Utah Antiquities Selected Papers, Volume 7, Number 16 -

• H iOTMMHHHnneBBSMHHitat

•ft-*! YlalUJ

STATE OF UTAH Scott M, Maihcson, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY .

AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Reed T. Searie, Executive Director

DIVISION OF STATE HISTORY MelvinT.Sfnith, Director

BOARD OF STATE HISTORY Milton C. Abrarris, Chairman Elizabeth Montague William D\ Owens H eleh '%'. Papanikolas MelvinT: Smith Ted J, Warner

1 homasG. Alexander Delib ;G, Dayton, Vice-chairman Clizabetjrjiimth Wayne-:K:^;Hinton Therdh H.Luke David S.Monson, ex officio

STATE ANTIQUITIES COMMITTEE Milton C. Abrams, Chairman Wade E. Miller MelvinT. Smith Stanford S. Smith Chandler P. St. John Richard A. Thompson Benjamin J. Zerbey

Kenneth jB, Castl* Delio G: Dayton Ev& i . q is Ross BJEHiot .-.

Richard F, Hike Donald y. Hagut

EDITORIAL S T A F F David B. Mad sen, Editor Thomas J. Zeidler, Associate Editor

Coyer art: Pillingsfigurine #2from thePeabody Museum, Harvard University; drawn

by Jay Nielson, Museum of Natural: History, University of Utah:

Fig. 1.

Major Fremont Sites

(ERTS mosaic prepared by U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Services)

1.

Swallow Shelter

24.

Median Village, Evans Mound

2.

Remnant Cave

25.

O'Malley Shelter

3.

HogupCavc

26.

4.

Promontory Caves

5.

Lower Bear River Area Sites Bear River #1 Bear River #2 Bear River #3 Levee Site Knoll Site

Yampa River Area Sites Mantle's Cave Marigold's Cave Hell's Midden

27.

Dinosaur National Monument Sites Boundary Village Wholeplace Village Wagon Run Burnt House Village Cub Creek Village

28.

Whiterocks Village, Caldwell Village

29.

Felter Hill, Flat Top Butte

30.

Nine Mile Canyon Area Sites Sky House Upper Sky House Four Name House

31.

Hill Creek Area Sites Long Mesa

32.

Windy Ridge Village, Power Pole Knoll, Crescent Ridge

6.

Willard

7.

Injun Creek, Warren

8.

Danger Cave

9.

Grantsville

10.

Tooele

11.

Utah Lake Area Sites Hinckley Farms Woodard Mounds Taylor Mounds

12.

Crab Cave

13.

Scribble Rock Shelter

14.

Nephi Mounds

15.

Ephraim

33.

Turner-Look

16.

Amy's Shelter

34.

Innocents Ridge

17.

Garrison

35.

Clyde's Cavern

18.

Pharo Village

36.

Pint-Size Shelter

19.

Kanosh

37.

Nawthis Village, Gooseberry

20.

Backhoe Village

38.

Snake Rock, Poplar Knob

21.

Marysvale

39.

Old Woman, 1-70 Sites

22.

Beaver

40.

Fremont River Area Sites

23.

Paragonah

41.

Bull Creek Area Sites

TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction A Fremont Retrospective (John P. Marwitt)

Page 7 9

The Variants of the Fremont: A Methodological Evaluation (Patrick Hogan and Lynne Sebastian)

13

Fremont Origins: A Critique (Michael S. Berry)

17

Fremont/Sevier Subsistence (David B. Madsen)

25

Fremont: An Artilactual Perspective (James M. Adovasio)

35

Page Fremont Settlement Pattern and Architectural Variation (Ernest S. Lohse)

4]

Common Post-Archaic Projectile Points of the Fremont Area (Richard N. Holmer and Dennis G. Weder)

55

Comments J. Richard Ambler Patrick Hogan and Lynne Sebastian James M. Adovasio C. Melvin Aikens

69 72 73 74

References

77

FIGURES Figure 1. Major Fremont Sites 2. Parowan Fremont subsistence model (Berry 1974) 3. Sevier subsistence model (interior river valleys) (Nielson 1978) 4. Discriminant Analysis of Five Variants 5. Discriminant Analysis of Two Variants .. .• 6. Fremont Architecture 7. Seriation diagram of projectile point frequencies at Fremont sites

Page 2 27 28 48 48 53 56

Figure

page

8.

Distribution maps for projectile point types 9. Common projectile points of the Fremont area 10. Distribution map of Bull Creek and Parowan Basal-notched projectile points 11. Temporal distributions of the projectile point types commonly found in the Fremont area

57 58

62

67

TABLES Table Plant Types Identified at I. Fremont/ Sevier Sites Faunal Remains from Selected II. Fremont/Sevier Sites Distribution of Fremont coiling III. foundation techniques by site Distribution of Fremont twining IV. techniques by site Fremont Habitation sites Used V. House Shape and Dimensions VI. Fireplace Treatment VII. Miscellaneous Structural Features VIII. Comparison of Fremont Architectural IX. Traits within Marwitt's Variants X. Misclassified Sites XL Comparison of Fremont Architectural Traits within the Colorado Plateau and the Eastern Great Basin

Page 29 30

Table XII. XIII. XIV.

37 38 43 44 45 45 46 47

XV. XVI. XVII. XVIII. XIX. XX. XXI. XXII. XXIII. XXIV.

47

Misclassified Sites Typical Anasazi Architectural traits present within the Fremont area Predicted dates based on the frequency of Rose Spring Corner-notched points

Page 48 52 59

Ceramic- and Point-type Cooccurrence 60 Occurrence of Bull Creek Points: Area 1 63 Occurrence of Bull Creek Points: Area II . . . 64 Occurrence of Bull Creek Points: Area III . . 64 Occurrence of Bull Creek Points: Area IV .. 65 Occurrence of Bull Creek Points: Area V . . . 65 Occurrence of Parowan Points: Area VI 65 Occurrence of Parowan Points: Area VII . . .66 Occurrence of Parowan Points: Miscellaneous Sites 66 Occurrence of Parowan Points: Miscellaneous Sites 66

EDITOR'S PREFACE This volume is the seventh in a monograph series designed to examine and interpret the prehistoric cultures of Utah. Antiquities Section Selected Papers is specifically geared to Utah archeology and paleontology, but includes papers from adjacent geographical areas and from ancillary disciplines relevant to the understanding of local archeological and paleontological problems.

The series has three goals: 1) to provide a vehicle for the publication of research carried out by the Antiquities Section; 2) to provide an outlet for archeological reports which do not have a general distribution (i.e. investigations done in conjunction with environmental impact statements); and 3) to allow publication of valuable manuscripts now on file and re-publication of articles now out of print and unavailable.

Manuscripts from all sources, including state and federal agencies, educational institutions, and private individuals, will be accepted for examination and possible publication. Articles should be typed double spaced and should be accompanied by photoready line drawings and photographs. Submitted articles will be reviewed by the Antiquities Section staff or other qualified reviewers in the case of ancillary reports.

Papers will be published on an irregular basis, depending on the number and quality of reports on file.

David B. Madsen

INTRODUCTION The papers included in this monograph were produced as the result ol a scries of events initiated by the publication of Back hoe Village {Madsen and Lindsay 1977). The Backhoe Village monograph included an attempt to reconcile a number of opposing views on the nature of the Fremont, the origins of Fremont groups, and the classification of its areal variation. It also included much of the recently accumulated data on Fremont subsistence. Since this was both a new approach and the first attempt in synthesis in a decade or more, its publication stimulated a number of informal discussions among Friends of the Fremont. These discussions were both written and oral, and included exchanges of lengthy letters on variety of topics. The most enlightening aspect of this informal exchange was that Fremont research was currently in a state of flux, and that there was much to be gained by a formal and well-structured exchange of views.

As a result, plans were made to hold a Fremont/Sevier symposium at the 1978 Great Basin Anthropological Conference in Reno, Nevada. It was structured by topic and differed from a similar attempt at a structured Fremont symposium, which dealt mostly with trait-list distributions, during the 1970 SAA Conference in Mexico City. Discussion of the theoretical implications of this approach or of any other approach was avoided, due to ihe limited amount of subsistence/environmental data.

However, with the accumulation of data, since then, it became obvious that the relative usefulness of the various methodological approaches must be a primary topic of discussion.

Prior to the conference a list of proposed topics was circulated to Fremont specialists. These topics fell into two major areas: theoretical/methodological and descriptive. Several specific descriptive topics were included because of the rather biased nature of Fremont research.

While work on the Fremont has been almost entirely descriptive, it has mostly been limited to defining space/ time relationships and to investigating a few of the more prominent artifact categories, such as ceramics. Since resolution of many of the theoretical controversies which surround the Fremont is dependent on more adequate descriptive studies, several such topics were included in the symposium. These included a comparison of artifact categories and their contrasting utility in defining a coherent "Fremont" material culture inventory(Adovasio), a discussion of Fremont subsistence (Madsen), a discussion of Fremont architecture and settlement patterns (Lohse), and an investigation of the chronology and distribution of Fremont lithic materials (Holmer and Weder).

Theoretical topics included a discussion of the history of Fremont research and how this peculiar history had

itself structured present conceptions of the Fremont (Marwilt); a discussion ol the cultural classification systems which have been applied to the Fremont was included since the nature of the systems has controlled, to a large degree, the manner in which relationships between groups has been defined (Hogan and Sebastian); a topic of Fremoni "origins" was included since this has been one of the major areas of controversy within Fremont research (Berry). Two additional topics were proposed, but were not discussed. One was on the limits of the Fremont and external contacts, and the other was on Fremont "demise." In both cases, it became obvious lhat even at this late date no Fremont specialist was capable of framing a definition of the Fremont which would allow these topics to be investigated.

After volunteers were strong-armed into preparing papers on these topics, discussants with a broad background and many years' experience in Fremont research were solicited to provide some historical perspective (Aikens and Ambler). With the structure of the symposium and its participants set, papers were prepared and circulated in advance. It was intended that this would allow all participants to familiarize themselves with each other's material and to prepare additional comments on the olher topics if they felt so inclined. Unfortunately, time limitations at the 1978 Great Basin symposium prevented a free exchange after the presentation of papers, and comments were limited to those prepared by the discussants. However, since the papers were prepared for publication, as well as for oral presentation, it was possible to accept written comments by the participants for inclusion in this monograph, and thus allow at least a moderate exchange of views. After the symposium, participants were allowed to revise their papers if they so desired and to prepare comments if they were in an argumentative mood. The few substantially revised papers were again circulated, and commenters were allowed to revise their comments.

Editing of the papers has been kept to a minimum.

Other than grammar, punctuation, and spelling corrections, no changes have been made in the texts. The only major change has been the compilation of all references into a single bibliography. This was done because cited references are redundant from paper to paper, and because by combining the references it is possible to achieve a relatively complete Fremont bibliography which should be easier for future students of the Fremont to use. The papers are presented in the same order as in the symposium. They are followed by the discussants' remarks and by those participants who chose to comment.

, : frtj/flj

(J HJl

A FREMONT RETROSPECTIVE JOHN P. MARWITT University of Akron ABSTRACT Although archeological research in Formative level siles located north of the Colorado and Virgin rivers has been going on lor well over 100 years, there is still no general agreement among researchers on the number ol "cultures'1 represented in the region, nor is there any apparent consensus on such things as origins, subsistence techniques, internal cultural connections, chronology, or relationships with the Southwest. Reasons lor the rather large numher ol currently competing interpretations include: the persistence of early ideas about the cultural provenience of the eastern Great Basin/western Colorado Plateau, the lack until recently of systematic, problem-oriented research in the area, and to some extent, a difference in perception between investigators who were trained in the Great Basin and those who received their archeological training in the Southwest.

It is just a little more that 100 years since archeological work began in the region of Utah north of the Colorado and Virgin rivers. Most of the investigations carried out before the turn of the century (Severance 1874Putnam 1876; Palmer 1876, 1878; Montgomery 1894) were primarily antiquarian in nature and contributed very little data that is still useful today, but more scientific studies of what eventually came to be called the "northern periphery of the Southwest" have a very respectable antiquity as well, beginning in the first third of the present century with the pioneering survey and excavations of Judd in the eastern Great Basin, Fewkes in the northeastern part of Utah, and culminating in Morss' (1931) definition of the Fremont culture in the central part of the state. In the 50 years or so since, most of Utah and contiguous portions of surrounding states have been surveyed, many hundreds of sites have been recorded and sampled, and several dozen have been extensively excavated.

There would be no point in reviewing all of the archeoogical work carried out in the northern three quarters of Utah and adjacent parts of Colorado, Wyoming, Idaho, and Nevada. The particulars have been summarized several times, notably by Wormington (1955), Aikens (1966b) and Gunnerson(1969). Moreover, severaloftheotherpapers in this symposium treat such things as origins, subsistence, and cultural variation in a historic framework. t seems to me to be more useful to take stock of all the research expended to date, to see where we stand in our

attempts to understand and explain prehistoric cultural developments in the Fremont area, and to speculate on what might be some of the reasons for the notable lack of consensus to be found among those of us who have studied the Fremont.

It is a striking but sad fact that the many man-years that we and others have spent in the field and the laboratory, and the hundreds of thousands of dollars of other peoples' money expended by archeologists in studying the Fremont have so far produced very little in the way of agreement on the nature of the prehistoric phenomena we have been dealing with. For the last 25 years at least, Fremont research has been notable for a large number of competing interpretative schemata. Wormington (1955), Aikens (1966b), Ambler (1967), Gunnerson (1969),' Marwitt (1970) and Madsen and Lindsay (1977), to mention only some of the most recent, have all provided us with syntheses of eastern Great Basin-western Colorado Plateau prehistory. It would be only a slight exaggeration to say that someone unfamiliar with the geographical area and general time period under discussion might have real difficulty in recognizing that all of these authors deal with broadly similar data and all of them are attempting reconstruction of roughly the same set of cultural patterns.

To begin with, we cannot seem to agree on a label or a set of labels to identify the cultural unit (or units) we are investigating. Perhaps the label with the widest current usage is "Fremont," but it is probably obvious to even

the most casual reader of the relevant literature that the term "Fremont" means different things to different people.

Aikens (1966b), Ambler (1967), and Marwitt (1970) apply the term most broadly so as to include all of the potterymaking, variably sedentary, variably horticultural populations north of the Colorado and Virgin rivers, distinct from the Anasazi of the Southwest. Wormington (1955).

Gunnerson (1969), and Madsen and Lindsay (1977) all restrict Fremont culture to the region east of the Wasatch Plateau, and employ such terms as "Sevier Culture" and/ or "Puebloid" to refer to the contemporaneous occupation of the eastern Great Basin by peoples whom they regard as having had more or less distinct patterns ol culture. Madsen and Lindsay further propose that an unnamed Plains-derived culture may have occupied the northern part of the Fremont area as the term is used by Aikens, Ambler, and me, Thus, the label "Fremont" has been applied liberally, more or less as it seemed fit to each author depending on his own biases and/or preconceptions, each with his own point to make. It is no wonder that a degree of confusion has resulted. It might be interesting to speculate on what would follow from frequent redefinition and manipulation, arbitrary or not, of better-known though roughly equivalent labels such as "Anasazi" or "Hopewell." This is not to suggest that Anasazi, Hopewell, or Fremont should not be subjected to revision as required by new data, but it is a little exasperating to have "Fremont" undergo a metamorphosis every few years.

tinguish two separate cultural entities. According to them, the Fremont culture is confined to the Colorado Plateau, and the Sevier culture represents an adaptation to the Great Basin. The two cultures are taxonomically equal to each other, and presumably to archeological cultures of I he Southwest, such as Anasazi or Sinagua. This schema represents a major return (though not necessarily a retreat) to interpretations current 20 years ago, and has the advantage ol correlating what they see as major adaptive diilercnces, especially in subsistence, with the major physiographic provinces of the region. Additionally, Madsen and Lindsay suggest that a third culture, unnamed and derived from the Great Plains, can be distinguished in the area of the Great Salt Lake and the Uinta Basin. While they recognize that there is geographically based cultural variation in both their Fremont and Sevier cultures (part of it resulting from an overlay of Great Plains traits in the north), they soft-pedal local/regional differences in the interest of strengthening the internal coherence of each culture so that the two can be compared and contrasted, especially in regard to settlement pattern and subsistence techniques. Temporal variation in each culture is also acknowledged, but apparently it is presumed to have been substantially uniform for each cultural tradition. For the eastern Great Basin, they suggest that local phases defined for the Parowan valley (Marwitt 1970) may extend over the whole Sevier occupational area.

My aim here is not to evaluate the merits of one interpretation of Great Basin-Colorado Plateau regional variation as opposed to another nor to make a last-ditch defense of my own schema, now almost 10 years old.

Rather, given that variation in economic orientation, settlement pattern, and material culture is well-documented, 1 have to conclude that more than one defensible interpretation of the data is possible. Indeed, the range of possible interpretations is by no means limited to my model along with that of Ambler and Madsen and Lindsay. For example, Claudia Berry (personal communication 1978) believes that a fair case can be made for Fremont being primarily a central Utah phenomenon centered in the geologically, physiographically, and environmentally transitional zone where the eastern Great Basin grades into the Colorado Plateau, with a relatively few village sites scattered outside the core area. This would exclude most of the sites that Ambler and 1 assigned to Uinta Fremont along with those I placed in the Great Salt Lake variant, which she regards as nonFremont. As she sees it, the majority of sites and the focus of most economic and other activities would be associated with the relatively rich resource zones of the high plateaus.

Villages would be found in valleys with arable land, a dependable water supply, arid a relatively long growing season. At present Berry is not proposing yet another model for Fremont, but as she n otes, an emphasis on the central area helps explain distribution of traits like basalt-tempered pottery (whether called Sevier or Emery) and lvie Creek B/ W ware. 1 can add that it might also help to clarify the provenience of sites like Snake Rock, Old Woman,

In large part, the confusion surrounding use of the term "Fremont" is occasioned by the variability of archeological remains from area to area within the general region under discussion. In our attempts to divide the hodgepodge of assemblages from north and west of the Colorado river into named units or "variants," Ambler and 1 used the term as a designator for the whole comprised of a system of broadly similar local or regional cultures.

With the clarity of hindsight, it may be that employment of the term "variant" has been unfortunate insofar as it has created the impression that there was some kind of original or pure "Ur-Fremont" of which the local/regional variants were refractions. My own use of Fremont was mainly as a convenient device to organize the archeological remains over a large and environmentally diverse area and oppose them to the cultures of the Southwest. Unfortunately I implied that Fremont was a uniform entity at a higher level of reality than variant, and that it had cultural coherence in itself, apart from being just the sum of its regional expressions. Formal definition of Fremont culture seemed unnecessary at the time since the purpose of my monograph was to organize diversity, not to demonstrate a unitary Fremont culture. In fact, a formal definition of Fremont is still not necessary for me, and I would tend to agree with Madsen and Lindsay (1977:90) that it is probably impossible to define a unitary Fremont.

Rather than the five related variants proposed by Ambler, or my rather different system, Madsen and Lindsay (1977), using substantially the same body of data, dis10

and Poplar Knob, which arc culturally mixed or transitional between my Sevier and San Rafael variants, and which would also be difficult to accommodate in either the Fremont or Sevier cultures as defined by Madsen and Lindsay.

So, for the present, we have two competing uses of Fremont associated with two alternative models of regional/cultural variation and also perhaps Claudia Berry's fledgling hypothesis waiting to acquire strength through the accumulation of supporting data before it emerges to compete for acceptance as a model. None of these schemata is so heterodox as to exclude itself from serious consideration, and each of them has its own weaknesses.

But none of the three is persuasive to the extent that ii can displace its competitors.

We find a similar situation when we consider alternative models of Fremonl origins and subsislence. Other papers in this symposium deal in depth with these topics, and 1 will mention them only in outline.

As far as cultural origins are concerned, we can chose from a smorgasbord of hypotheses. Included are a purported influx of Southwestern peoples (Gunnerson 1969), a movement of Great Plains peoples into the region followed by the acquisition of Southwestern culture traits such as masonry architecture, pottery, and horticulture (Aikens 1966b; Sharrock 1966), and in situ development from a differentiated Archaic base to which the Southwest-derived traits were added (Wormington 1955; Jennings 1956; 1978a). The source of the Southwestern traits includes the Anasazi on a Pueblo II time level (Gunnerson 1969), and more remotely from Mogollon or Hohokam, perhaps as early as AD. 500 (Marwitt 1970; Jennings 1978a). There are also several variations and permutations of these origin hypotheses.

There has been substantial agreement ever since M orss defined the Fremont culture, that subsistence patterns in • both the eastern Great Basin and the western Colorado Plateau were less horticulturally dependent than in the Southwest. At issue now is the extent to which we can see different combinations of horticulture, hunting, and gathering of wild plants in the two main physiographic provinces and in the northern Utah-Uinta Basin area. My own view, based on little direct subsistence data (Marwitt 1970) is that the pattern was very flexible over the entire region and that the proportion of horticulture vs. exploitation of wild plant and animal resources in any one area or locality was a function of fluctuating local environmental conditions and would have changed from time to time, perhaps frequently. As most others did before me, 1 em- . phasized village horticulture as overall the most important subsistence strategy except in the Uinta Basin and northern Utah where horticulture appears only to have supplemented an economic system centered on hunting bison and waterfowl and collecting wild plants.

This is essentially the orthodox view, which has recently been challenged by Madsen and Lindsay (1977). They agree that subsistence in the Uinta Basin and the area of the Great Salt Lake was characterized by a primary reliance on wild species, and also that populations to the

south were sedentary, at least part of the year. However, using new pollen and plant macro-fossil data, they argue that horticulture wasdominant only in the Colorado Plateau (Fremont) region. Sedenlariness, in the Great Basin (Sevier) region was maintained by heavy exploitation ol marsh resources, especially cattails, and was only supplemented by maize horticulture and hunting. It is largely on the basts ol these supposedly distinct subsistence patterns that they propose separate Fremont and Sevier cultural patterns.

In soliciting papers for this symposium, the editor asked in vain for a contribution on the demise of the Fremont. The lack ol response is not a sign that the fate of the culture is so well-known and understood that il needs no further debate. Instead of a relative wealth of controlled data and an embarrassment of interpretations such as exist with regard to Fremont subsistence or regional variation in material culture, there is little hard evidence to be brought to bear on the fate of the BasinPlateau cullure(s) after A.D 1200 or so. In his recent summary of Utah pre-hislory, Jennings (1978a) makes almost no mention of possible reasons for the disappearance of Fremont peoples.

More or less by default, Aikens'( 1966b) hypothesis of Fremont withdrawal from their Utah heartland eastward into the Great Plains under pressure from a (linguistically and archeologically demonstrated) Shoshonean expansion out of the southeastern Great Basin remains the main currency of discussion, although few would agree in full with Aikens' hypothesis that the Fremont merged with late Plains culture to form the Dismal River culture of the Central Plains. But in view of the many correspondences noted by Aikens between Fremont and late prehistoric Plains manifestations, it appears not unlikely that some Fremont or Fremont-influenced groups (especially those of the northern region) drifted on to the northwestern plains of Wyoming and perhaps southern Montana.

