled by Howard Egan in western Nevada
in the late 1800's.
Jack and I were taking a scouting trip high up in the Schell
Creek Range of mountains, when we came across an Indian
who, with his [wife) and children were busily engaged
gathering pine nuts. The man had a long pole with a strong
hook fastened to one end. He would reach up in the tree to
the pine cones, hook the crook around the branch on which
they hung and pull branch and all down, the woman and
children carrying them to a place and piling them up in a
heap. When they had collected as many as they wanted that
day, the [man) has finished his part of the work and could
pass the rest of the time sleeping or hunting squirrels just
as he pleased.
The women and children gathered a little dry brush which
was thrown loosely over the pile of cones and set fire to. The
cones are thickly covered all over with pitch, for this reason
they make a hot fire, the [woman) watching and stirring it
up as needed to keep the nuts from burning, as she rakes
them back from the fire as a man would do when drawing
charcoal.
When the pitch was all burned off the burs or cones, the
[woman) spreads a blanket down close to the pile, then
taking up one cone at a time, would press them end ways
between her hands, which opens the leaves, under which
there were two nuts to every leaf, Then shaking the cones
over the blanket area the nuts would all fall out as clean as
you please.
When the nuts had all been cleaned from the cones they
were put in a large basket that would hold over two bushels
and was nearly; full, the [woman) carrying that on her back
to a place where they were placed all through the pine-nut
grove to save carrying them too far and save time for the
harvest does not last long, for a heavy frost will cause the
cones to open and the nuts to fall to the ground (Egan
1917:241).
The brown cone method was practiced after the cones
began to open on the tree. Large woven mats (or in recent
times canvas tarps) were placed under the tree. The harvesters beat on the branches holding cones with long sticks
to either knock the nuts out of the cones or the cones out of
the tree. Both would then fall on to the mats. The cones and
nuts were gathered and placed in large conical baskets for
transport.
250
Ash
Call100 gm
18.1
2.7
53.8
2.4
714
488
Carbohydrate
Of course, once nuts fell to the ground oreven when cones
had opened while still on the tree, they were eagerly sought
by other foragers (birds, squirrels, insects).
Pine Nut Processing-Pine nut meats were eaten raw
while harvesting or after toasting. But most were toasted,
hulled, winnowed, and ground into a paste for making a
pine nut soup or gruel. Initial roasting was done by placing
a few handfuls of nuts on a winnowing tray along with hot
coals. The two were mingled while moving the tray quickly
to keep it and the nuts from burning. The coals were then
tossed off the tray and the nuts placed on a flat rock and
lightly crushed to crack the hulls. The cracked nuts were
then returned to the winnowing tray and separated from
the meats by tossing all into the air with the lighter hulls
blown away by the wind. The meats were then toasted
again in a similar fashion until the nuts were hard. After
cleaning the meats with a nut paste, they were ground into
flour on the grinding stones. The flour was used to make
soup or gruel. The soup was sometimes mixed with meat to
give it more flavor. The Navajo made a kind of pine nutbutter and spread it on corn cakes.
Pine Nut Storage-Importantly, pine nuts could be
stored for future use. Pits or other storage facilities were up
to 5 ft in diameter, lined with rocks, grass, or bark (probably
juniper) and covered over with more bark, branches, dirt,
and more rocks. Nuts were sometimes stored in cones and
sometimes in hulls. Stored in this way, nuts lasted at least
through the winter. Puebloan peoples would store enough
pine nuts to last them 2 or 3 years. Great Basin tribes
usually consumed all their stores by the late winter.
The importance of pinyon is reflected in myths and the
fact that some groves were actually owned by families and
defended (Steward 1933). In Owens Valley, California, for
example, feuds were sometimes fought over the gathering
of pine nuts in neighbors groves.
Juniper (Juniperus spp.) berries were occasionally used
for food but had much less value as a food item than pinyon.