In an unpublished paper, Michael Berry (n.d.) suggests that the Shoshoneans may have been able to gradually replace horticultural populations in the southeastern Basin beginning after A.D.I000 by denying them access to critical wild resource zones such as the pinyon forests, on which they depended seasonally and/or in years when crops failed. As permanent residents of these zones, the Shoshoneans would have had a competitive edge over the Fremonters who ventured into them on an intermittent basis. Berry makes no claim that this model would apply to all of the Basin-Plateau horticultural populations, but observes that at least it is a testable proposition.

Gunnerson (1962, 1969) has attempted to account for the demise of the Basin-Plateau horticulturalists (and the Virgin branch Anasazi as well) by identifying these groups as ancestral Plateau Shoshoneans who migrated north from the Virgin branch about A. D.950 as part of a general Pueblo 11 expansion and who became the Fremont peoples. Following a drought which began at about A.D. 1200 and required the abandonment of horticulture, both the Fremont and Virgin branch peoples returned to a foraging lifeway and dispersed to become the Shoshone, 11

Comanche, Ulc, Southern Paiute, Northern Paiute and related Plateau Shoshoneans contacted by Euroame'rican explorers. 1 his theory has been rejected by most authorities as inconsistent with abundant archeological and linguistic cv.dence which suggests not deculturation of indigenous groups but replacement of Fremont and Virgin branch populations by the modern inhabitants of the region (see Aikens 1970a for a review of the data).

At the last Fremont symposium held in 1970, one of the most provocative issues, at least potentially was dating the emergence of Fremont patterns. Bui for some reason the expected debate on dating never took place Al that time, Fremont specialists were divided into two n o m ; ° n , e , / e p r e S e n t e d b y A m b , e r < 1 9 7 0 )' Breternitz (1970b), and Gunnerson (1969), held that Fremont culture could be recognized no earlier than A.D.900-1000 The opposition, which included Fry (1970a), Aikens (1966b 1970b), and me (Marwitt 1970), maintained that Fremont could be dated to as early as A.D. 400-500 in the Great Salt Lake area, and to before A.D.600 in the Uinta Basin.

eaHieSt

^

f T

°

F r C m 0 n t fal1 i n t h e

One of the reasons for the seeming disarray in our ranks is the absence until recently of a problem orientation and clearly defined research strategies. Some of the most important and informative Fremont sites were excavated to fulfill the terms of salvage contracts, because they were endangered by relic-hunters, or were chosen for excavat.on because they satisfied the requirements of a summer field school for a complex site with a variety of archeological remains. Such considerations by no means preclude doing good archeology, but they do tend to result in a dilfuse research effort with no clear focus on contributing specific data toward the solution of old problems.

Wilh regard to the multiplicity of competing interpretations of Fremont culture, it is interesting to note that of the six Fremont syntheses mentioned near the beginning ol this paper, all but one are doctoral dissertations, representing five different universities. In addition, four of the six append a more or less revolutionary interpretation or ^interpretation of Fremont culture to a descriptive site report. Could it be that we are dealing with an archeology analog to the well-known situation in ethnography in which the exotic or unusual aspects of a culture are emphasized to point up the ethnographer's "people" as uniquely interesting and important? Doctoral candidates in archeology are required to make original contributions to their field, and they might sometimes see in their own data a hook on which to hang a new interpretation of the rremont culture.

While both camps have been silent on dating the Fremont for several years now, the controversy is not settled as yet. The early dates are all from the northern area and while there are now additional C-14 age determinations in support of early occupation of the north, the cultural provenience of the assemblages in question is open to some doubt. As noted above, Claudia Berry (personal communication 1978)and Madsen and Lindsay (1977) provisionally identify most of the northern Utah-Uinta Basin material as non-Fremont, possibly of Plains origin If they are correct, then the 1970 controversy was not over dating the Fremont at all. In the central and southern ^ n n n

cultural variation, subsistence and land-use patterns external cultural relations, or the ultimate fate of the human societies wearestudying. Nordo we even have a standard term.nology l o r the cultural complex we are investigating. 1 hese are all fundamental requirements for coherent archeological reconstruction.

P ™ o d A.D

700-900, and if Fremont (or Fremont and Sevier) occupation was in fact largely limited to this geographic area, the beginning date for the culture(s) would be closer to the Ambler-Breternitz-Gunnerson estimate, and presumably more acceptable to them.

I do not mean to be overly critical of the dissertation syntheses, especially since 1 am responsible for one of them myself. Indeed, it is vital to reexamine old data from new points of view, and new syntheses tend to stimulate fruitful discussion. As J.D. Jennings (personal communication 1978) put it recently:

There has been little progress in the last few years toward developing an internal chronology of culture change for either the Great Basin or the Colorado Plateau Berry (1972) has slightly adjusted my dating of phases for the Parowan valley (Marwitt 1970), and Schroedl and Hogan (1975) have proposed a Book Cliff phase with an assumed range of A.D.900-1200 for the Uinta Basin But we still know almost nothing of the sequence of culture change for the Great Basin from the south end of the Great Salt Lake to the Parowan valley, or for the Colorado Plateau between the Uinta Basin and the Colorado and Virgin rivers.

"• • • we must keep turning the compost heap over and over in order to get a rich, ripe, and aromatic product eventually developed. 1 think every time Ambler, you or Madsen fork it all through again, we come nearer to a full understanding, partly because every time it is reiorked, some new material is mixed in with the old."

In contrast to the situation in some areas of North America, the work of the archeologist who deals with the Fremont culture is not the dreary production of corroborative data or mere gap-filling. There are still many basic questions to answer and the likelihood of continued disagreement among researchers on important issues. I would therefore predict that the "Friends of the Fremontwill be a contentious lot for some time to come

The above is only a sample of the lack of consensus that continues to plague (or perhaps to grace) the study of prehistory in the Fremont area. We cannot agree on cultural origins, chronology, the kind and amount of internal 12

THE VARIANTS OF THE FREMONT: A METHODOLOGICAL EVALUATION PATRICK HOGAN and LYNNE SEBASTIAN Washington State University

ABSTRACT Much work in the Fremont region has centered about the question of "variants, "yel the implications of the concepts and assumptions that have structured the investigations related to this question have yet to be stated and considered. The basis of Fremont culture classification is examined, and the concept of variants is evaluated from this methodological perspective.

Three points are emphasized. First, the system of cultural classification into which the Fremont culture and its variants have been incorporated implies phylogenetic relationships which are not determinable given the descriptive level at which the definitions have been formulated. Second, this system of cultural classification, despite connotations of varying settlement patterns and means of subsistence, is based on selected artifact assemblages with discrete spatio-temporal distributions. And finally, the variants established using this classification system have been used in regional comparison as if they were solely geographic, with possible internal temporal developments being ignored.

INTRODUCTION Since the publication of Marwitt's definition of five Fremont variants (Marwitt 1970), work in the region has been directed toward an " . . . attempt to buttress or abandon the concept of several variants of Fremont culture thought to be recognized in Utah" (Jennings 1977:19-20).

Several "attempts" have proposed changes in variant boundaries (Schroedl and Hogan 1975), questioned the distinctiveness of the Fremont from the Anasazi (Berry and Berry 1976), and proposed the variants as separate cultures (Madsen and Lindsay 1977). Yet the implications of the concepts and assumptions implicit in Marwitt's classification — the framework of our investigations — have not been stipulated. This paper, then, seeks to examine the basis of Fremont cultural classification and to evaluate the concept of variants from this methodological perspective.

Three points are emphasized. First, the system of cultural classification into which the Fremont culture and its variants have been incorporated implies phylogenetic relationships which are not determinable given the descriptive level at which the definitions have been formu-

lated. Second, this system of cultural classification, despite connotations of varying settlement patterns and means of subsistence, is based on selected artifact assemblages with discrete spatio-temporal distributions. And finally, the variants established using this classification system have been used in regional comparison as if they were solely geographic, with possible internal temporal developments being ignored.

While the current designations of the Fremont and its variants could be retained to facilitate discussion, the limitations of the definitions and the implications of the classification system should be recognized. The current system of classification has been imposed on the data rather than having grown out of them. Thus, this system has structured our research instead of being a product of it.

We propose that future research be oriented toward studies of cultural adaptation at a community level; definitions of regional variants, if warranted, could then be based on varying settlement and subsistence systems — definitions more appropriate to the processual and culture ecological questions now being emphasized.

13

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND Let us consider briefly the Southwestern system of culture classification, its application to the Fremont culture, and its inherent conceptual difficulties. Between 1914 and 1960 the primary concerns in Southwestern archeology were chronology and the areal distribution ol artifacts (Willey and Sabloff 1974:89). Artifacts became index fossils and typologies were deemed useless unless they aided in effecting spatial and temporal separation of materials (Ford 1954; Rouse 1955). Because of this emphasis, pottery classification assumed considerable prominence in Southwestern archeology. Ceramics in the Southwest varied greatly in time and space, and potsherds were numerous and almost indestructible â&#x20AC;&#x201D; well suited to counting and manipulation.

Gladwin's culture classification system was a direct outgrowth of ihis biological approach to ceramic classification. Using the analogy of a tree, Gladwin designated the most fundamental grouping of cultures as "roots."

These split into "stems," and stems, in turn, into "branches." The working units from which these tree structures were constructed were "phases" (Gladwin and Gladwin 1934).

As described by Colton (1939), a phase was determined by noting similarities in ceramics; architecture; stone, wood, and bone implements; and textiles from contemporaneous sites in a restricted geographic area.

Similar phases in adjacent areas were combined into branches. Branches were assigned to stems, again on similarity of traits, especially ceramics. The process was one of gradual grouping based on artifact similarity, geographic location, and temporal provenience. For the Fremont, however, the process just described was bypassed.

The ceramic classifications pioneered by Winifred and H.S. Gladwin (1930) and Colton and Hardgrave (1937) were based on biological taxonomies, both in the use of binomial designators for pottery types and in the phylogenetic system through which types were related.

PHYLOGENY AND THE FREMONT The Fremont culture is described by Marwitt as ". an areal tradition taxonomically equivalent to Anasazi" (Marwitt (1970:137). As Madsen and Lindsay have observed (1977:89), this definition has arisen more through contrast of the materials with the Anasazi than through the grouping process described above. Once it was established that there were basic differences between the prehistoric horticulturalists of the "Northern Periphery" and the Pueblo culture of the San Juan drainage, the Fremont culture was accorded equal taxonomic status with the Anasazi - a distinct "stem" in Gladwin-Colton terms. Subsequently, Marwitt defined the Fremont variants (branches) with the same degree of regional specialization and cultural distinctiveness as the Mesa Verde or Kayenta Anasazi. Classification of regional variation within the Fremont was thus a dividing of the whole rather than a grouping of parts. Despite the anomalous and rather arbitrary manner in which the GladwinColton system was applied to the Fremont, that classification has continued to structure our thinking and research, even as it has been abandoned in the rest of the Southwest.

from "a distinct artifact assemblage" to "a dynamic system of human adaptation," the retention of culture classification based primarily on artifacts has frustrated attempts to deal with questions of origin, internal development, and cultural demise.

Similarly, the phylogenetic scheme inherent in the Southwestern classification system has frustrated attempts io understand the scale and development of cultural variation. The problem here is a simple one: the classification scheme incorporates in its hierarchy assumptions about the relationship between a culture and its subdivisions that remain to be demonstrated for the Fremont culture and its variants. As long as the classification is applied a priori, research will be self-fulfilling and circular.

The anomalous manner in which the Fremont was incorporated into the Gladwin-Colton classification system has a particular implication for any consideration of the problem of cultural origin and the basis of cultrual variation. Currently the most widely accepted hypothesis of Fremont origin is that Fremont was derived from an indigenous Archaic culture that adopted ceramics, horticulture, and pithouse architecture through the same early stimulus of Southwestern influence that triggered Anasazi development (Jennings J 978a: 155-156) This hypothesis is based on the presence in the Fremont material culture of typical Archaic artifacts, especially the Fremont moccasin and one-rod-and-bundle-basketry (both distinctive features of the Desert Archaic in the eastern Great Basin) and on the stratigraphic evidence lrorn Hogup Cave showing apparent continuity between Archaic and Fremont levels (Aikens 1970b:204).

In the Gladwin-Colton classification, definition is based on variation in artifact style and assemblage composition, which leads to an emphasis on the trait list. A growing interest among archeologists in cultural ecology introduced the concepts of site location, settlement pattern, and subsistence pattern into definitions of cultural subdivisions, but locational and subsistence data do not permit the fine distinctions that are possible using artifact taxonomies, so these taxonomies were often retained And, as our working definition of culture has changed 14

Others have hypothesized that Fremont had a northern Plains origin (Aikens 1966b; Sharrock 1966) or was a northward extension of the Anasazi (Gunnerson 1969; Berry 1975). Our purpose here is not to evaluate the relative merits of these three hypotheses, but to point out how the incorporation of the Fremont into the Southwestern classification has crippled our attempts to resolve this question.

As discussed, the phylogenetic nature of the Gladwin scheme makes Fremont culture a stem and root; if we accept this, then there can be but one origin of the Fremont, and the variants must represent subsequent diversifications. The possibility suggested by Madsen and Lindsay (1977) of different origins for the variants and subsequent convergence cannot be effectively analyzed as long as the present framework is in use. By the same

token, their definition of separate cultures ol equivalcni taxonomic status would, if accepted, thwart attempts to analyze the Fremont as a single cohesive entity with regional variability.

Manipulation of the present classification system cannot better explain the variation in the prehistoric agricultural cultures of Utah. Because the classification scheme contains genetic implications, the relations between the variants are predetermined by the way they are classified.

There can be little doubt that the classification of Fremont culture has brought order where there was once only chaos. But given the ambiguities and pitfalls of that system, it is reasonable to ask whether such broad classifications may not be premature. Is the gain in regional clarity at this stage of research worth the price?

TRAIT LISTS AND THE VALIDITY OF THE VARIANTS The reliance on trait lists to define a culture inherent in the Gladwin-Colton system bears directly on the definition, utility, and cultural reality of Marwitt's variants.

Because of a concern for chronology and culture classification in the Southwest, artifact typologies became formalized, emphasizing those attributes that provided the greatest degree of temporal and spatial separation. Artifacts came to be treated as fossils with characteristically restricted distributions. Although the gains in the understanding of Southwestern prehistory that resulted from this strategy should not be underestimated, the focus on artifacts in time and space led to an increasing removal of the artifacts from any cultural context. With extension of this strategy to culture classification, the problem was magnified.

During the early twentieth century it was accepted that the restrictions of archeological data would permit archeologists to contribute little to the field of anthropology. At best they could only hope to achieve an ordering of prehistoric cultures in time and space. And these cultures were literally collections of traits â&#x20AC;&#x201D; assemblages of artifacts and features that co-varied in time and space, artifact traditions whose relationships were defined on morphological similarity.

As culture historians attempted to flesh out their regional frameworks and concern about relating archeological material to cultures began to emerge, data on subsistence, settlement patterns, and other aspects of lifeway were added to the basic artifact definitions. This was done largely through analogy with ethnographic records of historic peoples.

Other than providing an appearance of more comprehensive culture classification, this veneer of anthropological relevance has had little impact on the study of Fremont variants. In the area of subsistence, for example, little systematic work has been done. That there was great variation is evident; the use of marshland resources and bison by the Great Salt Lake Fremont

(Aikens 1966b; Shields and Dalley 1978) differs fundamentally from the reliance on cultivated crops apparent in the San Rafael area. Madsen and Lindsay (1977:90) have suggested these differences are sufficiently great to warrant separate cultural designations. Our view is that any basing of classification on subsistence or settlement pattern at this time is premature. The necessary quantity of information is simply unavailable.

In his definition of Fremont variants Marwitt states: " . . . a defensible ecological definition of each variant is not possible at present â&#x20AC;&#x201D; primarily because environmental information is not available in sufficient quantity, but also because patterns of aboriginal land use have not been studied in detail and ecological districts are by no means coextensive with the geographical limits proposed here for each cultural variant (1970138)."

Our knowledge of Fremont settlement and subsistence has increased little since then, and despite Marwitt's intentions, the variants of the Fremont remain simply **. . . geographic divisions reflecting slightly different assemblages of material culture . . ."(Marwitt 1970:138).

The reason lor this, we believe, is that despite the tentative nature of the variants as proposed, those of us involved in Fremont research have operated as if these variants were established patterns of varying cultural adaptation as well as of artifactual material. Site artifacts are analyzed; the site is assigned to a variant based on location and artifact content; and interpretation of economic and demographic factors are taken from the assumptions of the classification scheme rather than from detailed study of the site material. Rather than providing a focus for more detailed study, as intended, the variants have merely given an illusion of sophistication to our pigeonholing of artifact complexes. Until careful studies of regional cultural adaptation provide some concrete data by which to assess the variants, this classification based on geographic distributions of artifacts will remain 15

an inappropriate Iramework for our inquiries into the "cultural reality" of the Fremont and its regional subdivisions.

We might ask whether the variants, stripped on any ecological implications, could not be useful as a descriptive means of ordering systematic covariation ol artifact types in a regional sequence. In reality such a systematiccovariation does not occur; artifact distributions overlap, but not regularly. In order to define variants on the basis of artifact assemblages, those artifacts producing the greatest separation are used to establish the borders;

the less separable artifacts that fall within that area arc then tacked onto the trait list lor that variant. As now defined, the Fremont variants are most defensible as a map of the distribution ol a ceramic tradition. II emphasis is given to a different cultural trait, marked changes in variant borders occur. This does not imply that distinctive artifact clusters cannot be formulated, but these aggregates should include a large number of artifact types possessed by most of the sites, with no single type necessary or sufficient for membership.

TAXONOMY AND TEMPORAL VARIATION In discussing the conceptual problems of Fremom cultural classification we have so far emphasized two problems inherent in the typological system itself. A third problem relates to a shift in the theoretical orientation of Fremont specialists from culture history to culture ecology. This new emphasis has altered our conception of what a variant is, causing us to inadvertently ignore temporal variation in our taxonomic scheme.

Marwitt conceived of the Fremont variants as regional sequences with the implicit assumption that chronological phases would be worked out as more data became available. Due largely to a general shift in interest from chronology to cultural ecology this remains to be done. The variants have rather become designators for different adaptive patterns, despite Marwitt's statement of the tenuous nature of such an interpretation. And as research has proceded, it is the vari-

ant itsell that has become the basic unit of comparison.

The variation due to several hundred years of style change and cultural development within an area has thereby been effectively compressed into a single spatial grouping, and the resulting loss of temporal variability has made the question of regional variation more ambiguous. Do figurines occur only in a few variants throughout the Fremont occupation, or are they a later embellishment on a more basic Fremont cultural pattern? Are cultigens part of the cultural legacy that triggered development of a Fremont culture which deemphasized them in later periods in favor of other resources, or were they never accepted over the entire Fremont area? Such questions would require that finer chronologies be formulated for each variant separately and that inter-variant comparisons take chronological phases into account.

SUMMARY In this paper, we have argued that the scheme of culture classification that marks the present level of Fremont regional synthesis has structured our inquiry into Fremont culture history. Inherent in the classification of Fremont and its variants in terms of the Gladwin-Colton Southwestern classification scheme are two problems.

First, the genetic relationships assumed in the system frustrate efforts to determine the "cultural reality" of the variants, their relationship to one another, and indeed, the origin of the Fremont culture itself and its relationship to other Southwest traditions. Second, the classification of Fremont variants is based on the distribution of only a few diagnostic artifacts, so that their present use as ecological variants is premature and misleading.

An additional difficulty with our current use of the variants is that in using them as designators of varying adaptation, we have come to ignore temporal variation within each variant when comparing artifact traits between regions.

Given these criticisms, we conclude that the variants as defined have only minimal validity â&#x20AC;&#x201D; a validity that

is more than offset by the problems the framework causes in misdirecting our research goals. It seems unlikely that the present designators will be abandoned â&#x20AC;&#x201D; the framework does have some utility in defining our interest area and in facilitating communication among areal specialists. It is imperative, therefore, that the implications of the way Fremont specialists have applied this classification be recognized and that the pitfalls we have outlined here be consciously avoided. In restructuring work in the Fremont region, it seems most profitable to drop back to concentrated studies of communities, exploring in detail local systems of adaptation. As studies in adjacent areas are compared, new variant definitions can be formulated, based less on traits than on technology, economics, and settlement patterns. Sequences of development can then be built up for the local area and gradually expanded, creating a classification system based on the empirical realities of Fremont culture or cultures rather than on a procrustean application of the Colton-Gladwin system.

16

FREMONT ORIGINS: A CRITIQUE MICHAEL S. BERRY Bureau of Indian Affairs ABSTRACT No one working in the Fremont area has come to grips with the theoretical issues involved in the analysis and explanation of cultural origins. As a brief historical presentation of the various Fremont origins hypotheses demonstrates, only two kinds ol explanations have ever been proffered; 1) the l-remont culture developed in situ from a Desert Archaic base, 2) the Fremont culture developed in some "external" area and found its way into Utah through migration. 1 will argue that both accounts are explanation-avoidance strategies and do not constitute explanations in any useful sense of the term. 1 will also argue that this state of affairs should come as no surprise since anthropological theory in general is inadequaie to the task of explaining cultural origins; The theoretical shortcomings evidenced in the Fremont literature arc the shortcomings of evolutionary anthropology in microcosm.

INTRODUCTION According to Gunnerson (1969), the theoretical issues that underlie the search for Fremont origins are nonproblematical and clear-cut. There are only two means of explaining the origin of a particular cultural entity and, this theoretic assertion accepted, the problem of determining which mechanism was responsible is an empirical one. As Gunnerson put it:

gatherers are thought to have occupied most of the state of Utah continuously from 8000 B.C. until A . D . 5 0 0 or 700 (depending on interpretation) at which time they were transformed into the Fremont culture through the diffusion of Anasazi traits, e.g., pottery, pithouses, maize, etc.

In all variations on this theme, evolutionary developments in the external Anasazi area are taken for granted and the concept of diffusion is employed as a linking mechanism to account for the principle, non-indigenous traits that distinguish the F r e m o n t culture from the ancestral western Archaic. There are several things wrong with this scheme. Particular problems of empirical verification will be discussed later. F o r now it will suffice to note that any formulation of cultural origins founded on the concept of diffusion can be no more than a description of events since diffusion is decidedly not an explanatory mechanism. As Marvin Harris argues:

There are two logical possibilities with regard to the origin of the Fremont culture. It could have developed m situ from a Desert culture base with the addition of Anasazi traits, a theory championed by Rudy (1953), Jennings and Norbeck "(1955), and Wormington (1955).'

The second possibility . . . [is] that the Fremont culture represents a movement of people with a Puebloan culture into the area . . . (Gunnerson 1969:170).