The Apache ate them fresh and pounded them to make
bread or a juniper tea (Goodwin 1935). Utes separated the
berry pulp from the seed with a stone muller after which the
pulp was eaten fresh or dried (Smith 1974). Harrington
(1967) describes juniper berries used by Southwest people
as an ingredient in bread or in stews for flavoring. Great
Basin people used juniper berries sparingly, a fact suggested
by the Shoshone term for Juniper, wa'ap 0 pi, which means
fire material or kindling wood according to Chamberlin
(1911:372), which emphasizes a nonfood role for juniper.
Providing raw material for fuel and constructing shelters
were the two most important uses for juniper (see below).
However, juniper berries were occasionally eaten in fall
and winter after boiling (Fowler 1986:73).
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-9. 1999
Shelter and Other Constructions
Pinyon and juniper were the primary materials for house
construction among many peoples of the Desert West.
Although Puebloan house walls were constructed of stone,
the roofs of both residential and religious architecture
(kivas) were constructed using pinyon and/or juniper for
beams and held up with timbers of the same material. The
more nomadic Navajo built hogans, sweathouses, ramadas,
fences and corrals, drying racks, and storage facilities
using primarily juniper and pinyon as raw material (Jett
and Spencer 1981). Not only were the trunks of trees used
for wall construction and roofsupport, but juniper bark was
an integral element in roof construction.
Stansbury made numerous observations ofN ative American lifeways as he traversed the perimeter ofthe Great Salt
Lake in 1852. At the north end of the lake he described a
house built using juniper:
In a nook of mountains, some Indian lodges were seen,
which had apparently been finished but a short time. They
were constructed in the usual form, of cedar (juniper) poles
and logs of considerable size, thatched with bark and
branches, and were quite warm and comfortable. The odor
of the cedar was sweet and refreshing. Such houses were
often floored with mats of juniper loosely woven
(Stansbury 1852: 111).
Medicinal and Miscellaneous Uses
Medicinal uses of pinyon were limited, although pitch or
gum was sometimes put into boiling water and drunk to
purge individuals infected with worms or other parasites
(Chamberlin 1911:350). Juniper brewed into a tea furnished
medicine for coughs and colds (Chamberlin 1911:372).
Pinyon pitch was used to line basketry water jugs and to
seal and glue ceramic vessels together. Pitch also served as
a mastic to hold projectile points or stone tools tightly to a
shaft or handle. Juniper bark provided an important fiber
for mats, diapers, menstrual pads, fire making material
(hearth and tinder) as well as a cushioning and protective
lining for storage pits. Open twined matting of juniper
bark was a common textile manufactured by Great Basin
peoples. The ubiquitous use of both woods for fuel across
the Desert West seems an obvious point.
Pinyon Ecology and Shoshonean
Settlement
The variability in pine nut productivity was a critical factor
in Great Basin aboriginal life. As the pinyon harvest went, so
went the people. As noted earlier, pine nuts are produced
every year but only produce quantities adequate to supply
stores for winter food demands every few years. Because of
this variation in productivity and the need to spend the winter
near stores or cached nuts, Julian Steward proposed a causal
relationship between the unpredictability of pinyon and the
high residential mobility of these peoples as they moved
winter villages to be near the most recent productive areas.
This fact, according to Steward, contributed to the fragmentation of aboriginal society in the Great Basin (especially the
Western Shoshone in the central portion of the region).
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-9. 1999
The extreme importance placed on pinyon by Steward
made life without pinyon a difficult one to understand for
people in the Great Basin area. Given the nutritional value
and the availability of pinyon, one would expect that pine
nuts would be in the diet of native peoples as long as they
were available in good numbers. In addition, the presence
of pinyon in archaeological sites provided a basis for assuming a lifeway in the past similar to that documented by
Steward. How long ago did pinyon appear in archaeological
sites? The presence of pinyon in archaeological sites could
argue that the nomadic lifeway described by Steward for
the Western Shoshone was operative at the time the site
was occupied. This leads to a more complex question of
what kinds of archaeological evidences are there for the use
of pinyon? This task proves more difficult than it might
seem. A review of the evidence for the use of pinyon in the
Desert West follows.