As will be seen, these are the only two kinds of argument that have been offered in explanation of Fremont origins, i-e., endogenous development stimulated by external sources of diffused culture traits or migration into the Fremont region from some external staging area. The Problem is that neither of these options constitutes an explanation of Fremont origins â&#x20AC;&#x201D; at least not in any useful sense of the term. Rather, both approaches circumscribe an "area of interest" and then shift the locus of events requiring explanation to some external area.

In the case of the in situ hypothesis, Archaic hunter-

. . . diffusion is admittedly incapable of accounting for the origin of a given trait, except by "passing the buck" back through an infinite regression: A -> B -^ C -> . . . ? As soon as we admit, as the archeology of the New World now compels, that independent invention has occurred on massive scale, diffusion is by definition not only superfluous, but the very incarnation of antiscience (Harris 1968a:378).

While Harris' brand of evolutionism is equally ill-suited

17

to the task of explanation (Friedman 1971; Berry n . d ) , his anti-diflusionist arguments parallel Julian Steward's (1955a) and seem quite sound. In the case at hand, the attempt to account for, say, pottery and maize in the Fremont area by passing the buck to the Anasazi, thence to the Mogollon, thence to some unidentified source in Mesoamerica, reveals nothing more than the fact thai these two items occurred earlier in the south than they did in the north. But this much was known from the outset on empirical grounds and nothing is added to our understanding of the process by restating the facts in diffusionist terminology. This is especially true when we consider that the facts which typically lead to the inference that diffusion has occurred may actually be consequences of qualitatively different kinds of processes.

Elman Service (1964) offers a clear statement of the problem in his "Archeological Theory and Ethnological Fact." 1 quote here at length; Historical reconstructions in archeology are based on comparisons of traits and attributes of traits representing different cultures. When there is a significant similarity between assemblages of traits then it may be asserted that there is a significant relationship between the respective cultures. But what is meant by "relationship?" Similarities in two lists of traits could suggest any of three distinct kinds of occurrences: (1) The traits might be similar because they represent two descendenl cultures of one homogenous parent culture; that is, surviving elements of the same cultural tradition are now found in two separate manifestations. The link between them is thus ancestral culturally phylogenetic. (2) Similarity may also have been created in certain respects by diffusion or trade between two otherwise historically distinct societies. (3) Some similarities may be chance parallelisms or adaptive convergences to like environmental or historical influences.

A major methodological problem is revealed here: How can comparisons of traits and attributes be made so that a conclusion is reached as to which of the above possibilities is responsible for the similarities? (Service 1964:5).

is by no means a recent phenomenon and can be traced back at least as far as 1889 when Francis Galton raised the issue in response to F.B. Tylor's paper on the crosscultural survey method (Naroll 1961). It has thus been dubbed "Galton's problem" and has so lar defied solution though there has been no shortage of attempts (Naroll 1961; Vermeulcn and Ruijter 1975; Strauss and Oransl975).

In sum, not only is diffusion of limited utility as an explanatory or heuristic concept, but even the fact of its occurrence cannot, in most cases, be demonstrated unequivocally on the basis of archeological data. 11 we wish to explain Fremont origins — or, for that matter, the origins of any culture whatsoever — it seems advisable to approach the problem without recourse to the diffusionist crutch.

As for the second of the "two logical possibilities" cited by Gunnerson, i.e., migration, there is little in the way of convincing evidence. And if there were, this scheme would not constitute a useful explanation of Fremont origins per se. Rather, such a theory takes for granted the emergent evolution of the Fremont culture in some external region, and requires only that the migration itself be explained.

While neither the "in situ development-plus-diffusion" type of hypothesis nor any of the various migration hypotheses is theoretically adequate, these two kinds of argument — taken singly or in combination — are exhaustive of the ideas to be found in the Fremont literature. As will be seen in the brief survey which follows, debates on the subject of Fremont origins have centered on the discovery of the "true" sources of migrating populations or diffused traits. In short, the theoretical underpinning has been assumed to be essentially correct and the search for origins has been treated as an empirical question. On the contrary, the problem is, and has long been, a theoretical one. The present paper is, as stated in the title, a critique. It was my original intent to follow the critical review of past ideas with yet another model of Fremont origins. However, a careful reading of the earlier literature on the subject led to the realization that I had nothing of conceptual significance to offer. 1 have therefore opted to stick to the review format and forgo this opportunity to speculate on the nature of Fremont emergence.

Service offered no solution to the problem other than advising archeologists to read more ethnology so that they might, in future, avoid some of the more embarrassing inferential errors. In the archeological literature, Binford (1968) has essentially paraphrased Service's arguments but, again, offers no feasible solution. Of course, the recognition of this source of interpretive ambiguity

FREMONT ORIGINS: AN HISTORICAL REVIEW respondence with the sequence of publication dates, though the two are in general agreement.

Julian Steward's "Native Cultures of the Intermontane (Great Basin) Area" (Steward 1940) serves as an excellent starting point for the present discussion.

Steward designated what is now called the Fremont area as the "Northern Periphery" of the Anasazi area. This he subdivided into the "Sevier Desert Region Pueblo" and the "Upper Colorado Plateau Pueblo." These

The intent of this section is to provide an overview of the development of the main lines of thought on the subject and to assess the positions of the various students involved in terms of the framework sketched out in the introductory statement. So while this review is, in a sense, "historical," no attempt has been made to summarize the views of every scholar who has concerned himself with the problem. Nor have 1 made any rigorous effort to keep the order of discussion in strict cor-

18

regions correspond, respectively, to the eastern Greai Basin and Colorado Plateau physiographic provinces within the state of Utah. As the term Northern Periphery indicates, Steward felt that the cultural content of this region was derived primarily from the San Juan Anasazi through diffusion or migration. However, Steward maintained that the Intcrmontane area as a whole (and the Northern Periphery subdivision in particular) constituted a distinctive culture area, interrelated but analytically separable from adjacent areas.

1 o recognize, however, that the lntermontane area was in a broad sense "western" and that it had drawn heavily upon neighboring culture centers does not justify either classifying it with any of these areas or splitting it between them. The elements that link it with neighboring areas occur predominantly along its margins, rapidly disappearing — inhibited no doubt by the slender local resources — toward its center . . . But much of the culture was unlike that of neighboring areas (Steward 1940:450).

As for the Northern Periphery, Steward's opinions on the overall similarities with the Anasazi culture were tempered by the observation that significant differences also occurred.

But other Pueblo traits, though known in the Western Periphery, were not accepted in the Northern Periphery. Absence of domesticated cotton, the loom, twilled baskets, sandals, and probably of the domesticated turkey may represent a continuation of the local preference for articles of hide. It is more difficult to explain the failure of grooved stone axes and mauls and thin metates placed in bins to spread northward.

Not entirely dependent on the Southwest, the Northern Periphery developed some distinctive traits: The "Fremont moccasin," hide shields, pecked stone balls, small, rectangular gaming (?) bones, a remarkable elaboration of anthropomorphic petroglyphs, pictographs, and unbaked clay figurines, the "Utah metate," and such ceramic traits as stuck-on and punched (false corrugated) decoration (Steward 1940: 472).

These differences led Steward to formulate a rather complex model of Northern Periphery origins. First, he formulated two temporal phases of development. Phase I consisted of a "blend" of Basketmaker and early Pueblo traits which was introduced to the Northern Periphery through diffusion rather than migration.

While Steward made no specific comments on the topic, this interpretation implies the existence of indigenous Northern Periphery populations. The same is implied by Steward's reference to " . . . a continuation of the local preference for articles of hide . . ." in the passage quoted above. No actual migration occurred until Phase II which corresponds to Pueblo II, and even then Steward aid not emphasize population movement as a major factor.

The problem with the Phase I diffusion account was that no such "blend" of Basketmaker and eariy Pueblo was known to exist. This led Steward to assume that th e requisite blending had occurred outside the Northe r n Pen P h e r y , most likely ". . . on the northern fringe

ol the San Juan area in western Colorado from which it spread northward and westward" (Steward 1940:468).

The bigger problem is, of course, that this could not possibly constitute an explanation of Northern Periphery origins. As discussed in the introduction, this sort of argument merely shiits the locus of the evolutionary explanandum event to some external - and, in this case, archcologically unknown — area.

Finally, it should be noted that Steward was the first to postulate a relationship between the Promontory culture of the northeastern Great Basin and northwest Plains Athabaskans. According to Steward, the Promontory populations were primarily dependent on hunting and, . . seem to have arrived in the Great Salt Lake region while it was still occupied by the Pueblo farmers and to have remained there an undetermined length of time after the latter had disappeared. These data cannot now be interpreted conclusively but tempt speculation (Steward 1940: 473).

H u s c h e r a n d Huscher (1943) carried the argument a bit further, suggesting that the Fremont culture as a whole was a product of Athabaskan migration.

Little significant research was accomplished during the war years and it was not until the publication of Rudy's "Archeological Survey of Western Utah" that speculation over the origins of the Northern Periphery villagers was reinstituted. Rudy's synthesis was based primarily on survey work conducted from 1949 through 1952 and was restricted in areal extent to that portion of the eastern Great Basin lying within the state of Utah, i.e., Steward's "Sevier Desert Region Pueblo."

While Rudy had a considerably greater quantity of data on which to base his inferences than did Steward, there was no qualitative difference in data patterning.

Like Steward, Rudy recognized a hunter-gatherer period which antedated the "Puebloid" occupation.

And, again like Steward, Rudy identified postPuebloid hunter-gatherer cultures as proto-historic and historic Shoshonean. However, unlike Steward, Rudy designated the makers of Promontory ware (Steward's Promontory culture) as proto-Shoshonean and, further, he postulated that the entire western Utah sequence from pre-Puebloid hunter-gatherers through the Puebloid period to the historic Shoshoni constituted a Shoshonean cultural continuum. With regard to Puebloid origins, Rudy offered the following: In summary, it may be said that the diagnostic features of the western Utah Puebloid culture are not so much distinctive individual traits, but a distinctive combination resulting from indigenous developments plus the selection, modification, and blending of traits characteristic of the Anasazi Basketmaker and early Pueblo periods (Rudy 1953:167).

The foregoing suggests that the Puebloid culture was adopted by one or more groups of Great Basin gathering-hunting peoples. Perhaps these Puebloids were a group of prehistoric Shoshoni. The similarities in the culture patterns of the prehistoric gatheringhunting cultures of the Great Basin and the historically

known Shoshoni make this hypothesis seem acceptable if this assumption is correct, what probably took place is that sometime alter the Anasazi Basketmaker-Pueblo culture developed in the Southwest various of its traits difluscd northward. As groups of the Basin peoples became acquainted with these new things they accepted some and adapted them to their existing mode of life.

The groups of people closest to the Anasazi area wcrc thc first to accept and modify the traits. These groups in turn passed the traits on to peoples more distant from the Anasazi center and the traits became further modified. As this process of diffusion continued, a range of variation of the Pueblo traits developed throughout Utah and the surrounding areas. This accounts for the variations found in the Puebloid culture in the Great Salt Lake region, the Sevier Desert region, central Utah, the Fremont River area, and southern Utah and Nevada (Rudy 1953:168).

periods (e.g., Swanson 1972; Irwin-Williams 1967, 1973).

When we consider the great difficulty encountered in the attempt to demonstrate continuity between historic groups and even the most recent prehistoric remains in the same geographic region (Ezell 1963), the gratuitous nature of bolder claims comes immediately to the surlace.

While linguistic continuity between two sequent prehistoric cultural entities cannot be positively demonstrated, it is sometimes possible to demonstrate that such continuity is highly improbable. In the case at hand, Steward adduced the then unpublished works of Sidney Lamb and Morris Swadesh, the results of which implied that the Shoshoneans could not have entered the Puebloan area until A.D. 1000 or later. Since the Puebloid occupation was thought to have spanned the period from A.D. 500 to 1200 (Rudy 1953), the lexicostatistical evidence seemingly eliminated the Shoshoneans from the list of probable ancestors. This, by the way, was the first attempt t o apply the so-called " L a m b hypothesis" (Lamb 1958; Miller 1966) to Great Basin prehistory.

As for the demise of the Puebloid culture, Rudy relied on the then popular Great Drought theory as a convenient stress mechanism to explain the reversion of the Puebloids to a hunting and gathering society identified as the immediate precursors of the historically known Shoshoni.

Steward's (1955b) review of Rudy's work raised several important points. The first that deserves mention is an apparent inconsistency in Steward's culture history construct. In the process of attacking Rudy's notion of a Shoshonean continuum, Steward made reference to his own, earlier construct (Steward 1940) which purportedly stated that: . ... there were 4 distinct cultural periods in western Utah — pre-Puebloan hunters, Puebloan farmers, Promontory hunters (in the north), and Shoshonean hunters and gatherers . . . (Steward 1955b:88; emphasis mine).

A second criticism raised in Steward's review dealt with Rudy's rejection of the term "Northern Periphery" (Steward 1933a: 1940). R u d y objected to the term because it implied that, . . .Utah was culturally marginal to the Anasazi area during the complete time span of the Anasazi culture.

There is evidence that Utah did not constitute an area culturally subordinate to the Anasazi except during the period of Anasazi expansion. Evidence of a prePuebloid culture in the Great Basin is well documented . . .

Simple reference to Utah as the Northern Periphery serves chiefly to submerge and obscure the individuality of the Utah cultures (Rudy 1953:168).

It is clear in the context of the review that Steward intended "4 distinct cultural periods" to mean four culturally unrelated a n d / o r temporally discontinuous populations. But, as noted earlier, Steward's 1940 synthesis asserted that the origin of the Puebloan farmers was best explained by diffusion rather than migration, hence there must have been a strong thread of continuity with some indigenous population. It is impossible, then, to accept in toto Steward's 1955 claim that his 1940 model was comprised of four distinct culture periods since at least two — the pre-Puebloan hunters and the Puebloan farmers — were, by implication, culturally and biologically continuous.

It seems clear that this point was not well thought out.

The existence of pre- and post-Puebloid remains is wholly irrelevant to the question of whether or not the Utah Puebloid culture should be considered peripheral to coeval Anasazi cultural development. Steward (1940) was well aware of the fact that the eastern Great Basin had been occupied for a very long time — perhaps since the close of the Pleistocene — and it is clear in context that his "Northern Periphery" designation was applicable only during the relatively brief period (A.D. 500-1200) marked by primary reliance on agricultural products. This being the case, there is little doubt that Puebloids were the "recipients" rather than the "donors" of maize, domestic architecture, and ceramics.

In this sense, Utah most assuredly was "culturally marginal" to the Anasazi area. As Steward reminded us,

However, to admit of one connection is a far cry from accepting all the periods as continuous and Steward's criticism of the linguistic implications of Rudy's model was quite appropriate.

Rudy's speculations that the Puebloids were essentially hunters and gatherers, probably Shoshoneans, who adopted Basketmaker and Pueblo traits . . . assumes incredible permanency of a language group (Steward 1955b:88).

This of course, is a criticism that might be leveled against a number of prehistoric reconstructions that assert linguistic and cultural continuity for millenial

Culture area taxonomy . . . is based on the concept of climax, center, typical manifestation or major intensity, and the corollary concept of marginality. If western Utah is properly classifiable with the Anasazi or Pueblo tradition, it is obviously marginal in that it borrowed some but not all diagnostic features from the climax area (Steward 1955b:89).

20

The point of all this may be simply stated, //"discussion is to be conducted in the culture area idiom, and / / t h e discussants agree that the major features which set the Puebloid (or Puebloan or Fremont) culture apart from its ancestral form were derived from the Anasazi area, then the Puebloid region is properly referred to as "marginal" or "peripheral." Those who take exception to these terms are obliged to find some other idiom of discourse or demonstrate that the diffusion of significant traits was in the other direction. I am not, here, defending either culture area terminology or its attendent theoretical orientation, i.e., diffusionism. 1 am merely pointing out that within the context provided by culture area formulation, Steward was "correct," i.e., internally consistent, while Rudy and those "who similarly have balked at the thought of classifying the Utah villagers as peripheral were "incorrect," i.e., inconsistent in the application of culture area principles.

Jennings (195b; 1957) l a t e , reiterated the "in situ dcvclopmcnt-plus-difliisinirhypothcsis with few additional elaborations beyond a slight shift in terminology i.e., "Puebloid" was replaced by "Sevier-Fremont."

Taylor (1957) lollowed this convention as well as the general "in situ" story line.

James H. Gunnerson's w o r k (Gunnerson 1960, 1962, 1969) comprised an interesting combination of previously developed theories and a complete shift to a migrationist position. Unlike all previous researchers, Gunnerson asserted that neither t h e Fremont culture of the Colorado Plateau nor the Sevier culture (Jennings' Sevier-Fremont) of the eastern Great Basin emerged as archcologicaliy recognizable entities until A.D. 950 or later. According to G u n n e r s o n , the immediate ancestors of the Fremont and Sevier cultures were Virgin branch Anasazi populations t h a t expanded into Utah at some time during the t e n t h century under the impetus provided by the introduction of a highly productive race of maize (1969:179). The initial rendering of this hypothesis was "loose" e n o u g h to make it at least partly compatible with the " i n situ development-plusdiffusion" model.

In the same issue of American Antiquity that carried Steward's review of Rudy, appeared Jennings and Norbeck'sinfluental synthesis of Great Basin prehistory (Jennings and Norbeck 1955). Following Rudy's lead, they rejected the term "Northern Periphery" and concluded that,

It seems probable that the distinctive flavor of the Fremont culture, however, resulted from blending of Virgin traits with the Desert culture traits of a sparse indigenous population (Gunnerson 1960: 378).

. . . horticulture, grafted onto an older life pattern, existed in the Great Basin for only a relatively brief period. Its disappearance was followed by a resumption, with little alteration, of the pattern of life of the old Desert culture, a pattern which had never wholly died out. The same sequence of events also occurred in the area of the old Fremont culture (Jennings and Norbeck 1955:6).

This made it sound as if the difference between Jennings, Rudy, Taylor and W o r m i n g t o n , on the one hand, and Gunnerson, on the other, w a s merely one of emphasis, with Gunnerson stressing the effects of external cultural influence more strongly than the others. However, Gunnerson's later writings left no room for conciliation. The proto-Fremont and proto-Sevier populations were the Virgin branch Anasazi and if there were any indigenous Archaic populations living in Utah at the time of the Anasazi e x p a n s i o n , their presence was of no great consequence.

They differed from Rudy only in leaving the problem of language identification as an open question. That same year saw the publication of H . M . Wormington's "A Reappraisal of the Fremont Culture" (Wormington 1955). By this time, the areal extent of the Fremont culture had been expanded considerably beyond Morss' (1931) original definition to include a region coextensive with Steward's "Upper Colorado Plateau Pueblo."

Wormington maintained the distinction between Fremont and Rudy's Puebloid area and arrived at essentially the same conclusions as Rudy (1953), and Jennings and Norbeck (1955) with regard to cultural origins.

. . . the in situ transition from Desert culture to Fremont has nowhere been demonstrated archeologically.

Moreover, the manifestations of the Fremont culture are remarkably similar throughout its time span, suggesting that this Puebloan complex entered the area after it was already developed, and as a unit. Such a phenomenon is more likely t o be effected by a migrating population than by diffusion . . . Nor is there any need to look to the Desert culture for the "early" traits in Fremont, since they are all present in the Virgin culture. In short, Fremont is probably no more directly derived from Desert culture than is Mesa Verde or Kayenta (Gunnerson 1969:170).

Comparative data would suggest that the Puebloid and Fremont cultures sprang from the same variant of the generalized Basin Culture and that both acquired certain Anasazi traits, but that, due to different environmental conditions, separation by physiographic barriers which favored independent development, a*nd exposure to different influences, they did not develop in entirely the same way (Wormington 1955:180).

This major difference noted, the remainder of Gunnerson's model was an elaboration of Rudy's earlier suggestions.

While Wormington warned against the ". . . false impression of real knowledge . . ." fostered by the "glib" usage of diffusion as an explanatory concept, it is the most visable connective mechanism in her construct.

. . . it was postulated that the area occupied by the Virgin branch of the Anasazi was the homeland of the proto-Plateau Shoshoneans, that some of them moved out of the Virgin area into the Fremont area at ca.A.D. 950, and that, at about the same time, others moved 21

into the Sevier area. Here they lived by means of horticulture combined with hunting and gathering until ca A.I).1200, when drought forced them to abandon then crop lands and disperse as hunter gatherers to the limits of the area occupied by Plateau Shoshoneans in early historic times (Gunnerson 1969:195).

idea has a great deal ol merit, although needing further proof (as Aikens admits), and would question his timetable for the movement ol Athabascans into the area (Ambler 1966b: 267).

The Aikens model alluded to by Ambler was, indeed, an interesting one if for no other reason than it offered a refreshing alternative to the long established trend of pointing to the Anasazi as the source of all significant introduced traits. As noted earlier, Huscherand Huscher (1943) were the first to suggest Athabaskan origins for the Fremont, but the idea received no serious consideration until it was revamped and more fully elaborated by Aikens (1966b). His model relied on a combination of migrationist and diffusionist processes as revealed in the following passages.

Unlike Rudy's model, this was compatible â&#x20AC;&#x201D; at least in the temporal sense â&#x20AC;&#x201D; with the Lamb hypothesis owing to Gunnerson's A.D.950 estimate for the beginning of the Fremont and Sevier cultures. This estimate has, of course, been invalidated by subsequent work in both regions. But even if it had not, Gunnerson's account would eventually have been recognized as inadequate for the same reasons mentioned earlier in connection with Steward's initial formulation. Even though Gunnerson adhered to a migrationist rather than a diffusionist position, he employed the same explanation-avoidance strategy, i.e., a shift in the locus of critical events to some external and, preferably, little known area. In Steward's case, the postulated area of development was the northern San Juan region of western Colorado. For Gunnerson, it was the Virgin branchâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;an area which was, and still is, very poorly understood in terms of cultural content and practically devoid of temporal controls.

The proto-Fremont people were a group of Northwestern Plains origin, probably Athabaskans. They moved southward and westward into Utah at approximately A.D. 500 . . . The new population may have encountered and assimilated a sparse Desert Archaicculture population which had already begun to acquire some Southwestern Anasazi traits . . . The immigrants synthesized from the Northwestern Plains and Anasazi elements a mixed horticultural-hunting economy, the distinctive Fremont rock art, and a pottery tradition in which traits of both Anasazi . . . and Plains . . . ceramic traditions were incorporated (Aikens 1966b: 205).

In 1966, Ambler (1966; 1969) redefined Gunnerson's Fremont and Sevier cultures under the heading of Fremont in order to contrast the entire area with the adjacent Anasazi and establish the Fremont culture as taxonomically equivalent to the traditional Anasazi, Hohokam, and Mogollon divisions.

Concerning origins, Ambler followed Gunnerson in deriving Fremont from the Virgin branch area but opted for diffusion as the ". . . principal means by which Anasazi traits were transmitted to the Fremont area (1966: 266)." Ambler was even more conservative than Gunnerson in his estimate of Fremont antiquity, asserting that,

The Fremont abandonment, according to Aikens, was a consequence of "Shoshonean pressure" which forced the Athabaskan Fremont populations eastward, back onto the Plains where they constituted "the unique complex known as the Dismal River aspect (attributed to Plains Apache) of western Nebraska and Kansas and eastern Colorado and Wyoming (Aikens 1966b: 205)."

Aikens' model was subsequently assailed on numerous fronts (Armelagos 1968; Armelagos, Dewey and Carlquist 1968; Husted and Mallory 1967; Wedel 1967; Swanson 1972). This, in combination with the evidence of Archaic-Fremont continuity at Hogup Cave, eventually led Aikens to accept the "in situ developmentplus-diffusion" argument. Accordingly, the biological and cultural roots of the Fremont were once again sought in the various, local Archaic substrata. As for the effects of diffusion:

. . . the Fremont culture did not exist as a recognizable archeological entity prior to 1050 or after 1200, perhaps giving or taking a few years either direction al each end (Ambler 1966:261).

This was based on Ambler's critical assessment of the then available radiocarbon and tree-ring dates. His arguments for the rejection of all radiocarbon dates earlier than A.D. 1050 were well formulated and logically valid.

However, subsequent work has produced a large number of well-controlled dates that cumulatively render his temporal framework untenable.

The probable importance of differential external influences can be noted in the fact that most of the archeological traits cited as evidence in hypotheses relating Fremont closely to the southwestern Anasazi come from the Sevier, Parowan, and San Rafael variants of the Fremont, which are geographically contiguous to Anasazi culture provinces, while most of those thought to link Fremont with the northern and western Plains come from the vicinity of the Great Salt Lake and from the Uinta Basin, which lie significantly further to the north and are geographically open to the north and east (Aikens 1972: 64).

As for the ancestors of the Fremont, Ambler offered the following: In order to have Anasazi traits spread into central and northern Utah, there must have been someone living there in the first place. Until very recently, it has been generally agreed . . . that pre-Fremont culture in. this area could be classed within the generalized Desert Culture, perhaps with some Basketmaker overtones.

Aikens (1966b) has recently questioned this view, postulating that the proto-Fremont people were culturally and physically much more closely allied to the Plains, and specifically, Athabascan groups. I feel that his

Since this was the last paragraph in Aikens' article, the implication is that propinquity constitutes a sufficient if not necessary, explanation of cultural similarities.

The tendency for adjacent cultures to possess more

22

traits in common than widely separated ones is a statistical generalization of moderate strength. This much is true, but statistical generalizations arc things to be explained. They do not constitute explanations in any meaningful sense. Archeologists have made this poini so many times, it is in danger of becoming cliche. Yel propinquity has somehow managed to retain its popularity as a pseudo-explanation of inter-regional similarities of trait complexes.

John P. Marwitt's "Median Village and Fremont Culture Regional Variation" (Marwitt 1970) can safely be considered the standard work on the Fremont culture. It is an excellent summary of the state of the art as of 1970, and his regional typology of Fremont variants has continued in use as the medium of discourse among the majority of students. As for Fremont origins, Marwitt accepted the "in situ development-plusdiflusion" scheme and, following Jennings (1966), he suggested but did not push the possibility that the source of diffusion might be the Mogollon rather than the Anasazi.

the Fremont culture as a whole grew out of a widespiead "Basketmaker 11-like" horizon. This suffered Irom the same explanation-avoidance symptoms already discussed with regard to Steward's and Gunnerson's models. Madsen and Lindsay (1977) have, in efIcct, stated thai all the various hypotheses are probably correct in the sense that different combinations of migration and diffusion lrom different external sources might account for the internal variation demonstrated in the archeological record. This is a bit too eclectic for my tastes and 1 doubt that the adherents of particular hypotheses have grown so complacent that they are willing to accept Madsen and Lindsay's compromise position. Also worthy of mention is Goss' (1977) reassessment of the Lamb hypothesis. The implications of Goss' paper are as yet unexplored, but it seems clear that hypotheses concerning the nature of Numic-Fremont relationships will have to be re-evaluated.

So, how far have we actually progressed toward an understanding of Fremont origins since Steward's 1940 paper? The only detectable motion has been the pendulum swing back and forth between diffusionist and migrationist extremes with much finger pointing at variously proffered external sources of "stimuli." To be sure, we know a great deal more than Steward about Fremont architecture, artifacts, and subsistence practices. It could hardly be otherwise considering the vast quantity of pithouse fill that has been processed in the past four decades. But the conceptual structure for modeling cultural origins has remained unchanged, and in that regard we are unable to say anything more theoretically enlightening than was said by Steward nearly forty years ago. As stated at the outset, 1 attribute thi's stasis to ihe fact that the search for Fremont origins has been treated as an empirical problem when, in fact, the question ol cultural origins in general is an unresolved theoretical problem of the greatest importance.

Whether or not specific "proto-FremnnC-Mogollon correspondences can be demonstrated, the data permit the descripiion of Fremont culture as the product of a Desert Archaic base to which was added. before A.D 500, a horticultural village or farmstead component (Marwitt 1970:156).

Marwitt cited Aikens' work at Hogup Cave as adequate confirmation of Archaic-Fremont continuity and, although the Hogup sequence has been questioned by Madsen and Berry (1975), it appears that (rightly or wrongly) most students have followed Marwitl in accepting Aikens' interpretations.

Little of significance has been said on the topic of Fremont origins since the publication of "Median Village." Berry and Berry (1976) developed the idea that

DISCUSSION AND PROSPECT It is a relatively easy matter to criticize an extant paradigm but quite another to create a new perspective.

The "new archeology" of the 1960s and 70s has leaned heavily on "General Systems [sic] Theory" as a possible means of freeing archeological theory from its traditional culture history constraints (e.g., Hill 1977; Flannery 1968; Clarke 1968; Plog 1975; Glassow 1972.)

The bulk of this work has been seriously flawed since virtually all of those who have attempted to use systemic constructs have followed Flannery (1968) and Clarke (1968) in erroneously equating General System Theory with cybernetics. It is the former and not the latter which contains the theory of open systems, cybernetics being the theory of information-tight, conceptually closed,self-regulalory"machines"(Bertalanffy 1968; Ashby 1956). It has been shown that cybernetics is little more than a formalization of anthropological functionalism (Wood and Matson 1973; Berry n.d.) and is there-

fore subject to the same devastating critiques leveled by Jarvie (1964, 1968), Hempel (1965), Nagel (1961), and others. So, not only has the potential of systemic modeling not yet been realized, but the most appropriate type of model, i.e., the open system, has yet to be employed.

Nothing that properly may be called a "new" perspective has been generated despite all the efforts and claims. Diffusion and migration are still the only available means of accounting for cultural origins, the protestations of the processualists nothwitstanding.

My reasons for mentioning all this should be clear.

Students of the Fremont culture have remained on the "Northern Periphery" of the main line of theoretical development emanating from the Southwestern "centers" (cf. Schiffer 1978). Apparently unaware, unconcerned, or uncommitted, no one associated with Fremont studies has "gone public" on the major theoretical issues. This confers certain advantages, not the least of 23

which is what Service tlOfWtt raiic .u « • k,» i J u v o u j calls the n n v i ei>r ,->( m , hackwardness." N o w thai th,» < .u '" ^ c <>' C Sou,n made all t h .

L w c s t e r n i s t s have

specia., s , s

arc

,n

an

cxcc|len

,

p o s

.|on

to

.n

^ ^ ^ ^

"'»< wen, „ „ bclW- "ncm s i , ' ' 5 " ^ °' , h c »"'rk |()4), ' " t m <i>ahlms and .Service I 9 « l :

•«%..

24

\AUi i

â&#x20AC;˘ b'l\

I I UtJrf

/FREMONT/SEVIER SUBSISTENCE DAVID B. MADSEN Utah Slate Historical Society ABSTRACT A review of literature dealing with Fremont/Sevier subsistence indicates that (I) there is very litlle data to support any interpretations: (2) that most existing hypotheses are defined in opposition to the Anasazi (e.g., "the Fremont peoples relied on hunting more than did the Anasazi"), and (3) there has been an assumed dependency by these groups on domesticated resources. An analysis of available data suggests that subsistence varied with local environmental conditions, but that a basic distinction exists between Great Basin and Colorado Plateau groups. At present, my best guess is that on the Colorado Plateau, subsistence revolved around agriculture and was supported by hurtling and gathering. In the Great Basin subsistence revolved around marsh gathering and upland hunting, and was supported by agriculture. Similarities and/or differences in subsistence adaptation are a major aspect of any cultural taxonomy, and must play a primary role in the classification of the Fremont/Sevier.

INTRODUCTION Sites representative of what has come to be called the Fremont and Sevier have been excavated and reported for nearly 80 years. Well over 100 village sites have been excavated and reported in varying degrees of analytical complexity. Given this considerable amount of work and the importance of subsistence economy in determining group, size, site location, activity scheduling, etc., one would think that it would be relatively easy to quantify subsistence data and to accurately discuss Fremont/Sevier subsistence and its implications.

Sadly, I must report that this is not the case. With very few exceptions there has been little or no attempt to obtain and report subsistence information. At the majority of excavated village sites there has been no effort to obtain data beyond the fortuitously recovered and obvious fauna! specimens and plant macrofossils.

Even these data are often merely reported on a presence/ absence basis with no attempt made to determine relative proportions.

obvious. Second, floral resources (wild and/or domesticated) constitute the major portion of nearly every ethnographically identified culture. This was undoubtedly also the case with the Fremont/Sevier. As a result, that aspect of the subsistence system which is the more important (i.e., the floral resources) is also the poorest known.

The problem is little better when dealing with faunal resources. The more ready preservation of bones and their relatively larger size has resulted in a larger body of data, but these data represent a hit-or-miss type of approach, and are also somewhat biased. They are hitor-miss in that often bones have never been identified.

When they have been identified, they have often been presented simply in a species list format with no attempt to provide total bone counts or to quantify the material.

When total counts are given, there is often no attempt to identify minimal numbers of individuals represented.

The problem is at its worst when dealing with bird bones. Bird bones have been identified at only ten vilage sites (Parmalee n.d.); at most sites they are simply listed as "bird." Since knowledge of whether the birds are marsh or upland species may be critical in defining a subsistence system, this lack of identification hamstrings any interpretation. The bias derives from two factors. The collection of only large readily observed bones during excavation has undoubtedly militated against the recognition of smaller animals such as

The problem is at its worst when dealing with floral resources. The reasons for this are twofold. First, preservation of plant macrofossils in open village sites is often minimal. IheflJily-macrofossils which are preserved are usually carbonized and consist of denser plant parts such as seeds and cobs. Leaves, roots, fruits, etc., are virtually never recovered. This bias is compounded by the fact that flotation and pollen analytical techniques have been employed only recently, and the only plants reported from most sites are those which are visually 25

microtine rodents, and makes any interpretation ol relative portions of the diet tentative at best. There is also a problem with the quality of identification. A re-examination of the faunal collections from several of the better excavated and reported sites suggests (1) the bird and rodent bones arc often confused, and (2) that many nondiagnostic elements of the larger species arc often recorded as being accurately identified when, in fact, they cannot be accurately assigned to one or anothei species. Obviously, interpretations based on data of this quality must necessarily be limited.

to survival? Were marsh resources available to all or only a portion of the Fremont/Sevier? What elements of the subsistence system c a n be analyzed in terms of the law of the minimum or optimal foraging theory? It is not yet possible to objectively answer these questions, and as a result we cannot estimate group size and fluidity, permanency of site occupation, activity scheduling, or any of the other aspects of a subsistence system. Any conclusions concerning subsistence are highly speculative.

In large measure they have been a product of assumptions (nearly always implicit assumptions) more than of an objective analysis of the d a t a . Lest 1 sound too pompous, I must admit that 1 have been guilty as any other in drawing such highly speculative conclusions. My excuse is that I hope to provide an alternative to longstanding assumptions to illustrate that other explanations of Fremont/ Sevier settlement patterns, village size, etc., are possible. Given the limitations of the available data, the conclusions outlined below must be considered tentative and subject to revision. T h e y too consist ol speculations.

This may seem to be an overemphasis on the lack of data and on the poor quality of the data which does exist. However, given the present state of knowledge, we can do little more than list elements which were probably a part of the Fremont/Sevier diet, and make no inference that the list is anywhere near completion.

Such a list in no way constitutes an analysis of the subsistence economy. Was corn a major or minor portion of the diet? Was the collection of pinyon nuts critical

A SHORT HISTORY OF SUBSISTENCE RESEARCH AND PAST SPECULATIONS Throughout the history of Fremont/Sevier research several threads of interrelated assumptions are evident.

This is made most evident by a series of short excerpts:

beans, and squash." "They depended on hunting to a greater extent than is usual for agriculturalists" (i.e.. the Anasazi) (Wormington 1955:173). (Wormington here refers to the Colorado Plateau.)

"The prehistoric house builders of the region . . . were primarily farmers." "Those numerous metates . . . were doubtless intended primarily for the grinding and crushing of maize." "Agriculture, and especially the cultivation of corn, has always been associated throughout the southwestern United States with fairly permanent places of abode." (Judd 1926: 149). (Judd refers here to the Great Basin, Colorado Plateau, and Anasazi areas.)

"The economy of the Fremont peoples was based on maize-beans-squash horticulture, supplemented by hunting" (Aikens 1966b: 3). (Aikens refers here to both the Great Basin and Colorado Plateau.)

"Pharo Village is interpreted as a small permanent settlement of horticulturists whose diet was supplemented by, and perhaps seasonally dependent upon, the exploitation of animal resources." "Evidence of horticulture includes. . . numerous grinding implements . . . and the fact that . . . storage structures outnumber dwellings by more than two to one." (Marwitt 1968:5).

(Marwitt here refers specifically to one Great Basin site.)

"Although the culture was partly and perhaps predominantly agricultural, the inhabitants of the Fremont region were also dependent in a good part on the game supply." ". . . the people about, in all probability living on the fiats in the summer and cultivating corn, and in the winter camping in sheltered canyons around the mountains and devoting themselves to hunting." {Morss 1931: 76). (Morss refers here only to the Colorado Plateau.)

"Like the neighboring Anasazi, the Fremont were essentially sedentary farmers, growing corn and other crops . . ." "They are distinct from the contemporary Anasazi, however, in a number of traits such as more emphasis on hunting . . ." (Ambler 1970: 7). (Ambler here refers to both the Great Basin and Colorado Plateau.)

"Subsistence was based on corn, bean, and squash horticulture, practiced with the aid of irrigation and supplemented by hunting and gathering activities."

(Gunnerson 1969:162). "Subsistence west of the Wasatch was based on a combination of horticulture and hunting/ gathering. The emphasis probably differed somewhat from area to area depending on local environment."

(Gunnerson 1969:13). (Gunnerson's initial reference is to the Colorado Plateau Fremont and the second is to the Great Basin Sevier.)

"The relative scarcity of horticultural products and the relative abundance of objects connected with bow and arrow point to a people who relied in great measure upon hunting and gathering for their food." (Steward 1936: 61). (Steward here refers primarily to the Great Basin.) ". . . only limited horticulture seems to have been practiced by the Puebloid people . . . Hunting and gathering must have continued as an important means of subsistence." ". . . the Puebloids were gathering-hunting peoples relying only secondarily upon horticulture . . ."

(Rudy 1953:169). (Rudy here refers to the Great Basin only.)

"The Fremont people were agriculturalists and grew corn,

"Regarding Fremont adaptations, it can now be shown the Fremont exploitative pattern was not uniform owing to the nonuniform distribution of biota and various raw 26

PINYON-JUNIPER FOOTHILLS

VALLEY FLOOR

DESERT

Fig. 2. Parowan Fremont subsistence model (Berry 1974) 27

MARSHWETLANDS FLORAFAUNA EXPLOITED

GENERAL VALLEY PINYON-JUNIPER

SEMIDESERT

fk

POPULATION MOVEMENT THROUGH TIME AND ECOZONES

ASPENCONIFER

Harvest Cultivars Plant ^V * Cultivars

Fig. 3. Sevier subsistence model (interior river valleys) (Nielson 1978) 2c

r TABLE 1

materials in the Fremont culturcarea."(Marwitt 1970:4) (Marwitt here refers to both the Circat Basin and the Colorado Plateau.)

P l a n t 1 ypes Identified at F r e m o n t / S e v i e r S i t e s Agropyrtm sp. <quickpass)#: ;" . ;. ; Alli'hrolfia occidentals, (picklcwecd)tf ."" - ' Amatanthusspp, (amaranlh)*+# Ami'laruhieri,pp.iser\'icebcrry)+11 Asicracca'e (astei:)ff Astragalussp. ( <-•*• )fl, • /•1m/)/e.v.spp.;(saltbush)+tf Brassicaccae (mustard ) # Bromu's spp, (bromegrass)# { arex spp. (sedge)*?/ Caryophytlaccae{— - -—j# .

Chenopodium spp. (lambsquarter, goose foot, etc.)*+# Cleomespp. {bccvfccd)tt•."..; Comandra sp, (bastard toadflax)^ Cryptdntha s p p . (-^^•=L?'^'-, Cucurbila spp. (squash)+A Ech'movactus sp ; (cactus)*!

•Echinocercus sp. (cactus)# . -.

Echinochloa sp. (barnyard grass)ft Epilobium sp: (willow weed}# Equtseiumsp, (horsetail)*":.

Euphorbia sp! (spurgc)# : Heliahthm annuus, (sunflowery+H Juniperds app. (juniper)*#.

Mentzeliasp. (—••——-)#:; L Oe no thera sp,i e ven i rig pr imro se)# Qpumia spp, (cacms>+ \ Oryzopsis hytnerioides, (Indian ricegrass)# Phaceliasp,{—'-—)tt • Phaseolusvulgaris. (beans)+# Pinus edufisjmonophyld, (pi nyon pine)// Poaeeae (blue-grass)/? v .

Polygonum sp. (sma rtweed }tj •.

Rubits sp. (blackberry, raspberry)# Scirpussppv(bulrush)*t# .

Sclerocaciu.i sp..(cacius}# Sphaeratcea spp..(globe mallow)+# Sporobolus spp. (sand dropseed)S .

Typha latifplw, (cattail)* Yucca sp. (——~)*t ; Zed maize (cbrn)*+#

This scries of quotations is certainly not exhaustive of the available literature but it does, 1 think, adequately represent both the opinions on Fremont/Sevici subsistence and the developmental trends of those opinions.

I delect several assumptions which reoccur throughout ihe above assessments (as well as in others not listed here). Primary among these is that the presence of domesticates, sedentary villages, storage structures, and grinding implements indicates a dependence on horticulture. A corollary assumption is that sedentary village cannot occur in the absence of such dependence. That is, sedentary village equals a subsistence system based on corn agriculture and transient site occupation equals a dependence on wild resources. (Steward and Rudy arenotable exceptions to this pattern.) A second common thread is that subsistence is characterized in terms of similarity or difference to the Anasazi. That is, rather than provide an internally sufficient description, most analysts prefer to describe Fremont/Sevier subsistence as like unto the Anasazi, but with a greater emphasis on hunting. Another obvious trend is that most researchers recognize a basic dissimilarity between subsistence in the Great Basin and Colorado Plateau, and recognize that regional environmental diversity may be an important factor in this dissimilarity.

It must be noted that all of these discussions of Fremont/Sevier are essentially informal, subjectively derived models. In the last several years, two formal subsistence system models have been presented. Both of these models are derived from unpublished masters theses, and both must be considered inadequate because they are based on insufficient and biased data (as noted above). However, I feel that they are worth considering briefly if only because they represent formal and easily visually represented models of two contrasting theses on Fremont/Sevier subsistence. The first is a subsistence model for the Parowan Fremont presented by Berry (1974) (Figure 2) and represents formalization of the thesis that sedentarism was based on corn agriculture, and that no wild species exploited by the aboriginal populations was productive enough to allow sedentarism in lieu of adequate crop yields. The second is a subsistance model for the central Sevier River valley by Nielson (1978) (Figure 3) and represents formalization of Steward's and Rudy's thesis that corn agriculture played a secondary role in the subsistence economy of

# Identified from plant macrofossils * Identified from abnormally high pollen counts + Present in coprolites

the Basin. This second model is also based on evidence that one or more wild species were sufficient to allow sedentarism and were, in fact, heavily utilized by some if not all Basin villagers (e.g., Madsen and Lindsay 1977; Madsen 1979a).

At present neither of these models can be substantiated, but subjectively, I feel that in the proper area both may be valid. That is, 1 think Berry's model, with some revision, may be applicable to the Plateau Fremont, and that Nielson's model, again with some revision, may be applicable to the Great Basin Sevier. Discussion of why 1 am currently thinking along these lines follows a brief treatment of what little we do know.

FLORAL RESOURCES list must be approached with caution since items such as juniper berries may have been used for decoration a n d / o r medicine as well as food. Items denoted by an asterisk have been identified only through pollen analysis, but have been found in high enough proportions, to suggest their use as food resources. Species listed are from village sites only.

As I noted above, it is extremely difficult to deal with plant resources within the overall subsistence system with any degree of objectivity. Only carbonized, relatively dense, easily recognized species have been collected and, even where sampling has been extensive, it has been limited to carbonized seeds. As a result, I can only provide a species list at present (Table 1). Even this 2c

••i?;

2 0 2

• 1 •

3 3

Woodard Mounds Taylor Mounds House site Nephi Mounds Ephraim Pharo Village Backhoe Village Marys vale Median Village Evans Mound Whiterocks Village Caldwell Village Turner-Look: 3 Emery sites

0

0' 0 0 2

' 3

2 %y

0 2 3 0 3: 3 0 o

3 .-3-

2 3: 3;

3 3 2 .3 1 . 2

.2 -2

22

••

2 0 2 3: 3 0 .2

' 72 ;

0 0 I 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 . 3

0 •:3::

0 0 0

3 3

3^ 0 1

•••.2'-:

2 1 0 0 0 0

W?o-

^•2:C:

1 2 0 0 I

: :2 ;

o

0

•

3

0 0

0

2 2 3 0 2 2 2 2 3 ;

3 :

!

:

3 3 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2

•

1 2 2 2 2 2 3: 0 1 2 2 3 2 2 0 2

•

1 1 1 I 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 .0 0 0 0 0 0

*>

0 0 0:

1 J

£

2 3 3

o

1 1

1

0

0

0 0

0

2 2

n

0 1

0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0

1

0 1 0 2 0 0 2 1

o i l 0 0 0 l i 0 0

2

0 0 0 2 '2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

1 3 1 2 1

1 2 1

0 3 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0

1 0 2 2 0 1

"• -<:a>

3 3

I

1

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

D

3 ;-VS

3 3 2 7: 3

3 :

;;3;

*) ?

3

3 3 3 3 7

1 1 0

,t87l) C .in '•>

7-2^

I 7

0 7

C

'^> « •«

1 1 1 I 7

1 7 7

•'• :

.a

1 I 07

1 ?