Archaeological Evidences
Archaeological excavations in Utah and elsewhere in the
Desert West have demonstrated the importance of both
pinyon and juniper for food, construction materials, and
fibers. Demonstrating the use of either plant for medicinal
use is difficult given the vagaries of archaeological data.
The following is an attempt to synthesize far flung data but
is not an attempt to be exhaustive.
Food
Proving that pine nuts were used for food is sometimes
difficult. One must first ask what is acceptable evidence of
using pine nuts for food. Certainly the most direct evidence
of pinyon use would be finding pinyon remains in human
feces or coprolites or in garbage dumps (middens) left by
humans. Of course pinyon nut meats do not preserve, so
typically the evidence consists of hull fragments. But just
finding nut hulls in sites is not positive proof of dietary use
since there is always some questions as to how they arrived
in the site. Many critters gather, store, and eat pinyon so
one has to be cautious in drawing conclusions. Charred
hulls are generally accepted as good evidence for humans
gathering and consuming nuts.
Indirect evidence of pinyon use would include grinding
stones used for processing pine nuts. Unfortunately, nearly
all hard seeds (which were an important part of the diet in
the Basin) were also processed in much the same way. It is
the case, however, that grinding stones show up early in the
sequence at the large cave sites around the Great Salt Lake
(Danger and Hogup Caves, for example).
Locations of sites in the pinyon-juniper community is
also indirect evidence of pinyon use given the tendency for
people to camp in such areas near caches. But, they could
also simply be there for the wood, to get up and out of the
colder valley bottoms, or to be close to snow fields for water.
The presence of stone circles like those described for storage
facilities would also argue for pine nut use and storage.
These are present in the pinyon-juniper community in the
Great Basin. Few have been excavated, however.
Interestingly, unequivocal use of pine nuts for food is
somewhat scarce in the archaeological record, especially
251
prior to about 1,500 or 2,000 years ago. Earliest evidence of
human use of pinyon (most likely P. edulis) comes from
heavily used dry caves in the Great Basin and the Northern
Colorado Plateau. In sites such as Old Man Shelter, Atlatl
Cave, and Dust Devil Cave (all in southeastern Utah),
pinyon is present in the deepest deposits dated to as early
as 8,000 years ago (Coulam and Sharpe 1993; Van Ness
1986). On the Colorado Plateau near the juncture of the
Green and Colorado Rivers, pinyon appears in quantities in
Cowboy Cave by 3,500 years ago (Hewitt 1980:135). Interestingly, the evidence at Cowboy Cave is in the form of pitch
on basketry items, spindle whorls, and projectile points as
well as nuts and needles. Juniperus osteosperma (twigs and
seeds) and Pinus edulis (leaves and seeds) were both present
in the deepest layers at Cowboy Cave, although these levels
contain no clear evidence of human occupation. These
botanical remains demonstrate that pinyon and juniper
was present in this portion of the Colorado Plateau by
11,000 years ago (Jennings 1980:19,170).
The earliest dates for pinyon use in the Great Basin come
from Danger Cave near Wendover, Utah, well to the north
of the dry caves of the Northern Colorado Plateau. Madsen
and Rhode (1990) have dated pine seed coats from Danger
Cave to -7,410 years ago, although this hull is apparently
from limber pine (P. flexilis) rather than pinyon (Rhode and
Madsen 1997). Pinyon pine is definitely present at Danger
Cave by 6,800 years ago, however. Rhode and Madsen
(1997:17) conclude that pine nuts were a part of the diet
from the onset of human use of Danger Cave despite the
probability that the closest groves of ei ther limber or pinyon
pine were at least 25 km to the west. These conclusions are
supported in part by finds at Bonneville Estates Cave, just
south of Wendover, where pine nuts (apparently pinyon) in
good quantities were recovered from levels dated to 6,000
BP (Schroedl 1997). In GatecliffShelter in Monitor Valley,
central Nevada, charred cones and twigs document the
presence of pinyon in that area by 5,300 years ago and seeds
and seed coat fragments are present just slightly later,
about 5,200 years ago (Thomas 1983:153,174).
Madsen (1986) has argued that a strong case for an
important dietary role for pinyon during these early times
is lacking (Madsen 1986). The best evidence for heavy use
of pinyon in the Great Basin comes from Crab Cave near the
Fish Springs waterfowl refuge where thousands of hulls
were found in deposits dating to sometime after 2,000 years
ago (Madsen 1979). Interestingly, the closest source of pine
nuts for Crab Cave inhabitants is the Deep Creek Mountains that are at least 35 km away. In Kachina Cave on the
Utah-Nevada border, two caches dated to 1,350 years ago
also yielded large quantities of pine nut hulls, although
here pinyon groves are nearby.
In the extreme western Great Basin in Owens Valley of
eastern California, archaeologists have found that evidence for intensive use of pinyon does not appear until after
about AD 600 or so (Bettinger 1989). Later sites, such as
Pinyon House located in the pinyon-juniper community in
the White Mountains, contained all the evidences one
might expect of heavy pinyon use: hulls, mulIers, cache pits,
roasting pits for cones, pinyon hooks, and bedrock mortars.
This kind of strong evidence for pinyon exploitation is
lacking at earlier sites, although there is evidence of pinyon
being present in Owens Valley even earlier than that at
252
Danger Cave. Reynolds (1997:3) reports dates of 8,790 ±
110 BP and 7,880 ± 60 PB from pack rat middens at the
north and south end of the White Mountains, for example.
None of these dates are from cultural contexts, however,
and no evidence exists for human reliance on pinyon prior
to the AD 600 date proffered above.
Explanations vary as to why pine nuts don't seem to be
used abundantly until the Late Holocene in the Great
Basin. Perhaps pinyon only recently migrated into areas
such as Owens Valley. Or, perhaps higher ranked foods
were more abundant early, making pinyon less attractive.
It is also possible that our sample is simply not an accurate
representation of past diet.
Also somewhat puzzling is the variability in the evidence
for pinyon use at Anasazi sites often located in dense
pinyon-juniper woodlands. Rohn 1971, for example, reports
few evidences of pinyon use at Mug House at Mesa Verde.
It is possible, however, that this scarcity is a function of not
looking very closely for plant remains. More recent archaeological reports, such as those from the Grand Canyon
area (Sullivan 1992), contain good evidence for pinyon use
by Anasazi between AD 800 and AD 1200. In fact, Sullivan
found evidence that pinyon and other wild plants (amaranth and chenopod seeds, cactus, grasses) could have been
more important than corn. Likewise, Huckell (1992) reports abundant pinyon remains (seeds, seed shells, cone
scales) from Anasazi sites just south of the Grand Canyon.
Pinyon was also common in Antelope Cave north of the
Grand Canyon on the Uinkaret Plateau in levels dated to
the Anasazi occupation (AD 700-900) (Janetski and Hall
1983). Antelope Cave is currently 10 to 15 km from the
nearest pinyon groves, suggesting that people were transporting pine nuts to the site. At the nearby Pine Nut Site,
however, only a few charred needles were found in the
float samples despite the site name. A number of possibilities come to mind to explain the site to site differences: preservation, the variation in pinyon production,
and sampling bias.
Construction Material
Archaeological evidence ofthe importance of both pinyon
and juniper for construction material is ubiquitous. Most
fundamental is the use of these woods in house construction. The Fremont used both as did the Anasazi. The
number of trees used for house and kiva construction in the
Southwest was tremendous. Ray Matheny (1971) has suggested that the demand for pine and juniper for house
construction during the maximum expansion of the Anasazi
in southeastern Utah between AD 1000 and AD 1250 may
have seriously depleted the pinyon-juniper community and
may have contributed to the abandonment of the Four
Corners region by the Anasazi in the late 13 th century AD.
The use of both woods for fuel is likewise evident in many
archaeological contexts in the Desert West.