7

7 :'

1

'2 '

9

3 7

3

2 7

2 7

0 7

0 7

,v2^:

3 7

2 7

1 7

i ?

;:,-3v>

2 7

2 1 3

27V;

t

0 - 2 1 : 0 2 2 3 2: 0 2 •2-

ml

: -3

Hawks, eagles, falcons, owls, etc.

CQ

: • «

:.'VW.:

Grouse

VI

Other marsh birds

>

,. •

Birds

1 2 2 1 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

Sot

ftO^

:2'.'

0.

0 .2

%tih

0 1

0

>2 ;

;T;

m

2 3 1

1 0 0

2 3 3 3

:

3 1 0

E'E

Badger, marmot, porcupine, skunk, etc.

0

0 1 2 1 3

si

Aquatic species (frogs fish, bivalves, etc.)

1

3

Tooele Hinckley Mounds

Innocents Ridge Snake Rock Old Woman Poplar Knob 1 Bull Creek

i

Wolf, coyote, fox. mi. lion, bobcat,: bear. etc.

2 1 2

Dog

Bear River #1 Bear River #2 Bear River #3 Injun Creek Garrison

Mice, moles, woodrats etc.

O

Squirrels, prairie dogs, gophers, etc.

Sites

Rabbits

et U.

Elk

a

t-:: "3 c s

Bison

4>7 • - > . '

Antelope

Mountain Sheep

TABLE 1) Faunal Remains from Selected Fremont/Sevier Sites

: 2:;?

2 2 2 3 2«

1 0 : i--:

I 0 2

9

•

?

•

')

• 7

7 7 7

i 7 7

7 7

9

7

1 7

1 7

1 7

1 7

7

7

7 7

7 ?

7

7 1 7'

.7

•>

7 7 7

O 7 7

0 7 7

0{7

0 7 7

0

0

1 0

0 7 7 0

?

?

| -,

7

1

7 7

•

l#d y

' 1

"•

o = Unidentified; 1 = Rare; 2 - Present; 3 = Common

subsistence system. Some have even gone so far as to suggest that competition for this particular resource may have contributed to the Fremont/Sevier demise (Berry 1974, 1976; Madsen 1975b). Most of this speculation is based on the distribution of temporary Fremont/Sevier camp sites in the pinyon-juniper zone, (i.e., "These small sites... may have been occupied by Fremont people while they were gathering pine nuts." (Gunnerson 1969: 135).

They are certainly not based on the presence of pinyon nut macrofossils in village sites, since such evidence is minimal. For instance the subsistence model postulated

by Berry is based on a single shell fragment from Evans M ound (as well as on the distribution of temporary sites).

Unfortunately, such speculation resembles the reasoning used by Thomas (1973) in his treatment of Archaic and Shoshonian subsistence models. That is both Archaic and Shoshoni sites are found in the pinyon-juniper zone; the

Little can be said about this species list other than wild plant types obviously dominate it. These wild types come from a variety of ecosystems and indicate a rather wide-ranging gathering system. No evidence as to the relative dominance of one or more species can be discerned. However, it must be noted that corn (and only corn) has been recovered from the majority of village sites. The exceptions are important in that they form a consistent pattern. At sites in or near marsh areas adjacent to the Great Salt Lake, Utah Lake, and the Sevier River, corn is absent or only minimally represented, while marsh species such as bulrush, sedge, and cattail are prevalent.

One other point concerning pinyon nuts deserves mention: There is a long-standing assumption that pinyon nuts formed a major portion of the Fremont/Sevier 30

Shoshoni utilized pinyon; therefore the Archaic peoples also relied on pinyon. 1'he case is the same for both the Archaic and the Fremont /Sevier: pinyon nut shells arc noticeably absent from the majority of cave/rock shelter sites in the pinyon zone, the very sites they are most likely in be delected in, given a dependence on the nuts (ali hough there a re exceptions [e.g. Madsen n.d.;Tuohy personal communication]). Given this absence it is extreme-

ly dillicult to support a subsistence model which includes the use DI pinyon, and n must be considered quite tentative until such evidence is marshalled. Interestingly enough, what little evidence there is for the use of pinyon nuts, is restricted primarily to the Colorado Plateau and it is conceivable that the differential use of pinyon may be an additional factor in separating the Colorado Plateau Fremont from the Great Basin Sevier.

FAUNAL RESOURCES It is not much easier to quantify faunal resources in the Fremont/ Sevier subsistence systems. As noted above, this is because bones have been identified only in a limited number of sites, bird bones have been identified only at ten sites and estimates of minimum numbers of individuals are rarely given. Table II consists of my subjective evaluation of what information is available from the sites listed. Animal types are categorized as to common, present, rare, and absent.

heen identified at 23 of the 26 sites (the three exceptions are all on the Colorado Plateau). At all ten sites where birds have been identified to species, marsh birds were prevalent (Parmalee n.d.). All ten of these sites are in the Great Basin. Unfortunately birds have not been identified at the six Colorado Plateau sites where they occur and as a result the data are somewhat biased.

There are several conclusions which can be drawn from this compilation. First the large game animals: Deer is the most common species and appears at 25 of the 26 sites listed. They are common at 12 of these sites and the distribution appears to be generalized. Bison are found at 15 of the sites but are common at only six.

All six are in the northeastern Great Basin around Utah Lake and the Great Salt Lake. Mountain sheep were recovered at 15 of the 26 sites, but are common at only five. All five of these sites are near the central/southern Wasatch Plateau. Elk were found at nine sites but were common at only two.

These distributions suggest the following: With the exception of deer which were hunted throughout the Fremont/Sevier areas, the procurement of large game appears to have been dependent on locally available resources. That is, bison in the northeastern basin, antelope in the basin deserts, and mountain sheep in the mountainous areas of central and southern Utah. Small game, particularly rabbits, constituted a major portion of the faunal resource. Rabbits were sought universally and what other small game was procured depended on locally available resources. In the Great Basin thereseems to be a marked reliance on faunal species common to marsh environments while this is not true for the Colorado Plateau.

By far the most prevalent small game are rabbits which were recovered at 24 of the 26 sites. They can be considered rare at none of these sites. Other small rodents such as squirrels and gophers are found at 19 sites. Microtine rodents (this category includes woodrats and moles) are found infrequently, but as noted this may be a product of biased sampling. There is an interesting shared distribution in the categories of small aquatic/semiaquatic mammals (beaver, otter, muskrat, etc), aquatic species (frogs, fish, bivalves, etc.), and marsh birds. With few exceptions these are almost entirely restricted to the Great Basin sites. The semiaquatic mammals occur at three of the Colorado Plateau sites, but only rarely. They are found at 13 of the 17 Great Basin sites and are common or present at 12 of these.

All ten sites which contain fish, frogs, and other aquatic species are found in the Great Basin as far south as the Parowan Valley. (It should be noted, however, that artifacts identified as fish-hooks have been identified at Fremont sites on the Colorado Plateau). Birds have

There is another important question that is rarely considered when discussing the place of faunal resources in the overall subsistence system. That is, what is the difference between smaller animals gathered on a regular basis versus larger animals gathered irregularly or seasonally? It is always assumed that deer, mountain sheep, antelope, and bison were the more important animals in the subsistence sustem, primarily because of their size, and consequently the amount of available meat. However, with few exceptions, nearly every village site contains much larger percentages of smaller game such as rabbits, squirrels, and birds. If the larger game is available only seasonally, then given the preservational problems, the smaller game may have been a more important part of the day-to-day diet. Given the prevalence of iron deficiency anemia in a large percentage of the Fremont/Sevier populations (Andrews 1972), it is probable that large quantities of meat were rarely available and that the average daily diet consisted of plants spiced with occasional small game.

31

SPECULATIONS I have intentionally considered only subsistence information from village sites. One reason for this is the difficulty in relating individual village sites to specific temporary sites in an overall subsistence system (if indeed they are related). However, the primary reason is that most controversy surrounding Fremont/Sevier subsistence involves sedentarism and the proportional role domesticated and non-domesticated resources played in that sedentarism. 1 think the assumption that Fremont/Sevier sedentarism was necessarily dependent on corn-beans-squash agriculture can be dismissed outof-hand. The existence of numerous sedentary "Archaic" sites in North America (e.g., Jennings 1974; O'Connell 1975 is a specific Great Basin example) argues cogently against such an assumption. (As an aside one must wonder about how these sites are to be categorized since by definition the Archaic consists of a "migratory hunting and gathering" type of subsistence adaptation [Willey and Phillips 1958]", which varied "from season to season as it focused first on one species or community of species and then on another . . . [Jennings 1974:110])."

However, even the possibility that Fremont and/or Sevier sedentarism may be based on something other than a dependency on domesticates is something that has never really been considered. The real question is not whether Fremont/Sevier peoples relied on the collection of wild resources or on domesticates. Obviously, they relied on both. The real question is to what degree they relied on one or the other. If locally available resources are insufficient to support a population of a given size, it then follows that the production of domesticates becomes the factor which allows the existence of stable village life. Given problems with field maintenance and scheduling associated with food production, it is an either/ or type of situation. Either there is sedentarism based on food production or there is migratory seasonal round based on collecting.

If, on the other hand, there are sufficient locally available wild resources to support a sedentary population of a given size, it then follows that the production of domesticates becomes less critical and corns, beans, and squash merely become supplementary resources.

Years of poor production would not necessarily force a reversion to a site-to-site movement.

The question remains then as to whether or not there were sufficient locally available wild resources and further, whether or not the sedentary villagers were aware of them and utilized them. Recent work by Madsen and Lindsay (1977), Madsen (n.d.), Nielson (1978), and Parmaiee (n.d.) suggest that in the Great Basin, marsh resources were of sufficient quantity to allow sedentarism and the limited amount of information reviewed above makes it clear that both floral and faunal marsh resources were indeed utilized. These resources were available throughout the eastern Great

Basin and were utilized a s far south as the Parowan Valley. A recent evaluation of "wetlands" in Utah (Jensen 1974) describes 475,598 acres ol first and second degree marshes (i.e. permanent marshes) in Utah. Of this amount 95% (451.930 acres) are in Great Basin counties and only 5% (23,668 acres) are located in the rest of the state. Unfortunately, the relevant factors of population size and carrying capacity cannot be determined with the information at hand. However, the productivity of the marsh ecosystems was such that determination of such factors becomes less critical. In one 50-mile stretch of the Sevier River Valley alone there were up to 55 million pounds of cattail flour available at any one time (Madsen 1979). I do not wish to imply that cattail was the primary resource, since a variety of other marsh resources was also collected. However, figures such as this make it evident that the carrying capacity of the marshes was sufficient to support relatively large sedentary populations. In the Great Basin, the placement of village sites suggests a reliance on both these marsh resources and domesticates. Villages are found on alluvial fans suitable for floodplain farming, but are also placed within a ready collecting distance of a marsh ecosystem.

On the Colorado Plateau the settlement pattern does not suggest that proximity to marsh resources was a critical factor. This may simply be a result of the limited availability of such resources on the Colorado Plateau. However, the lack of marsh floral and faunal remains in Colorado Plateau village sites suggests that they were relatively unimportant in the Colorado Plateau subsistence system and that there was no concerted attempt to locate sites near such resources or to procure them. They are not found on suitable alluvial fans away from marsh areas.

In sum, there seems t o be a marked difference between Great Basin and Colorado Plateau subsistence systems. In the Great Basin, marsh resources were available and were utilized. On the Colorado Plateau, marsh resources were not available and were not utilized. What little information there is on the possible utilization of pinyon is almost wholly derived from the Colorado Plateau; evidence of pinyon nut procurement on the Great Basin is virtually nonexistent. These factors suggest that the subsistence system model constructed

by Berry (1974) may be more applicable to the Colorado Plateau, while the model provided by Nielson (1978) is more valid for the Great Basin. It appears that in the Great Basin the production of domesticates may not have been a necessary prerequisite for sedentary village life, but that on the Colorado Plateau the production of sufficient quantities of domestic resources may have been critical to continued sedentarism. What this difference means in terms of activity scheduling, group size, and fluidity, etc., remains to be worked out, 32

but clearly it created significant differences in the oveiall cultural pattern. There are readily detectable differences in village size, site density, and possibly even length of site occupation. These factors suggest possible differences in social organization, which, in conjunction with subsistence difference, may warrant separating the Great Basin Sevier from the Colorado Plateau Fremont on a higher level than has been considered previously.

force these groups into phylogenetic classification schemes. 1 must agree and I suggest that it will be more beneficial to locus on differences and/or similarities in subsistence, settlement patterns, group size, activity scheduling, etc., than on questions of genetic origins or on whether or not various groups should be separated on higher or lower levels of a particular taxonomic scheme. Questions of similar or separate origins are less relevant than are questions of how these people lived, worked, and related to each other. On this basis the villagers on the Colorado Plateau and the villagers in the eastern Great Basin -were sufficiently different to warrant treatment as separate entities.

This brings up one final point. It was pointed out in an earlier paper by Hogan and Sebastian (1978) that one of the major draw-backs to the interpretation of the Fremont and the Sevier has been the attempt to

33

\h':

V

U

,

FREMONT: AN ARTIFACTUAL PERSPECTIVE by J. M. ADOVASIO University of Pittsburgh

ABSTRACT Comparative attribute-oriented analyses of lour compositional classes of artifacts putatively ascribable to the Fremont culture of the eastern Great Basin indicate that only one of these classes, basketry, is relatively homogeneous both chronologically and geographically. Conversely, chipped and ground stone as well as ceramics exhibit considerable geographical heterogeneity and temporal diversity. Despite these conflicting data, it is suggested that on the basis of the basketry alone it is possible to define a Fremont culture which is recognizably distinct from any of its contemporary "neighbors" or, indeed, any of its "successors" in the eastern Great Basin. The same basketry data conclusively indicate that the Fremont represent an in situ evolution out of a local Archaic base.

INTRODUCTION Four compositional classes of artifacts occur throughout of the so-called "variants" of the Fremont "culture" as described by Marwitt (1970). These include flaked and ground stone implements, ceramics, and basketry. It is the purpose of this paper to briefly examiiuivvvj

U11U

f-.lv/LIIIVJ

JIVJI1V.

llllJJJVvlllV,lllO,

ine each of these artifact classes in order to ascertain whether any one of them or any combination of them is sufficiently distinctive to define explicitly the Fremont phenomenon.

L t i a i l U L

FLAKED STONE Flaked stone assemblages occur in every Fremont site which has ever been excavated or tested. Unfortunately, however, there is no single distinctive tool type or projectile point variety or any combination of tool types or projectile points which occurs in all or even most Fremont sites. A casual scrutiny of earlier syntheses (e.g.

Adovasio 1970a) indicates that while highly distinctive chipped stone sites occur in certain Fremont variants, notably the Parowan Valley and the Great Salt Lake, the lithic assemblages from many of the other variants

such as Sevier are amorphous to the point of being useless as taxonomic indicators on the "cultural" level.

Further, since some of the diagnostic lithics of individual Fremont variants such as the Parowan Basalnotched point to name but one do occur outside the Fremont area, occasionally in quantity, (see Shutler 1961) it is literally impossible to use any putatively Fremont flaked stone tool to separate Fremont from its neighbors.

GROUND STONE lets may be common to particular Fremont variants, in this case the Great Salt Lake, no ground stone implement of distinctive configuration is common to all Fremont sites. Again, as with chipped stone, many allegedly Fremont ground stone forms occur outside the Fremont area and are similarly useless as "cultural" markers.

In the Median Village report, Marwitt (1970) noted that the ground stone assemblage from that site "though large, is unremarkable." The same might be said for all of the ground stone from all of the Fremont sites.

While certain types of ground stone artifacts such as cylindrical pestles, ground slate knives and incised tab35

CERAMICS In the present context, little of consequence can be added to the thoughtful summary of Fremont ceramic diversity provided by Madsen (1970). As that work indicates, though the total area occupied by the Fremont culture can be divided into five more or less distinct geographical regions based on ceramic typology, no single Fremont ceramic type or combination of types occurs

across the entire Fremont range. Again as with flaked and ground stone, many of the majority Fremont gray ware types and some of the minority types also occur outside the Fremont milieu (see Marwitt 1970) and hence cannot be employed to define the parameters of that milieu with any precision.

BASKETRY The term basketry herein encompasses several distinct kinds of items including rigid and semi-rigid containers or baskets proper, matting, and bags.

Matting includes items which are essentially twodimensional or flat, while baskets are three-dimensional.

Bags may be viewed as intermediate forms because they are two-dimensional when empty and three-dimensional when filled. As Driver (1961: 159) points out, these artifacts can be treated as a unit because the overall technique of manufacture is the same in all instances. Specifically, all forms of basketry are manually woven without any frame or loom. Since all basketry is woven, it is tech-

nically a class or variety of textile (see Emery 1966) though that term is sometimes restricted to cloth fabrics.

In the following pages, the technical characteristics, distribution, origins and demise of Fremont basketry are discussed, and comparisons are offered with earlier, contemporary and later basketry assemblages from the same area. It should be noted that this author has examined virtually every piece of Fremont basketry in existence, in both public and private collections, and it is upon this analysis that the following comments are predicated.

TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS Two of the three major sub-classes of basket weaves are represented in the Fremont basketry assemblage.

These include coiling and twining. The third sub-class, plaiting, is wholly absent. The salient technical features of Fremont coiling and twining are presented below by sub-class. (Those unfamiliar with the descriptive terminology employed herein are advised to consult Adovasio [1977].)

The partial results of the attribute analysis summarized above indicate the following: Basket wall (foundation) technique. Eight basket wall or foundation techniques are represented in Fremont coiling. The frequency of these techniques by site is presented in Table III. As indicated, four foundation types (close coiling, half rod and bundle stacked foundation; close coiling, half rod and welt stacked foundation; close coiling, whole rod foundation; close coiling, three rod bunched foundation) account collectively for 95.47% of the sample. Of these, one technique, close coiling, half rod and bundle stacked foundation accounts for 50% of the entire sample. This particular foundation is represented at all but two Fremont sites and appears to be the preferred or standard Fremont coiling technique. (See Adovasio 1970b, 1971, 1974.)

The four remaining coiling foundations are statistically insignificant and, as will be shown below, are probably intrusive.

COILING Coiling is the numerically dominant sub-class of Fremont basketry and is represented at all Fremont sites where basketry has been preserved. All extant examples of Fremont coiling were analyzed by this writer, where feasible, for the following attributes: 1. Basket wall (foundation) technique 2. Stitch type 3. Method of starting 4. Work direction 5. Work surface 6. Rim finish 7. Splice type 8. Decorative patterns and mechanics of decoration 9. Form 10. Wear patterns/ function 11. Material

Stitch type. Five types of stitches occur in Fremont coiling. These include interlocking, non-interlocking, split intentionally on the non-work surface, split on both surfaces, and intricate-interlocking. Of these the most common are non-interlocking, split intentionally on the non-work furface, and interlocking. The latter stitch type is restricted entirely to whole rod foundation basketry which is sewn with no other type of stitch.

36

- ;c ;o es C 3

Sites Hogup Cave Promontory Caves Evans Mound Median Village

iZ .

"5

20

2

c

••r.a. wj-b 7C:.B is.*

is O o

sat4 21

18

3

1

2

56

1 ('?)

1

P

P

3

22

27

2

2

1

8

5

T7

2

Form. The Fremont produced a wide range of vessel forms including very shallow circular trays, shallow to moderately deep globular bowls and deep circular carrying baskets. Of these, the nearly flat tray is the most frequently encountered form.

Wear patterns/function. Analysis of wear patterns on Fremont coiling indicates that virtually 100% of the shallow trays were employed in parching while the other forms seem to have been used for general storage and transportation. No indications of cooking in baskets are apparent. As noted elsewhere (see Adovasio 1970b, 1970c) half rod and bundle, close coiled baskets are naturally watertight due to the expansion of the bundle when damp, hence the use of containers produced via this technique for water storage may be safely inferred.

Material. Throughout the range of the Fremont culture, the preferred material both for rods and stitching in the manufacture of coiled basketry was Salix.

Bundles were generally composed of Apocynum or Asclepias or, more rarely, of Juniperus or Yucca.

3 1

.1.

2

3

15

hi

1

4

12

56

:.?': .

7.

P 325

.6

1

19

15

•«

\

9

II

A\ 1

Decorative patterns and mechanics. Only two baskets in the entire sample are decorated in any way.

These include a bowl fragment with a chevron design produced by sewing feathers onto the convex surface and a tray fragment with a single circuit of stitches which have been dyed red.

13

27 747

'•'4'-

31

Splice type. Marked preferences for specific splice types are readily discernible in Fremont coiling. In all instances, the preferred splicing techniques are identical to those employed by preceding Desert Archaic populations from the same area. Dominant types include fag ends and moving ends bound under, fag ends clipped short and moving ends bound under, and less commonly, fag ends and moving ends clipped short.

i* a"

7

Fremont River Area .-..- Yampa Cannon Old Woman

TOTAL

« c "S|

5

Paragonah Caldwell Village 7 :

Etna Cave • O'Malley Shelter Little Lost River Cave Pence Duerig Cave Jack Knife Cave Spring Creek Cave Daugherty Cave Clydes Cavern Swallow Shelter

1

-C 7

Rim finish. Most Fremont coiled baskets are finished with self rims though false braid rims either in a 1/1 or 2/2 herringbone do occur occasionally.

Close Coiling, Half Rod and Bundle Stacked Foundation

7 v>

Open Coiling, Whole Rod Foundation Close Coiling, Two Rod and BuhdieBunched Foundation Close Coiling. Rod in Bundle Foundation Close Coiling, Bundle Foundation Close Coiling, Three Rod Bunched Foundation Close Coiling, Whole Rod Foundation

TABLE HI Distribution of Fremont coiling foundation techniques by site.

2

3

79

II 17

2

8

1

6

4

20

m

30+ 144 + 288+

TWINING Basketry produced by twining techniques is relatively uncommon in most Fremont sites and frequently is not represented at all. All extant Fremont twining was analyzed for the following attributes:

P = present, exact frequency unknown.

Methods of starting. All extant Fremont coiled baskets have been initiated with a normal or continuous coil center.

1. Number and composition of warps engaged at each weft crossing 2. Number and composition of wefts 3. Spacing of the weft rows (open or close) 4. Pitch of the weft rows (S or Z) 5. Method of starting 6. Insertion of new elements 7. Selvages 8. Form 9. Wear patterns/function

Work direction. In the vast majority of Fremont coiled baskets (80%), the sewing proceeds from right to left though the reverse technique is not unknown.

Work surface. All Fremont trays are worked on the concave surface as are shallow bowls, while deeper bowls and carrying baskets are worked on the convex surface.

37

10.

Decorative patterns and mechanics of decoration 11. Material

TABLE IV Distribution of Fremont twining techniques by site.

5

'•E

H "5 *

•w

-a a •

•-!•"

•iii - .