Juniper bark fibers are commonly recovered in archaeological contexts both in raw form and woven into
textiles. Juniper bark open twined matting, for example,
was in burials, perhaps as shrouds. The Mosida burial on
Utah Lake, for example, was buried with juniper bark
twined matting dating to 5,500 years ago (J anetski and
others 1992). Examples of twined juniper bark matting
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-9. 1999
found at Danger Cave date to between 3,000 and 11,000
BP. At Sand Dune Cave on the Utah-Arizona border
excavators found bundles of juniper bark dating to th~
early Basketmaker period (about AD 200) or earlier
(Lindsay and others 1968:86). Artifacts made of juniper
wood were found in the upper levels of Cowboy Cave.
These include small, flat, smoothed rectangles identified as
gaming pieces (Janetski 1980:81).
Conclusions ------------------------------Pinyon and juniper have provided important raw material for native peoples for thousands of years in the Desert
West. They depended on these familiar trees for food fuel
shelter, and a multitude of other purposes. The e'thno~
graphic data are clear as to these uses. The archaeological
data raise a number of interesting questions about pinyon
use over space and time. Additional archaeological research will undoubtedly continue to yield evidences of the
importance of this unique community in the Desert West.
References ---------------------------Bettinger, Robert L.1989. The archaeology of Pinyon House, Two
Eagles, and Crater Middens: three residential sites in Owens
Valley, eastern California. Anthropological Papers No. 67. New
York: A~nerican Museum of Natural History. 355 p.
Chamberlm, Ralph V. 1911. Ethnobotany ofthe Gosiute Indians of
Utah. Lancaster, Pennsylvania: Memoirs of the American Anthropological Association. 2(5): 329-405.
Coulam, Nancy J.; Sharpe, Saxon. 1993. Paleoenvironment and
ethnobotany of Old Man Cave, Utah. Ms. On file, San Juan
Resource area, Bureau of Land Management, Monticello, Utah.
Egan, Howard R. 1917. Pioneering the west, 1846-1878. Richmond, Utah (privately printed).
Goodwin, Greenville. 1935. The social divisions and economic life
of ~he Western Apache. American Anthropologist. 36: 55-64.
Han:mgton, H. D. 1967. Edible native plants of the Rocky Mountams. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Hewitt, Nancy J. 1980. The occurrence of pinyon pine at Cowboy
Cave. In: Jennings, Jesse D .. Cowboy Cave. Anthropological
Papers. 104. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press: 135.
Huckell, Lisa W. 1992. Plant Remains. In: Whittlesey, Stephanie M.,
ed. Archaeological investigations at Lee Canyon: Kayenta Anasazi
farmst~ads in the upper basin, Coconino County, Arizona, Technical Senes 38. Tucson: Statistical Research: 119-131.
Janetski, Joel C. 1980. Wood and reed artifacts. In: Jennings,
Jesse D. Cowboy Cave. Anthropological Papers. 104. Salt Lake
City: University of Utah Press: 75-96.
Janetski, Joel C.; Hall, Michael J. 1983. An archaeological and
geological assessment of Antelope Cave (NA5507), Mohave
Count~, nort~western Arizona. Department of Anthropology
Techmcal Senes 83-73. Provo: Brigham Young University. 77 p.
Janetski, Joel C.; Lupo, Karen D.; McCullough, John M.; Novak,
Shannon A. 1992. The Mosida Site: a middle archaic burial from
the eastern Great Basin. Journal of California and Great Basin
Anthropology. 14: 180-200.
Jennings, Jesse D. 1980. Cowboy Cave. Anthropological Papers
104. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. 224 p.
Jett, Stephen C.; Spencer, Virginia E. 1981. Navajo architecture:
forms, history, distributions. Tucson: University of Arizona
Press. 289 p.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-9. 1999
Lanner, Ronald M. 1981. The pinon pine: a natural and cultural
history. Reno: University of Nevada Press. 208 p.