Sites Hogup Cave Promontory Caves Evans Mound Median Village Paragonah Caldwell 'Village Fremont River Area Yampa/. '.Canyon

•ce: OTD M)> tV>

33

c J o 0.17

• " E

li

ON

Open Simple Twining, Z-Twist Weft

W

Construction techniques. Seven basic twining techniques were employed by Fremont weavers. The incidence of these techniques by site is presented in Table IV. As noted, only one technique, open diagonal twining with Z-twist wefts, occurs with any frequency and then only at a single site. The remaining techniques occur in very limited numbers, and only one technique, open diagonal twining, S-twist weft, occurs in as many as three sites. The greatest variety in twining is apparent in the assemblage from Yampa Canyon, where four techniques occur followed by Hogup Cave and the Promontory Caves represented by three techniques respectively.

Warps are generally single elements in all types of simple twining and paired in all instances of diagonal twining. Wefts are inevitably paired in all types of twining with no example of trebled or other multiple weft patterns present. Cordage is commonly utilized for wefts in the construction of matting. Though both Sand Z-twist wefts occur in Fremont twining with marked preferences notable from one site to another, S-twist generally predominates in the assemblage.

Space does not permit discussion of other construction details such as method of starting, insertion of new elements, etc. (For these particulars the reader is encouraged to consult Steward 1937; Burgh and Scoggin 1948.) However, some commentary on selvages is warranted.

Fremont selvages tend to be extremely varied with no one side or edge finish clearly in the majority. At most sites, warps are simply truncated after the final weft row or folded back into the body of the fabric and then truncated. More elaborate end selvages occur in the Promontory Caves assemblage including a variety of reinforced edges sewn with cordage. (See Steward 1937.) Side selvages and mats invariably have weft rows folded down parallel to the lateral margins and sewn back to form the next weft row.

'% h-

« .2+7 UN &

'

7

*

1

2

1

2

1

bo'v'7 C

••

'••£.• '

*

;'••

H : ** cj

ss .1* ii-< 2+7 Utrt

4 41

•

',

• • •

•

1 P

Old Woman Etna Cave O'M alley Shelter .

Little Lost RiverCave Pence. Duerig •Cave Jack Knife Cave SpringCreek Cave Daugherty Cave CJydes ; Cavern Swallow Shelter TOTALS

•

(A •

(31

c •

'c

Open Diagonal Twining, S-Twist Weft Close Diagonal Twining, S-Twist Weft .

Open Simple Twining, S-Twist Weft

The partial results of the attribute analysis of Fremont twining arc presented below.

;.

4-* :"5-' P

P

1

•2.. ;

4

>2 +

•

'5

.', .

-..

31 + '8"

3

4+

5

6

57,

P - present, exact frequency unknown.

rarely, Phragmites communis, Rhus trilobata, or Salix. Wefts are usually formed of Juniperus utahensis or, in the case of cordage wefts, Asclepias, Apocynum or Artemisia. Salix is likewise used occasionally for wefts. In the production of bags, Scirpus again is the favored material for both wefts and warps.

Form/wear patterns/function. The majority of Fremont twining is in the form of matting or, more rarely, flexible bags. Rigid twined containers are virtually unknown. No diagnostic wear patterns are apparent on any type of twining, though frequent indications of mending, notably in the bags, attest to heavy use and subsequent reuse.

DISTRIBUTION, CHRONOLOGY AND INTERNAL CORRELATIONS

Decorative patterns and mechanics of decoration.

As with Fremont coiling, the use of any decorative embellishment, with the exception of modified selvages, is wholly lacking in the twining industry.

Distribution. Typical Fremont coiled basketry is represented in all five of the Fremont regional variants defined in Utah (see Marwitt 1970) as well as in southeastern Nevada and northwestern Colorado. Beyond the

Material. Warps in Fremont twined matting are generally made of Scirpus americanus or, much more 38

"normal" limits of the Fremont culture proper, Fremont coiling has been recovered in southern Idaho and southwestern Wyoming. As reported elsewhere (Adovasio 1972), Fremont coiling is virtually never encountered south of the Colorado or Virgin rivers, nor is it known in northeastern Nevada.

Fremont twining is severely limited in occurrence and is generally confined to northern Utah and northwestern Colorado. While it is reasonable to conclude that twining was manufactured throughout the range of the Fremont, evidence to that effect is lacking.

earlier Archaic assemblages from Utah. Similarly, all of the twining attributes may be observed in Archaic assemblages from the eastern Great Basin (see Adovasio 1970b.1970c,1971,1974). While the persistence of one or another of the aforementioned technical attributes from late Archaic into Fremont times could be dismissed as fortuitous, their persistence in toto constitutes a powerful body of evidence that Fremont basketry is derived part and parcel out of local Archaic industries.

Herein, it should be forcefully stressed that it is completely immaterial whether or not there was an occupational hiatus (see Madsen and Berry 1975; Aikens 1976; Madsen 1978) between the end of the Late Archaic in the Eastern Great Basin and the beginnings of Fremont.

If the Eastern Great Basin was uninhabited prior to the crystallization of Fremont, which I do not for a moment believe, then the first formative "colonists" in the area "returned" with a basketry technology exactly the same as that present in the area before the alleged hiatus.

Moreover, this technology is utterly dissimilar to basketry technologies elsewhere in the Great Basin, the Colorado Plateau and the Southwest. In short, whoever the ancestors of Fremont were and whenever they entered the eastern Great Basin, their basketry was genetically eastern Great Basin Archaic in origin and not derivable from any other Great Basin, Colorado Plateau or Southwestern source!

In marked contrast to the Fremont/Desert Archaic basketry "connection" is the general lack of technical ties to any contemporary or later industries. Despite Gunnerson's (1969) allusions to the contrary as well as the occurrence of some basic Basketmaker-Anasazi coiling foundations in Fremont sites (including all four of the minority types listed in Table III), none of the standard P I-II1 techniques ever appear in any frequency anywhere in the Fremont area. Similarly, the apparent preference for closely packed, non-interlocking stitches like those of the Virgin Branch Anasazi by the Parowan Valley Fremont basket makers is more than offset by the utter lack of Anasazi splicing techniques or any other attribute in any of the Fremont regional variants.

The technical discontinuity between Fremont and Anasazi basketry is paralleled to the north and west of the Fremont area where virtually no similarities to contiguous industries can be discerned.

As for later assemblages, notably the basketry of the Numic speakers, connections are nil. The basketry of the Numic populations who entered the eastern Great Basin after A.D. 1300 is so qualitatively different from that of their Fremont predecessors as to preclude any historical relationships.

In retrospect, the Fremont twining and coiling industries represent the culmination of a long developmental continuum localized in the eastern Great Basin and relatively isolated from similar developments in adjacent areas. The absolute disappearance of Fremont basketry after A.D. 1300 thus signals not only the end of the Fremont as a cultural entity but also the extinction of a technological tradition thousands of years old.

Chronology. Coiled basketry was produced throughout the entire time span of the Fremont culture, that is, from ca A.D.400 to A.D. 1300. The industry disappeared or was replaced by intrusive industries (see below) differentially becoming extinct in the Uinta area around A.D. 950 and in other areas by the end of the thirteenth century. Presumably, twining was also produced over this time span, at least in the northern sectors of the Fremont range.

Certain developmental trends are discernible over the 900-year period during which Fremont coiled basketry was produced. Notable among these are the gradual shift from mixed to almost uniformly right-to-left work direction, the increasing preference of half rod and bundle foundation to all others and the tendency to employ noninterlocking or intentionally split stitches on the nonwork surface to all other types.

At present, it is not possible to delineate any trends which may have been operative in the twining industry.

Internal correlations. Though not extremely pronounced, regional preferences definitely existed among the various populations of Fremont basket makers. As Table III indicates, whole rod foundation coiling was somewhat more common in the Uinta Basin and the Parowan Valley than elsewhere. Half rod and welt stacked foundations likewise enjoyed differential popularity again being common in the Parowan Valley and somewhat scarce, or absent, in other Fremont regional centers.

Preferences for specific stitch types are also discernible. Interlocking stitches are generally more common in the northern Fremont variants while non-interlocking stitches are clearly favored in the south, particularly in the Parowan Valley.

The uneven distribution of S- and Z-twist wefts in the Fremont twining industry as well as the generally northern distribution of twining may also reflect regional specialization, though this is tenuous at best.

EXTERNAL CORRELATIONS The basic affinities of Fremont basketry, both twined and coiled, are to earlier Desert Archaic industries from the same area. All of the basic Fremont coiling attributes including preferred foundations, stitch types, rim Finishes, method of starting, work direction, forms, material preferences, and particularly splice types, are duplicated in 39

CONCLUSIONS The data presented above require little summation.

While the lithic and ceramic evidence does not lend itself individually or collectively to the recognition of a Fremont culture distinctive from and basically unrelated to contemporary groups like the Anasazi, this is not the case with the basketry data which is of, in and by itself conclusive. As noted previously (Adovasio 1975), Fremont basketry, though it exhibits some internal variation, constitutes as a unit the most distinct variety of prehistoric basketry in the entire Great Basin with the possible exception of Lovelock wickerware. (See Adovasio 1970b, 1970c, 19.71, 1974.)

Since it is an established fact (see Mason 1904, Adovasio 1977, 1978; Adovasio and Gunn 1977) that basketry is the single most sensitive indicator of prehistoric or ethnographic cultural integrity in the artifactual record, and further, since no two prehistoric or ethnographic cultures ever produced exactly or even nearly the same kinds of basketry with the same range of constructional attributes, the definition of a distinctive Fremont basketry industry is at once a recognition and delineation of a Fremont cultural entity.

More specifically, the basketry of the Fremont is as unique and taxonomically distinct as the basketry of the Anasazi, Hohokam, or Mogollon; hence, Fremont warrants the same level of taxonomic distinction (cf.

Marwitt 1970). If Anasazi or Hohokam or Mogollon are valid prehistoric cultures, so is Fremont.

While it may seem naive or outrageous to some (Madsen, personal communication) to define a prehis-

toric culture on the basis of a single industry or craft, namely basketry, such is my thesis in this case.

Stated most simply, if it is accepted that Mono, Paiute, Panamint, Ute or any other variety of ethnographic or prehistoric basketry can be taxonomically distinguished and recognized as the product of distinct cultural entities, so can Fremont basketry.

While this thesis will be uncomfortable for many, particularly in light of the internal diversity within Fremont as regards other aspects of material culture, subsistence practices or architecture, it should be remembered that even greater diversity exists within Anasazi (Adovasio, Gunn et al. 1979), Mogollon, or Hohokam.

In closing, the student of FYemont is advised to consider the basketry of a well known ethnographic, linguistic, and ethnic entity in the Southwest known as the Apache. While great differences in material culture and subsistence practices are evident from band to band notably as one moves west to east, the basketry of any or all of these groups is still recognizably Apache (Douglas 1934). Apache basketry cannot be confused by a specialist with the basketry of any of its neighbors despite very close similarities in many other aspects of material culture. This is also the case with Fremont. While 1 am in no way suggesting any relationship whatsoever between Fremont and Apache (in fact there is none) I am stating that for comparative purposes their situations are similar.

By definitionthen, any band who makes Apache basketry is per force Apache, while any population which constructs Fremont basketry is Fremont.

40

FREMONT SETTLEMENT PATTERN AND ARCHITECTURAL VARIATION ERNEST S. LOHSE University of Utah ABSTRACT This study's explicit objective was to test Marwitt's (1970) identification of five Fremont variants. Fifty-three excavated habitation sites were utilized to generate data on settlement pattern and architecture. Architectural traits were coded and subjected to both cluster and discriminant analysis. On the basis of this study, Marwitt's variants are well supported.

However, an even stronger support is generated for the identification of only two variants, corresponding to the Great Basin and Colorado Plateau physiographic provinces.

INTRODUCTION This paper has three primary objectives: the presentation of new information regarding Fremont architectural characteristics; an examination of both intrasite and inter-site settlement plan; and a definition of Fremont in strictly architectural terms. Within this rather general framework, previous studies defining internal Fremont variation will be challenged

The analysis of architectural variation and settlement pattern obviously cannot produce a definitive statement of Fremont identity when considered in isolation from other cultural elements. Therefore, this study only aspires to present an investigation that will offer a valuable insight into the Fremont problem.

BACKGROUND Other papers in this volume present a detailed description of the problem of Fremont origins and past theoretical approaches. Consequently, I will assume that the reader is familiar with the basis of past research in the Fremont area, and will present only a brief preface.

Much recent debate has centered on the question of just what is Fremont. Aikens (1966b) has suggested that Fremont may represent a southward migration of unspecified northern Great Plains groups, who coincidently adopted certain distinctive Southwestern traits.

Gunnerson (1969) and Berry (1975) felt that Fremont was merely a northward expansion of Pueblo groups.

The more popular view, as expressed by Wormington (1955) and Jennings (1956), was that Fremont derived from an earlier Archaic base and had merely absorbed distinctive Southwestern traits. Madsen and Lindsay (1977) have assumed a common sense stance, stating that the best answer lies in a combination of these three viewpoints.

Researchers have differed on the delineation of internal variation within the Fremont cultural area as

well. Jennings (1956) divided the Fremont culture into two distinct variants: the Sevier in the eastern Great Basin and the Fremont on the Colorado Plateau. Ambler (1966) identified five variants on the basis of an involved and somewhat ambiguous series of trait analyses: the Sevier, Provo, and Conger in the eastern Great Basin, and the Uinta and San Rafael on the Colorado Plateau. Marwitt (1970) again identified five Fremont variants, although he changed the designations and their respective boundaries: the Parowan, Sevier, and Great Salt Lake in the eastern Great Basin, and the Uinta and San Rafael on the Colorado Plateau. Madsen and Lindsay (1977), decrying the lack of a suitable definition for the Fremont, have suggested that it would be more profitable to identify two cultures: the Sevier in the eastern Great Basin and the Fremont on the Colorado Plateau. They also reserve the possibility of a third culture in the northern portion of both the eastern Great Basin and the Colorado Plateau, which exhibits a peculiar Great Plains character.

The Fremont problem or controversy, depending 41

upon your own predilection, has seemingly gone full circle. Earlier researchers identified only gross differences. Later, Ambler and Marwitt felt that finer lines could be drawn within the Fremont cultural area. And recently, Madsen and Lindsay, recognizing the rather evident lack of a definitive statement concerning the Fremont, have suggested that we again concern ourselves with only gross differences, i.e. Sevier versus Fremont. However, they prefer the term "cultures," injecting the idea that Sevier and Fremont owe their distinctiveness to different origins and influences. In their view, these two groups, previously identified only as variants of the same culture, should be viewed as two separate cultures, more different than alike. 1 accept the notion that Fremont is a recognizable cultural entity corresponding to the subarea, as defined by Willey and Phillips (1958): ". . . territories of geographical extent intermediate between the region and the area which

possess qualities and degrees of cultural unity that give them a definite usefulness in archaeological and ethnographical studies." Whether or not we can succinctly define Fremont does not seem to me of paramount importance; it is only necessary that we are able to recognize Fremont as different from other surrounding cultural groups. It is the usefulness of the designation in archeological contexts, and not its validity in terms of past cultural identities, which should be of concern.

Fremont is recognizable; it does exist as an entity in the archeological record, distinct from the Anasazi to the south and from hunting and gathering groups to the north, east and west. 1 feel that to break Fremont into two "cultures," more different than alike with regard to the Southwestern cultural area, causes even more ambiguity. If it is recognizable within our archeological record, and it seems to serve as a useful pigeonhole or tool, then we should continue to make use of it.

PROBLEM It was felt that a consideration of both architectural traits and settlement pattern offered a means of challenging prior viewpoints. For instance, the analysis of architectural traits and settlement plan should be very productive in establishing the validity of Gunnerson's (1969) and Berry's (1975) hypotheses of Fremont origins. If the Fremont do indeed represent a northward migration of Pueblo groups, it is only rational to expect that this expansion should be adequately documented in the archeological record. If an actual physical movement of people occurred, involving representatives of a particular stage of Pueblo development, then one would expect their material culture to be virtually identical in both areas. Further, an in-depth considera-

tion of available architectural and settlement data should be equally productive in dealing with the lack of a suitable definition for Fremont.

Analysis will only focus on the validity of the five variants postulated by Marwitt (1970) and the two variants suggested by Jennings (1956). 1 cite Jennings as opposed to Madsen and Lindsay (1977) because of their use of the term "cultures." The first part of this paper will involve a discriminant analysis of architectural traits in an effort to quantitatively support or refute Marwitt and Jennings. The second part deals with the limited information available pertaining to settlement pattern, in a similar effort.

FREMONT ARCHITECTURAL VARIATION METHOD

tion, storage); the construction technique (dry- or wetlaid masonry, coiled or coursed adobe, jacal); treatment of floor and walls (masonry, puddled clay, natural); roof construction (rectangular, peripheral, irregular); structural plan (circular, rectilinear, irregular); approximate angle of the subsurface walls (vertical, outward or inward sloping); the living floor area in square meters (0-19.999 being small, 20.000-39.999 being medium, +40.000 being large); the presence of a ventilator shaft with regard to the cardinal directions; ventilator shaft construction (floor and wall treatment, presence of masonry, adobe, jacal, earth); fireplace construction (clay-rimmed, clay-lined, paved, natural, any combination); storage cist construction (bell-shaped, slab-lined, irregular); number and kind of depressions discerned on the living floor; any miscellaneous structural features (entry ramps, ash pits, etc.); postulated cultural affiliation; and date off the living floor, if available. See Tables VI-V1I1 for frequencies of selected architectural traits.

I chose as a sample 53 excavated Fremont habita-. tion sites. (See Table V). The only criteria involved availability of information and marginally reliable excavation records. Only habitation structures were considered in depth, with the presence of storage structures =H?erely being noted. Presumably, dwellings would be more reliable indicators of cultural influence/identity, due to their greater elaboration and complexity.

A habitation structure was defined solely on the presence of an interior hearth. A dwelling was indentified as subterranean if the living floor had been purposefully excavated below the then-occupation surface, forming a recognizable wall, and if the roof leaners had been footed outside of the structure margin. Each site was recorded on a separate form involving 22 different categories concerning 21 different discriminant variables.

Categories included whether the individual structure was subterranean or surface; its postulated use (habita-

42

TABLE V Fremont Habitation Sites Used ...

Colbradf^fi Alice Hunt Site (JenrungV&d/b) " ' Basket Hut Site (Jennings n.d,6) Boundary Village (Leach l96i$ Bu rn't; Ho use {Bretejrn it?. J 970a) - t a Id well Village^ Ambler 1966)!; Chas, B. Hunt Site (Jennings n;<j Crescent R idge (M adserr 1975b) 7, Cub Creek Site (Breternitz;j970af Dam Site(BrclerntU 1970a) .'-':,• Emery Site (Gunnerson 1957)-:';: -;->v Fa I len Worn a n (W i lso n a nd 5m if h WM Fetter's Hill (Shields 1967) Flat Top Butie (Shields 1967) ; Ford Site (Breternitz 1970a) h : Fremont Playhouse (Brctecnitz J970 G i Ibert Site {S hie Id s 1967) ::[::•; "•:• '• <••£$%$; Gnat Haven (Jennings n.d.b) r S Goodrich Site (Shields 1967) " U"-C'-.'.-.

Innocents Ridge (Schroedf arid Hog: I vie Ridge (Wilson and Smith 1976} Macleod Site (Bretemitt 1970ar Ninas Hill (Jennings n;d,b);:: Nine Mile Canyon (GiliinJ938) North Point (Jennings n.d.b) ; .'' Old Woman (Taylor 1957) Playa Site (Jennings rul.bj • Poplar Knob (Wilson and S m U h i " ? ? ^ ^ Power Pole Knoll (Madsen 1975 Round Springs (unpublished surveVreDoriV * SnakeRock Village (Aikens 1 9 6 7 ) % Turner-Look Site {Wormington i95S Wagon Run (Breternitzz1970a) 1970a) TWhiterocks Village ( Siields h i e lvd1967) ^ Wholeplace Village (Brcternit| rctemitz-197ft. j Windy Ridge (Madsen .197i5)C ro75i;:" ••,-%-

lormed on the data as if all sites, structures, clc, were contemporary. Nevertheless, the lack of chronology is probably not much of a problem: a conservative estimate for the entire time span of an identifiable Frcmonl entity is perhaps only about 200-400 years; most sites are single component deposits, not enabling us to recognize any change through lime. Further, one may conceivably interpret the results of the analysis with the untreated lime factor in mind,

&y-

DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS Once the data was recorded for the 53 selected sites it was coded and transferred to computer data cards' Discriminant analysis was performed, utilizing the format presented in the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (Nie et al. 1975). In basic terms, discriminant analysis may be thought of as a method of producing hybrid variables so as to produce the best possible separation or discrimination between two or more groups It begins with the desire to statistically distinguish between two or more cases. In order to execute this, the researcher selects certain discriminating variables. If as in Jennings' (1956) delineation of two Fremont variants, the observations are divided into two groups to iorm the dependent variable, only a single discriminant function can be derived. The stepwise option in the S.P.S.S. subprogram DISCRIMINANT was used This method begins by selecting the single best discriminating variable, and then involving other variables in the order that they are best able to improve the discrimination criterion in combination with the first variable. At each step in the routine, variables already selected will be removed if they are found to reduce discrimination when combined with prior variables. A measure termed Wilks' lambda was used in adding the variables in the order that they made the greatest contribution to reducing the ratio of within-group to total variation Wilks1 lambda is used to determine the significance of the canonical correlation or canonical root (the canonical correlation being a method for correlation analysis when both the independent and dependent variables are composites of several measured variables). The reciprocal of Wilks' lambda is the usual correlation coefficient and its significance was tested using the chi-square distribution.

•

Great Ba^g? * Back hoe Village (Madsenand L i h d s ^ Bradshaw Mound'(Judd J9 J 7_b) '•" UVX .. Ephraim(GilUn 1941) •'---..• ' . • • ' " . , '' Evans M ound (Berry 1972) : '/'-• Harrison (Taylor 1954) : : . 3 ' : . .

George Mound (Judd .1917b5:: Grantsville (Steward 1933b; 1 njun Creek (Aikens i966b).'\\ 7£f§&p£ Kanosh (Steward 1931,1933b) Knoll Site(Dalley n.d,) - . -;' :.

Levee S ite (Da 1 ley n.d.) **Marysvale.'(GilItn 194J) M ed ian V i llage (M anyit t 1970) -Nephi Mounds (Sharrock arid Marwitt 1 •:.; Paragonah (Judd 1917a, h; m9; 1926) : Pharo Village (Marwitt 1968) ''^'•'<.:•• Tooele.(Gillin 1941) •wmard(Judd 1917b, 1926)

Unfortunately, excavation techniques and subsequent reporting have varied greatly within the Fremont area^ Site reports from over twenty years ago often Jailed to supply even the minimum information necessary for area-wide comparisons. Further, the dating of individual sites, let alone of individual structures has been sadly neglected. Only recently, with the excavations of Backhoe Village (Madsen and Lindsay 1977) and the Bull Creek sites (Jennings n.d.b), has there been any concern with the dating of individual living floors.