Lanner, Ronald M. 1983. The expansion of single leaf pinyon in the
Great Basin. In: Thomas, David H. The Archaeology of Monitor
Valley: 2, Gatecliff Shelter. New York: American Museum of
Natural History. Anthropological Papers. 59(1): 167-171.
Lindsay, Alexander J.; Ambler, J. Richard; Stein, Mary Anne;
Hobler, Philip M. 1968. Survey and excavations north and east
of Navajo Mountain, Utah, 1959-1962. Museum of Northern
Arizona Bulletin 45-Glen Canyon Series 8. Flagstaff: The
Northern Arizona Society for Science and Art, Inc. 399 p.
Madsen, David B. 1986. Great Basin nuts: a short treatise on the
distribution, productivity, and prehistoric use of pinyon. In:
Condie, C. J. and Fowler, D. D., ed. Anthropology of the Desert
West. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press: 21-42.
Madsen, David B. 1982. Prehistoric occupation patterns, subsistence adaptations and chronology in the Fish Springs area,
Utah ..In: .Mad~en, David B.; Fike, R. E., ed. Archaeological
InvestIgatIons m Utah. Utah Cultural Resource Series 12. Salt
Lake City: Bureau of Land Management: 1-59.
Mad~en, David B.; Rhode, David. 1990. Early Holocene pinyon
(Pmus monophylla) in the northeastern Great Basin. Quaternary Research. 33: 94-101.
Matheny, Ray. 1971. Possible approaches to population distribution studies in southeastern Utah. In: Gumerman, GeorgeJ., ed.
The distribution of prehistoric population aggregates. Anthropological Reports 1. Prescott: Prescott College: 152-164.
Reynolds, Linda A. 1997. The prehistory of a pinyon-juniper woodland. Society for California Archaeology Newsletter. 31(4): 1,3-6.
Rhode, David; Madsen, David B. 1997. Pine nut use in the early
Holocene and beyond: the Danger Cave archaeobotanical record.
Ms in possession by the authors. 33 p.
Rohn, Arthur H. 1971. Wetherill Mesa excavations: Mug House,
Mesa Verde National Park-Colorado. Archaeological Research
Series Number 7-D. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of the
Interior, National Park Service. 280 p.
Schroedl, Alan R. 1997. [Personal communication].
Smith, Ann M. 1974. Ethnography of the Northern Utes. Papers in
Anthropology 17. Albuquerque: Museum of New Mexico Press.
288 p.
Stansbury, Howard. 1852. An expedition to the valley of the Great
Salt Lake. London: Sampson Low and Sons. (Reprint by Readex
Microprint). 267 p.
Steward, Julian H. 1933. Ethnography ofthe Owens Valley Paiute.
Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 33. Berkeley: University of California: 233-350.
Steward, Julian H. 1938. Basin-Plateau aboriginal sociopolitical
groups. Bureau of American Ethnology 120. Washington DC:
GPO. 346 p. (reprinted 1970. Salt Lake City: University of Utah
Press).
Sullivan, Alan P. III. 1992. Pinyon nuts and other wild resources
in western Anasazi subsistence economies. In: Isaacs, Barry, ed.
Research in Economic Anthropology, Supplement 6. JAI Press
Inc.: 195-239.
Sutton, Mark Q. 1984. The productivity of Pinus monophylla and
modeling Great Basin subsistence strategies. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology. 6(2): 240-245.
Thomas, David H. 1983. The archaeology of Monitor Valley 2.
Gatecliff Shelter. Anthropological Papers 59(1). New York:
American Museum of Natural History. 552 p.
Van Ness, Margaret. 1986. Desha Complex macrobotanical fecal
remains. Unpublished masters thesis, Department of Anthropology. Flagstaff: Northern Arizona University.
Van Ness, Margaret. 1987. Flotation analysis of the Pinenut site. In:
Westfall, Deborah. The Pinenut Site: Virgin Anasazi archaeology
on the Kanab Plateau of northwestern Arizona. Cultural Resource
Series 4. Phoenix: Bureau of Land Management: 173-180.
253