The lack of good excavation controls and absolute dates forced me to deal with the data on architecture in a synchronic manner. Discriminant analysis was per-

The individual observations, e.g. rectilinear house shape, are given scores on the discriminant funcrions These scores are derived in standardized form and a mean score is computed for each group of observations This measure 1$ termed a group centroid. Analyses of variance can then be performed on these scores. The specific aim of discriminant analysis is to maximize the F ratio of the between-group to the within-group variance estimates: the discriminant function is located to produce the "best" analysis of variance.

Multivariate methods like discriminant analysis were developed to test hypotheses, in this case relating 43

TABLE VI House Shape and Dimensions SUBTERRANEAN Circular, Irrtgular-

Site

SURFACE Average Floor Area in sq. m.

Rectilinear

Circular, irregular

Rectilinear

Average Floor Area in sq. m.

Boundary Village Burnt House Caldwell Village Cub Creek DamSite^

28.6 23.8

FcUer's-Hill Flat Top Butte Fremont Playhouse GilbertSite .

Goodrich Site

28,8 40.3 3.4 0.0 18.8

0.0 212 23.8

40.1 0.0 0.0 21.3 23.9

23.8 00 0.0 0.0

Basket Hut Site Chas.B^HuntSite Crescent Ridge Fallen Woman GnatHaven

8.7 28.4.

0.0 22.7 28.4

0.0 0.0 15.4 0.0 0.0

Innocents Ridge IvieRidge NinasHiii: :•• Nine-Mile Canyon NorthPoint •."':

33.4 22.8 11.4 32.4 28:4

16.5 0.0: 0.0 12.5 27.0

Old Woman Playa She Poplar Knob Power Pple Knoll Round Springs

22.7 28.4 0.0 0.0 10.5

20.9 0.0 23.1 0.0 0.0

Snake Rock Village Turner-Look Site Windy Ridge' Backhoe Village.

Evans- Mound

17.9 0.0 0.0 17.8 16.3

16,2 25.3 15.6 0.0 0.0

Garrison Kanosh Marysvalc: Median.Village Paragonah

21:1 13.4 8.9 20.6 19.5

27:0 22.3 0,0 .0.0 0.0

11.2 20.2 33.3

14.5 0.0 20.0 0.0 9.2

31.6 0.0 0.0

MacteodSite WagqnRun: Whitefocks Village Wholepiace Village Alice Hunt Site

Ephraim Grantsville Nephi Mounds PharoVUlage •Tooele

29.7 0.0

Bradshaw Mound .Injun Creek Knoll Site Levee Site Willard Site

0.0 0.0 26.8 38.9* 0.0

0.0 36.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0

o!o

16,0

20.9 25.3 0.0

ii.r o.o

*At the Levee Site, during the ea rlycomponent(prior to ca A.D. 1000), the average floor area was 11.1 square meters. During the late component (ca A.D. 1090 to 1240). this average increased to 38.93 square meters.

measurements on nominal scales to others on collinear interval and ratio scales. Discriminant analysis is therefore seen to have three primary uses, following Johnston(1978): 1. Testing and generating hypotheses. The method is used to investigate whether a certain set of selected

variables successfully discriminates between groups of observations on a nominal scale.

2. Evaluating a prior classification. Discriminant analysis will point out the number of misclassifications in the dependent variable. These are observations whose 44

TABLE VII Fireplace Treatment

TABLE VIII Miscellaneous Structural Features

Site Boundary Village BurntHouse Caldwell Village Cub Creek DamSite Fetter's Hill Flat Top Butte Fremont Playhouse Gilbert Site Goodrich Site Macleod Site Wagon Run Whiterocks Village Wholeplace Village Alice Hum Site Basket HufSke Chas. B.HuntSite Crescent Ridge Fallen Woman Gnat Haven

Old Woman Playa Site Popular Knob Power Pole Knoll

0 1 1

Snake Rock Village Turner-Look WindyRidge Backhoe Village Eyans Mound

0 0 I

0 0 0

o- 0

o

2 3 0 2

0 0 0

$ : •

Garrison Kanosh Marys vale Median Village Paragonah Ephraim Grantsville Nephi Mounds Pharo Village Tooele

0 4 5 12 2

0 0 0 0 •

9

0".

•

Innocents Ridge Ivie Ridge Ninas Hill Nine-Mile Canyon North Point 5 I : :

•

. l

'

12 . 8 •

3

Snake Rock Village Turner-Look ' Windy Ridge Backhoe Village Evans Mound '

;"

9

o "M

5- . 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

5 4 8 13 .2."

1 2 4 2

0 0 0 0

3 5 JO 3

0 0 0 0

Old Woman , Playa Site Poplar Knob Power Po|e K no!

Round Springs

3

••

Garrison Kanosh Marysvale Median Village Paragonah Ephraim Grantsville Nephi Mounds Pharo Village Tooele

Bradshaw Mound Injun Creek Knoll Site Levee Site Willard Site

Bradshaw Mound Injun Creek Knoll Site Levee Site Willard

45

JI •2

0 0 0

9 0 0 0 4

0 0 0 0 0

12 8 "3

9 17 5 4 8: 13 2 3 5 10 3 1

TABLE IX Comparison of Fremont Architectural Traits Within Marwitt's (1970) Variants

Architectural Trait

Uinta

.San Rafael

Parowan,

.Sevier

; Great'..".'.

SaUL-ake

Total

Subterranean structures Village habitation structures (versus storage) Puddled living floors.:.

Rectangular roof support

,7067 .9867 .1867 .3333

.6562 .9562 .2437 .2687

.6000 .7250 .3125 .1875

.3625 .7250 .4375 .3125

.5000 .8333 .3667 J 833

.6000 .8811 .2811 .2717

Peripheral root support Circular subterranean habitation structures Rectilinear subterranean habitation structures Plastered walls

.0467 .6333 .2000 ;0000

.0625 .8687 .1312 .1875-

.0500 .3375 .5625 .2250

.0000 .2125: .7875 .5250

.6333 .5833 .4167 .0000

1113 .5906 .3472 .1698

Ventilators Stab deflectors Jacal deflectors Masonry deflectors

.0000 .0000 .0000 .0000

.0625 .0000 .0625 .0000

.3375 .0000 .6250 .0000

.2375: .1250; 0000 .0000

.2500 .0000

1340 .0189 '1132 .1)000

-Peflectors of naturalearth Clay-rimmed firepits, Clay-rimmed, paved firepits Ciay-iined firepits

.0000 .5067 .0000 .0200

.oooo .6000

.0000 ,6625 ,0500 .1875

.0000 .6125 .4625 ,2000

Unelaborated firepits Unrimmed, Paved firepits Bell-shaped cists . Slab-lined cists Above-floor slab bins Drylaid surface structures Wetlaid surface structures /Coiled adobe surface structui Coursed adobe surface structures.

Jacal surface structures Entry' ramps Ashpits';

.4375 .1250

.6333 , .0200 .1533 .0067: , -.1333 .1667 .0333 .0333 .1000 .0667 . .1333 ..2667

.3125 .1625 .0437

;

: ; 0 1 8 7 ;';•••:.

.0625. I-4125 .2875

•' .

oooo

"

.0125 0000;. .1250, :• .1250 :

;

:1667 .0000 .0000

;

.0000 .1250 7 .0375" .0250 7;

-

7

. ;3250 '•'.. .1250 ' :025o v.; .1000 ,0000 .-'•'•;7: ...0375

- 7:5750-- '.0000

.

.0000

:

.0000 .4000 .5000 .2500

-• ,H

v

; 5 0 0 0

.0189 ; .552$\ .2094 .1019

.4666;;

.0000

.0736 .0755 .0321

J667

:0755 :2S09 T774 .2509

•.oooo .. : .00005 . .0000

- .5875 'V.2000 . A' + '• '. 3333:.-.'! ' -7":;0125 ::,..:.- .0250 - - .0000 .0000 .0000. ; • .0000 : - ..1250 - -, .00.00: ^V.OOOO' ;. "\

T8877 :0245 .0755. .1321

(mean frequencies)

scores on the discriminant function suggest that, according to the relevant characteristics identified, they are more like the members of another group than they are like those of the group to which they were assigned.

3. Estimating values for other observations. If discriminant analysis is successful in isolating differences between groups, it can then be used to predict values on the dependent variable for observations not in the original sample.

The best discriminating variables are arranged below in order of decreasing significance (chi-square values in parentheses): jacal deflectors (.000); peripheral roof supports (.000); plastered walls (.000); rectilinear habitation structures (.000); earthen deflectors (.000); clay-rimmed, paved firepits (.003); clay-lined firepits (.000); coiled adobe surface structures (.000); entry ramps (.000); bell-shaped cists (.000); ash pits (.000); unelaborated firepits (.000); clay-rimmed firepits (.000); circular habitation structures (.004). Table IX presents relative frequencies of architectural traits within the five Fremont variants.

Misclassified sites included the following: the Gilbert Site, more probably Sevier than Uinta; North Point, more probably Parowan than San Rafael; the Playa Site, more probably Great Salt Lake than San Rafael; the Garrison Site, more probably Uinta than Parowan; Grantsville, more probably Uinta than Sevier; and the Willard Site, more probably Uinta than Great Salt Lake.

OUTCOME The use of discriminant analysis upheld both the concept of five Fremont variants advocated by Marwitt (1970), and the delineation of only two Fremont variants suggested by Jennings (1956). The percentage of correctly classified cases was high in both.

For Marwitt's five Fremont variants, 88.6% of the cases, i.e. sites, were correctly classified: Uinta (15 sites), 93.3% predicted, 6.7% assigned to both the Parowan and Great Salt Lake; Parowan (8 sites), 87.5% predicted, 12.5% assigned to the Uinta; Sevier (8 sites), 87.5% predicted, 12.5% assigned to the Uinta; Great Salt Lake (6 sites), 83.3% predicted, 16.7% assigned to the Uinta.

Table X presents cases identified as misclassified, with the probabilities of their belonging to another group.

For Jennings' two Fremont variants, 94.3% of the 46

TABLE X Misclassified Sites .

Actual Group

Site Gilbert Site North/'Point...

Playa Site 7 Garrison Site Grantsville Willard Site

Uinta San Rafael San Rafael Sevier Sevier Great Salt Lake

!

Highest Probability* Group P(X/G) P(G/X) •Sevier;; ;':Pa rowan Great Salt Lake Uinta ' "Uinta Uirita .

.996 .973 .991 .999 .989 .998

Second Highest Group P(G/X) 1569 ,4887 ,931 960 .596 ,712

San Rafael San Rafael San Rafael Sevier San Rafael San Rafael

.291 .369 .062 .036 .226 .283

*P(X/G) = theprobability ol a case in group G being that far from the centroid.

P(G/X) = thc probability ol a case being in group G.

cases were correctly classified: Fremont (31 sites), 90.6% predicted; Sevier (22 sites), 95% predicted.

The best discriminating variables are arranged below in order of decreasing significance (chi-square values in parentheses): rectilinear habitation structures (.000); ventilators (.001); coursed adobe surface structures (.002); peripheral roof supports (.032); slab deflectors (.023); bell-shaped cists (.027); entry ramps (.025); jacal surface structures (.054); earthen deflectors (.074); puddled living floors (.025). Table XI presents the relative frequencies of architectural traits within the Fremont and Sevier variants.

Misclassified sites included the following: Fremont

Playhouse, more probably Sevier than Fremont; the Gilbert Site, more probably Sevier than Fremont; the Willard Site, more probably Fremont than Sevier.

Table Xll presents cases identified as misclassified, with the probabilities of their belonging to another group.

SUMMARY The delineation of five Fremont variants, i.e. Uinta, San Rafael, Parowan, Sevier, and Great Salt Lake (Marwitt 1970), appears to be statistically valid. As

TABLE XI Comparison of Fremont Architectural Traits Within the Colorado Plateau and the Eastern Great Basin

Colorado Plateau

Great Basin

Total

Subterranean structures • Village habitation structures (versus storage), Puddled living floors ; Rectangular-roof support

.6806 :9710 .2161 3000

.4864. .7545 .3727; .2318''

.6000 .8811 .2811 271.7

Peripheral roof support Circular subterranean habitation structures Rectilinear subterranean habitation structures Plastered walls

.0548 .7548 .1645 .0968

.1909 .3591 .6045 ,2727

.1113 .5906 •3472 .1698

Ventilators Slab deflectors Jacal deflectors Masonry deflectors

,0323 .0000 .0323 .0000

.2773 .0455 .2273 .0000

.1340 .0189 .1132 .0000

Deflectors of naturaiearth Clay-rimmed firepits Clay-rimmed, paved firepits Clay-lined firepits

.0000 .5548 .2258 .0742

.0455 .5500 .1864 .1409

.0189 .5528 .2094 .1019

Unelaborated firepits Unrimmed, paved firepits Bell-shaped cists Slab-lined cists

.4677 .0935 .0968 .0129

.4636 .0455 ,0455 .0591

.0736 .1736 .0755 .0321

Above-floor slab bins Dry-laid surface sturctures Wet-laid surface structures Coiled adobe surface structures

.0968 .2935 .1645 .0161

.0455 .1909 .1955 .1000

.0755 .2509 .1774 .0509

Coursed adobe surface structures Jacal surface structures Entry ramps Ash pits

.0548 .0323 .1290 .1935

.3773 .0336 .0000 .0455

.1887 .0245 .0755 .1321

Architectural Trait

47

:

TABLE XII Misclassified Sites

PIX/G)

P(G/X)

Second Highest Group

P(G/X)

Sevier

1.000

.656

Fremont

.344

Fremont

Sevier

1.000

.'; .752

Fremont

.248

Sevier

Fremont

1.000

.971

Sevier 7

.029

Site

Actual Group

Fremont Playhouse

Fremont

Gilbert Site Willard Site

Highest Probability* Group

*P(X/G) = the probability ol a case in group G being that far fromccntroid P(G/X) = the probability of a case being in group G

may be seen in Fig. 4, the Uinta and San Rafael variants are the least separated, with their respective group centroids quite close together. The Parowan and Sevier variants are distinct from either the Uinta and San Rafael, but certainly not as alike as those two variants.

The Great Salt Lake variant is the most identifiable, not closely allied with any of the other four, though more similar to the Parowan and Sevier than the Uinta and San Rafael. This lends credence, but not firm support, to the view advanced by Madsen and Lindsay (1977) that a discernible Great Plains character exists in the northern portion of the Fremont area.

A correctly predicted total of 88.6% is a dependable indicator for Fremont internal variation, but it can only be considered suggestive. The six misclassified sites are probably attributable to a lack of refinement in the discriminant variables and/or may be evidence of the overall cultural homogeneity of the Fremont.

It most certainly would be unwise to extrapolate from architectural data to tangible cultural differences.

The number of misclassified sites is greatly reduced when the cases are divided into two groups roughly

5

corresponding to the Colorado Plateau and Great Basin physiographic regions (see Fig. 5). These two groups, termed Fremont and Sevier respectively, by Jennings (1956) and Madsen and Lindsay (1977), are viable units. Marwitt's (1970) five Fremont variants are valid, and further, fit nicely into these two macro-variants or subdivisions. However, whether these variants are reflective of actual cultural differences or are merely products of the synchronic treatment, attributable to outside cultural influence, is still a matter for debate.

The use of the terms Fremont and Sevier for subdivisions of a cultural entity already termed Fremont, seems needlessly confusing, unless like Madsen and Lindsay (1977) we are willing to identify two distinct cultures. I propose that it would be more profitable to retain Fremont as the cultural name and drop the terms Fremont and Sevier when referring to the two subdivisions, in favor of the use of Colorado Plateau and Great Basin, as these seem more indicative of the physiographic-environmental factors contributing to the over all distinctiveness and character of Fremont culture.

55 5

1 1

3,2

^l

121 4

44 4 â&#x20AC;˘

_-1.250

_-2.125

-3.000

_-4.000 -2.875

Fig. 4.

-.625

2.250

1.625

Discriminant Analysis of Five Variants: indicates a group centroid; 1 Uinta; 2 San Rafael; 3 Parowan; 4 Sevier; 5 Great Salt Lake.

Fig. 5.

48

Discriminant Analysis of Two Variants: indicates a group centroid; 1 Plateau; 2 Basin.

FREMONT SETTLEMENT INTRODUCTION

gesting that prehistoric horticulturalists must either have practiced irrigation or in some way controlled natural runoff.

Interestingly, no solid evidence for Fremont irrigation has yet been reported. There are however, a numher of unsubstantiated European reports describing presumed prehistoric irrigation canals. Morss (1931) said that he was told of and shown a portion of an v aboriginal irrigation ditch along Pleasant Creek, south of Fruita, Utah. Reagan (1931) also described prehistoric . ditches along Brush Creek, northeast of Vernal, Utah.

Gunnerson (1957) was told that early settlers frequently J discovered old irrigation ditches along Ferron Creek, west of Ferron, Utah. This author, in conversations with a landowner along Bull Creek, south of Hanksville, Utah, was told that aboriginal fields and ditches were observed when the first Europeans arrived.

Whether or not irrigation was actually being practiced, it does appear that Fremont farmers preferred to live in an area with available natural runoff. For example, Berry (1974) notes that every sedentary village within the Parowan Valley was built on or near the alluvial fan of a perennial stream. He argues that proximity to water was not the primary aboriginal concern, since surveyed areas in the vicinity often support numerous springs, yet only scattered campsites are found in direct association. He believes that village sites occur only when the conditions for floodwater farming are met.

Madsen and Lindsay (1977) have stated that there has been an overemphasis on the importance of horticulture with regard to Fremont subsistence. They argue that marsh resources were the important factor in the economy, basing their hypothesis on the recovery of large amounts of Typha pollen from Backhoe Village in the Sevier variant (Madsen and Lindsay 1977).

They did not excavate any storage structures, and speculate that Typha was the dominant staple merely because it is plentiful and, evidently, reasonably nutritous. Their argument seems in contradiction to evidence from other village sites, where remains of domesticated crops were recovered. Nielson (1978) supports their position however, when he points out that Sevier sites are associated with soils developed under wetland and marsh environments. Though this is not conclusive proof of the importance of marsh exploitation, it is reasonable, and Nielson concludes that Fremont village site selection was a rational cultural decision centering on the exploitation of marsh resources.

Great Basin village sites tend to be larger than their counterparts on the Colorado Plateau. Within the Parowan and Sevier variants, presumably sedentary sites are located along the western base of the Wasatch Mountains atop alluvial fans or on the valley floors adjacent to perennial streams. The largest sites, Evans Mound, Median Village, and Paragonah, effectively

As yet there have been no serious studies concerning prehistoric economy and settlement pattern within the Fremont cultural area. The meager information that has been available is not sufficient for any indepth treatment. Further, no in-field investigation involving either subsistence or settlement pattern has even been attempted. Most of the excavated sites have been the product of salvage work with narrow research goals or the result of field schools with the primary objective centering on chronology. Sites have been considered as cultural phenomena isolated from the exterior world. Structures are identified within test trenches and completely excavated, but exploration is not continued out onto the associated occupation surface, effectively curtailing any solid statements about intra-site plan. Unfortunately, inter-site relationships have not been considered with any more regard.

Substantial biases exist in prior investigations of Fremont culture. First, sites have been treated as if they were developed in isolation from the surrounding cultural system. Second, a self-fulfilling prophecy has been established, wherein we know what a Fremont site is, so that is what we dig. Excavation has, with few exceptions, involved only "village sites." Other sites, i.e. open campsites, rockshelters, etc., certainly elements of the Fremont cultural system, have not been touched upon. The result is our present, distorted view of Fremont. We may assume that Fremont is a recognizable cultural entity on an economic scale somewhere between surrounding Anasazi horticulturalists and Great Basin and Great Plains hunters and gatherers, but we don't know if dependence on horticulture equalled that of the Anasazi or whether prior hunting and gathering strategies were maintained with domesticated crops merely representing some sort of backup or novelty. Further, we have no real idea of Fremont settlement plan or correspondingly, social organization. A good relative chronology has been built up, although the largest stumbling block in any study focusing on settlement pattern is the general lack of radiocarbon dates off identifiable living surfaces.

Therefore, any consideration of Fremont settlement pattern, like architecture, is lacking the element of time. Even more regrettably, it must be largely speculative.

SITE LOCATION Both Gunnerson (1969) and Berry (1974) have pointed out that Fremont farming settlements are characteristically located near perennial streams. Relatively little land throughout the Fremont area would have received adequate groundwater for farming, sug49

- V\l

distinguish the Sevier and Parowan variants from the Uinta and San Rafael on the Colorado Plateau. However, the Great Salt Lake variant, while still within the Great Basin, does not exhibit large village sites.

Small settlements like the Levee and Knoll sites (Dalley n.d.), are the norm. These are located on slight rises adjacent to the Bear River in areas of what were aboriginally, extensive marshlands. The difference in site size and architecture, though possibly representing cultural differences, may also be due to our sampling bias. Areas of extensive historic land development and farming lie at the northern foot of the Wasatch Front in areas which would have been quite attractive to Fremont farmers. If large sites once existed in these areas, similar to those to the south, the evidence is probably no longer available. This problem is not confined to the Great Salt Lake variant, it is apparent throughout the Fremont area, with Europeans having settled in precisely those same optimal locations favored by prehistoric farmers.

Sites on the Colorado Plateau, are in general, much smaller than those excavated in the Great Basin. Jennings (1978a) refers to these as "rancherias," pointing out that they usually comprise one or two dwellings and associated storage structures. The sites are commonly situated on slight rises overlooking arable land and perennial sources of water. This pattern is repeated throughout the Uinta and San Rafael variants.

This east-west, Colorado Plateau-Great Basin division seems to be primarily a physiographic one. Large settlements are more common along the western foot of the Wasatch Front at those points where alluvial fans are formed by rivers originating in the mountains, discharging out into the valleys below. However, large village sites are also found on the Colorado Plateau within the Uinta variant, e.g. Caldwell Village and

Whiterocks Village. Most probably, Fremont peoples settled in larger numbers wherever optimal locations consisting of arable lands and perennial sources of water existed. The question of location and settlement composition docs not appear to involve cultural differences as much as it involves limitations imposed by two very different environments, presented by the Colorado Plateau and Great Basin physiographic regions.

SUMMARY The Fremont, as is the case with most known ethnographic groups of similar economic orientation, tended to settle in larger numbers based on the availability of resources. If horticulture was an integral part of the traditional hunting and gathering economy as has been suggested, then it is only reasonable to assume that the Fremont would have been especially sensitive to the availability of arable land and dependable water sources.

If marsh resources were also a concern, so much the better; the two are not mutually exclusive, and the matter still is one of available resources required to support a given population.

This discussion of Fremont settlement has been, unfortunately, somewhat vague and inconclusive. Very little may be said regarding infra structure, as the majority of excavation reports do not even treat intrasite plan, let alone inter-site relationships. Nowhere in the Fremont cultural area has a study pertaining to social organization, economy, etc., been attempted. This lack is regrettable, and should be resolved in the future if the study of Fremont is to advance beyond the construction of typologies, chronology, and speculations regarding origins and definitions. Fremont may be said to exist, what is needed now is an understanding of the cultural system involved.

DISTINCTIVENESS OF FREMONT Recent studies by Ambler (1966) and Marwitt (1970) have attempted to define Fremont on the basis of trait analysis. The result has been the delineation of variants within the overall Fremont cultural area, with different boundaries in each study. Neither researcher was able to offer an overall definition other than to allude to the idea that the entity may only be identified by reference to total constellations of traits.

Madsen and Lindsay (1977), prompted by this lack of a suitable definition, have concluded that Fremont as such must not exist. However, as has been demonstrated, Fremont may readily be distinguished on the basis of architectural traits and settlement plan.

Bullard (1962) set up the following traits as diagnostic of the Anasazi: the standard arrangement of pithouses and surface structures in recognizable habitation units; the segmentation of larger villages into separate habitation units; the ventilator shafts oriented between south and east; antechambers; typical L-shaped

Anasazi ventilator shafts; an interior bench and/or support for roof side poles; room partitions; clay-rimmed firepits; deflectors; ash pits; sipapus; heating pits consisting of basin-shaped floor holes filled with burned rocks or sand; above-floor storage bins; and the use of sandstone slab in wall construction.

If, as proposed by Gunnerson (1969) and Berry (1975), the Fremont are to be considered the direct result of a northward burst of Anasazi settlers, then we should expect a high frequency of the above traits in any given site. In reality, the following diagnostic Anasazi traits are absent from the Fremont cultural area: recognizable habitation units; consistent ventilator shaft orientations between south and east; L-shaped ventilator shafts; well-defined antechambers; interior benches supporting roof leaners; room partitions; recognizable sipapus; and heating pits.

Clay-rimmed firepits and deflectors are relatively common throughout the Fremont area. The use of slabs 50

in wall construction is more confined, occurring only in the San Rafael variant on the Colorado Plateau.

Examples are found in Nine-Mile Canyon (Gillin 1938), Snake Rock Village (Aikens 1967), Windy Ridge (Madsen 1975b), and Ninas Hill (Jennings n.d.b.). Ash pits, as such, are also largely restricted to the Colorado Plateau, although in both the Uinta and San Rafael variants: Boundary Village (Leach 1967); Dam Site (Breternitz 1970b); Macleod Site(Breternitz 1970b); Innocents Ridge (Schroedl and Hogan 1975); Ninas Hill (Jennings n.d.b.); and Windy Ridge (Madsen 1975b). Only one example has been recorded in the eastern Great Basin, at Bradshaw Mound (Judd 1917b). Only four above-floor storage bins have ever been reported: three on the Colorado Plateau, one each at Caldwell Village (Ambler 1966), the Macleod Site (Breternitz 1970), and Nine-Mile Canyon (Gillin 1938); and one in the Great Basin, at Bradshaw Mound (Judd 1917b). See Table XIII.

pottery with punctation, incising, and applique; Promontory paddle-and-anvil pottery; and, finally, the construction of shallow, temporary surface dwellings. Further, he believes that the Fremont may have moved eastward to become the Dismal River culture, citing the approximate Fremont abandonment-inception of Dismal River culture as suggestive, the presence of paddle-and-anvil pottery in both areas, general similarities in architecture between Dismal River dwellings and a structure at Injun Creek (Aikens 1966b), and the dependence of both groups on a mixed economy of hunting and gathering.

Aikens' argument in simplified form merely attempts to account for certain influences in Fremont culture not totally explained by postulated Anasazi or Southwestern relationships. External influences contributing to the distinctiveness of Fremont culture probably did come from the Great Plains as well as from the Southwestern cultural area. The limited scope of this paper does not allow for an in-depth analysis of Aikens' hypothesis; however, his use of architectural data is much less than suggestive either of a Great Plains origin and continued influence, or of the impetus to the Dismal River culture. Rather than Fremont representing cultural ties or the movement of different peoples into and out of an area, it seems more profitable to approach the question with regard to economy. Yes, it may be that shallow surface dwellings, serrated bison metapodial fleshers and scrapers, etc., were Great Plains additions.

But these could also be interpreted as elements of a culture exploiting a large, mobile resource such as the bison. Aikens himself (1966b), with regard to the socalled "Promontory Culture," states that differences in artifact assemblages between cave and Fremont habitation sites may simply involve differential resource exploitation. It is quite possible that the reminiscent Great Plains traits are only part and parcel of a Fremont mixed economy, emphasizing hunting-gathering and horticulture. Dwellings at some sites would be temporary as opposed to those in other areas; tools would be similar in both the Great Plains and the Great Basin, given a similar emphasis in subsistence.

Although certain Anasazi traits are present within the Fremont area, they most assuredly do not represent the high frequency expected if the Fremont merely represent the northward migration of Anasazi settlers.

With this in mind, the Fremont may be considered a distinct entity. Perhaps horticultural practices and associated Southwestern traits were introduced into the Fremont area, not by an actual movement of Pueblo peoples, but by a diffusion of ideas. Whatever the actual nature of the selective process involved in Archaic groups accepting horticultural practices, the culture to the north of the Anasazi remained distinct.

Information is in large part lacking for any extensive comparison of Fremont to hunting and gathering groups to the north, east, and west. Fremont is recognizable, however, with reference to its mixed economy of hunting and gathering and farming, with the attendent use of pithouses and associated surface structures, involving typical Southwestern traits.

Aikens (1966b) has presented an interesting argument for Fremont origins and subsequent disappearance. He feels that an expansion south out of the northern Great Plains occurred ca A.D. 500. These people gradually assimilated certain Southwestern traits, adopting horticultural practices although still maintaining a dependence on hunting and gathering, and thus became the archeological entity termed "Fremont." He further postulates that this culture was forced out of the Utah area and drifted eastward onto the central Great Plains under pressure from the Shoshonean expansion out of the Great Basin ca A.D. 1400. (Lamb 1958) Aikens draws evidence for his argument from the presence of Great Plains-like traits in the Fremont cultural area, including distinctive shield pictographs; small, triangular corner-notched and side-notched concave-based projectile points; unilaterally barbed bone harpoon points; bone fish-hooks; bone and antler wedges or chisels; bone whistles; use of the moccasin; "tipi rings";

Whatever the origins and antecedents of the Fremont, the culture as a whole is clearly distinguished from surrounding cultures with reference to architecture and settlement plan. (See Fig. 6, for depiction of Fremont, Pueblo, and Great Plains dwellings.) Open habitation sites are most similar to those in the Southwestern cultural area, with the exception of certain sites excavated in the Great Salt Lake variant, which may only be indicative of different economic strategies. Villages comprise pithouse architecture, and surface habitation and storage structures. Intra-site plan appears informal or random in comparison with the standardized layout of Pueblo sites to the south, although individual elements may be very similar.

51

TABLE XIII Typical Anasazi Architectural Traits Present Within the Fremont Area (after Bullard 1962).

Site Boundary Village .

Burnt House Caldwell Village Cub Creek DamSite Felter'sHill Flat Top Butte Ford Site Fremont Playhouse Gilbert Site Goodrich Site Maclebd Site Wagon Run Whitcrocks Village Wholeplacc Village Alice Hunt Site •Basket Hut Site Chas: B.Hunt Site Crescent Ridge Emery; Fallen Woman Gnat Haven lvie Ridge Innocents Ridge Ninas Hill Nine Mile Canyon

Clay-rimmed Firepits - ; . • - • •

.

Marysvale.

Mediail Village Paragonah Ephraim Grantsville Nephi -Mounds..

Pharo Village Tooele Bradshaw Mound •Injun'Creek'-' Knoll Site "'.

LeveeSite Willard Site

4 0 0 0 1 0 0

3

0 11 0 1 '•-

I

.

0 0

•

•

3

:

.

5 • 4'.

1 'F..

-

';

1

-

•

1

3

'

0.

4 " 0 3 j

1 10 2" 4 9 0 .4 32 2 J 2 6 1 1 2 0 0 1 1

0 1

0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

„

0

o 0 0

o 0 0 0 0

•

o

2 0.

•5

O O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

I =r • y . - ' - ! _ .

0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.

0 0 r 0.

0 I .0

•..• ...••••:

3

Slab Wall Construction

:

3 - , - . v 7

Above Floor Storage Bins

o0 . ^ o-

o1

• ' •

NorthPoint Old Woman : Playa Site Poplar Knob Power Pole Knoll Round Springs : -- Snake Rock Village Turner-Look Site Windy-Ridge ^Backhoe Village Evans Mound Garrison Kanosh.

Ash Pits

0 2 0 0

0

•

0 •

0 0 1

;•;-

'-:

1

•••••

0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

o 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

0

. o.

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

52

6 5 15 1 -.'

1 7 4 1 -'• v'rl 1 2 .

3 : . . . . • ' 4; . ''. 4 •

.

••"•.

Oi

2?

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

A) 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

i

- ' • .

5 6 .-.

••

• 1

i:;::k'-^: / / - • " -

. .

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 : > •

T o t a l Houses in Sample

v-".•':•'••

"'

"!:l:••.'•;• '

•

..

!"•':

2 1 2 1 2 4 I 4 3 5 1 3 I 1 12 8 3 9 17 5 4 8 13 2 3 5 10 3 1 3 3 1 S 1

•

'

7

San Rafael - ca. A D 9 0 0

Alkali

Ridge - ca. A D 8 0 0

inferior partitions

antechamber

Parowan - ca. A D 1100 Coombs V i l l a g e

- ca. AD1100

L~shaped venlifator

San Rafael - ca. A D 9 0 0 Dismal

River

ca. A D 1 6 0 0

/

yo

o\

/ i

;o

Great

Salt

o:

Lake - ca. AD 1400

Q'

\0

fr.

,''<S r entry y

^

v

-''

ramp

\Qm

proposed margin

;o Oy

Fig. 6. Fremont Architecture 53

a-

Unfortunately, the debate over the distinctiveness of Fremont ultimately becomes one of semantics. Pueblo groups and Fremont are closely related, though a suggestive Great Plains-like character is also clear. One may identify influence, development, etc., on the basis

of certain general traits, e.g. pilhouse architecture, moccasins and the like. However, structural details, intrasite plan and economy, are only characteristic of the Fremont.

CONCLUSIONS Fremont is a recognizable and viable archeological concept, regardless of the lack of a precise and involved definition. Morss (1931) was the first to formally recognize this, although somewhat vaguely: ". . . Finally, in its time lag, in the modification of its Southwestern traits (for example, pottery, basketry, mats, figurines), and most strikingly, in the substitution of moccasins for sandals, the Fremont culture shows that it is not an integral part of the main stream of Southwestern development." Later researchers have become more enmeshed in the "northern periphery" puzzle, where a people are not wholly Southwestern but certainly show similar characteristics. Aikens (1967) injected new life into the study of Fremont with his hypothesis concerning a possible Great Plains origin and dispersal, a new approach in an area formerly considered little more than a cultural backwater of the Southwest. Debate still centers on Fremont origins and ultimate demise, internal composition, and chronology. Fremont exists, irrespective of the applied referent, and it will continue to be fruitless to attempt an ultimate definition involving an origin or extinction. We already have a rough category or pigeon hole into which we can wedge Fremont; what is needed is a series of investigations focused on economic strategy, settlement pattern, social organization, and the like. In short, we need to approach Fremont in terms of a cultural system, and refrain from elaborate speculation involving postulated cultural identities.

This study has presented statistical support for internal variation within the Fremont cultural area. Using independent data, discriminant analysis upheld Marwitt's (1970) identification of five variants: Uinta, San Rafael, Parowan, Sevier, and Great Salt Lake. Not unexpectedly, even more precision was obtained when Fremont was broken into two macro-variants or subdivisions, corresponding to Fremont and Sevier as proposed by Jennings (1956) and Madsen and Lindsay (1977).

I have also suggested that Colorado Plateau and Great Basin should be adopted instead of Fremont and Sevier as these terms appear to be more insightful and descriptive with regard to the reasons for Fremont internal variation. Parowan, Sevier, and Great Salt Lake may be grouped under the Great Basin, with Uinta and San Rafael under Colorado Plateau. This breakdown is

more indicative of Fremont viewed as one cultural tradition occupying two major physiographic regions, and comprising a subarea of the overall Southwestern Cultural area. Fremont is therefore seen as a distinct cultural entity, consisting of two major cultural subdivisions corresponding in geographical extent to the Colorado Plateau and the eastern Great Basin, further subdivided into five recognizable variants.

What little is known about Fremont settlement plans also supports the two-fold division. Great Basin settlements are generally larger village sites occupying optimal locations of arable land and available perennial water supply. The Colorado Plateau, with its more rigorous and dissected landscape, offers fewer optimal areas for horticulturalists, with correspondingly fewer large village sites. Predictably, a high correlation exists between optimal resource areas and higher population densities.

The division of Colorado Plateau-Great Basin Fremont is real, though probably not evidence of a cultural boundary. More likely, Fremont settlement and architecture differ as a result of the exploitation of contrasting environments and/or external influences from independent sources.

This paper has supported the view that Fremont as a cultural area may be broken into two macro-variants or subdivisions, corresponding to the Colorado Plateau and eastern Great Basin physiographic regions. Further, these subdivisions can then be broken down into five variants. If debate on the existence of the Fremont subsides, we will be able to concentrate on the cultural system that was present. Far from being the cultural backwater of the Southwest and therefore uninteresting, studies in the Fremont area have the intriguing potential of explaining why hunting and gathering populations opted for horticulture. Researchers in the Fremont cultural area are in the enviable position of approaching one of the most interesting questions in anthropology.

We merely need to get over the hurdle of just who were Fremont, who influenced them the most, when did they exist, and where did they go? It would be far more interesting and profitable to understand their relationships with environment and with their cultural neighbors, with particular emphasis on how and why they became horticulturalists.

54

COMMON POST-ARCHAIC PROJECTILE POINTS OF THE FREMONT AREA by RICHARD N. HOLMER <uid DENNIS G. WEDER University of Utah

ABSTRACT The projectile poiinÂŤ recovered from post-Archaic sites in the Fremont area can be divided into eight temporally and/or spatially diagnose types. The earliest of the types (Rose Spring Corner-notched) dat's to approximately A.D. 300 in the northern Colorado Plateau and A.D. 500 in the eastern Great Basin. They are common throughout the Fremont and surrounding regions suggesting a homogeneous hunting technology associated with the diffusion of the bow and arrow.

A related and also early type (Eastgate Expanding-stem) is occasionally recovered but its distribution is limited to the Great Basin. Significant regional diversity began about A.D. 800 with the introduction of side-notched projectile points (Bear River and Uinta Side-notched) around the Great Salt Lake and Uinta Basin. These points are similar, if not identical to side-notched points commonly recovered in the northern Great Plains. To the south, regional diversity began about A.D. 950 with the introduction of three point types (Parowan Basal-notched, Nawthis Side-notched, and Bull Creek Points) that are identical to the adjacent Anasazi point styles. The overall pattern indicates a sharing of hunting technology among the Fremont and the cultures of those surrounding regions that bear similar faunal resources. By A.D. 1150 Shoshoni projectile points (Desert Side-notched) were introduced completely replacing Fremont related points by A.D. 1250 in the south and A. D. 1350 in the north.

INTRODUCTION Several authors have addressed the problem of Fremont origins, internal regional variation, and external relationships. Within a culture-historical tradition, most have based their arguments on differential trait lists mentioning attributes of ceramics, lithics, basketry, residential and storage structures, and nonutilitarian objects.

No matter how detailed the trait lists, arguments seem to ultimately rest on ceramic associations and distributions. Ceramics are relied upon so heavily because of the highly developed temporally and spatially diagnostic typology available for the Fremont and surrounding cultures. The popularity of ceramics as cultural indicators is supported by the fact that pottery preserves well, is easily collected, and often occurs in large quantities at sites. Other cultural remains usually do not preserve well (for example basketry) or require extensive excavation prior to evaluation (for example dwelling structures). Lithics are perhaps the only other artifact class that share some of the diagnostic potential generally associated with ceramics. Their primary failing is that

finished lithic tools, in this case projectile points, usually do not occur in large quantities on a site. Numerous excavations are required before temporal and spatial differences can be noted. We believe that sufficient data is now available to allow a lithic typology to be suggested for trie Fremont culture.

To infer that a lithic typology does not already exist is not entirely accurate. Several named types generally associated with the post-Archaic inhabitants of the northern Colorado Plateau and the eastern Great Basin are commonly found in the literature. These include the Desert Side-notched, Rose Spring Series, Eastgate Series, Cottonwood Series, and Parowan Basal-notched.

It is apparent from the examination of projectile point collections from over 35 post-Archaic sites that these traditional classifications do not adequately delineate the temporal and spatial differences that occur in the Fremont area. A new typology, therefore, is proposed which refines and expands upon the above classifications.

55

xy;

Y-\f.

Site and Reference Caldwell Village (Ambler l"66) Boundary Village (I.each 1966)

Delude Shelter (I.each 1967) Uinta Basin (Shields 1967) Innocents Ridge(Sehrocdl and Hogan 1975) Hinckley '; arm (Green 1961)

Bear Ki\er I (Aikens 1966b) IniunC eek (Aikens 1966b)

P-.-ir River i (Shields n.d.)

Bea. River 2 (Aikens 1967) levee & Knoll (try and Dallcy n.d.)

Nephi Mounds (Sharrock and Marwitt 1967) Garrison ! Taylor 1954) Turner-l.ook (Wormington 1955)

Nawthis Village (Jennings 1978) Old Woman (Taylor 1957) Snake Rock (Aikens 1967) Poplar Knob (Taylor 1957)

1-70 Sites (Wilson and Smith 1976) Bull Creek (Jennings n.d.b) Pharo Village (Marwitt 1968) Backhoe Village (Madsen and Lindsay 1977) Paragonah (Meighan et al. 1956) Evans Mound (Berry 1972) Median Village (Marwitt 1970) O'Malley Shelter (Fowler et al. 1973) Thomas Shelter (Dallcy 1976) Kimber Shelter (Dalley 1976) Hogup Cave (Aikens 1970) Danger Cave (Jennings 1957) Swallow Shelter (Dalley 1976)'

Fig. 7. Seriation diagram of projectile point frequencies at Fremont sites.

PROJECTILE POINT TYPOLOGY The typology proposed here consists of eight named projectile point types. The Desert Side-notched point originally defined by Baumhoff and Byrne (1959) is maintained but the definition is restricted to a single basal shape (called the Sierra Subtype by Baumhoff and Byrne). Other basal shapes, which have traditionally been included in the Desert Side-notched type, appear to have different spatial distributions and, therefore, are given individual type status. Those types are the Uinta Side-notched, Bear River Side-notched, and the Nawthis Side-notched.

The remaining types include the Rose Spring Corner-notched originally defined by Lanning (1963), the Eastgate Expanding-stem defined by Heizer and Baumhoff (1961), the Parowan Basal-notched defined

by Adovasio (1970a), and the Bull Creek points by Weder (n.d.). Cottonwood Triangular points are not

included in the discussion because they occur at all sites usually in large quantities, and often a wide range of tools and preforms are incorporated into the single type.

Not all of the projectile point collections recovered from the sites included in this analysis were available for inspection. Published illustrations and descriptions had to be relied upon for several collections. Because unillustrated points could not be accurately classified, actual counts could only be approximated for those sites. Therefore, the included seriation diagram (Figure 7) and distribution maps (Figure 8) are based on appcximate frequencies.

All of the types presented here result from identical manufacturing techniques. They are typically produced by pressure-retouching thin flakes of locally available siliceous stone.

ROSE SPRING CORNER-NOTCHED Rose Spring Corner-notched points are slender points with stems that are either parallel sided or expand slightly toward their bases (Figure 9, d-f). They occur

throughout the northern Colorado Plateau and Great Basin.

Their presence in preceramic strata at Cowboy Cave 56

fsssss7>>

-^ /-J

. s s s s s sJX / *"-y y ss s s fs s ss s

S

'SSSS. 'SSSSS

â&#x20AC;˘ S s ss s s ss *sssss sssssss* XSSss ssss 'SSS SS SSS f \ssssss,ss K/ssss sss \sssss \ss//s ^ssssss

Bear River Side-notched

Nawthis Side-notched U

&>*'

Uinta Side-notched

Eastgate Expanding-stem

Desert Side-notched

Bull Creek Points 8K&$Sft&:

Parowan Basal-notched

?,; -^SsiyaSwSHt^XMv.

Fig. 9. Common projectile points of the Fremont area.

58

dated at approximately A.D. 300 suggests their greater antiquity than the other arrow points described here.

A few sites such as the Levee Site, O'Malley Shelter, and Deluge Shelter document Rose Spring points occurring in greater frequencies in earlier occupations than in later ones. If this trend h significant, higher proportions of Rose Spring points should occur in the earlier Fremont sites. A regression analysis of the frequency of Rose Spring points (number of Rose Spring points divided by the total number of points excluding Cottonwood Triangular) and the average age of trie site reveals a significant decrease of the Rose Spring noint frequency over time. The resultant regression equation is: 945 — 530f=Y*HC

where I is the frequency of Rose Spring points and Y is the date A.D. (r2 corrected for degrees of freedom = .72). Table XIV compares the predicted date of occupation with the radiocarbon dates recovered from the site.

The most notable inconsistency is the predicted date for Pharo Village. Three radiocarbon dates were processed but the earliest was considered unacceptable. However, the predicted date (A.D. 620± 110) falls between the early date (A.D. 460±80) and the two later dates (A.D. 1190 ±80 and 1260±90) suggesting that there may have been two occupations at the site: an early one, represented by several projectile points and no dwelling structures, and a later one represented by numerous dwelling structures and few projectile points

TABLE XIV Predicted dates based on the frequency of Rose Spring Corner-noiched points. g|||J! t^.'.- ?y$. •*!£*• ?: -:-C* $ p g

Radiocarbon dates A.D. 885*120 955* H)5 920*235J 005*50,1075* 190

ng|i§ 1435*140, 1240*760, 1220*60, 1200*60,4130*55,, 1055*75,980*65,945*60,940*105,9lO*55V865*65,785*65,,780*70i 900*90,930*90,960*100,*145C*80 1095*90,*655*90 •445*95 •"•?;*•700*140,780*140,1090*110, .1140*120 •520*70

•*,••<«&$

683*110; 701* 100,810* 100,849* 110,894*100^ 1000*110,1016* K 780*85,860*75,920*70, •1670*80,

5oo*iio?'.-'?^mmSSjB§JSl * 1605* loo, * 1365*90 >• - v& ^Mzmim* 670*60,680*95,710*85,820*80,860*60 *J63G^odir 735*85,920*85 '.M^&T$$&§T^ ?1060*100,1086*100 |;830tilp.

77no"ne?

Hone: >420*80,740* 100,1330*166>680* 120 •460*80,1190*80,1260*90 "20*240 : \ . .:/'W:'' /none " J . none/ ••& \:-'yi'"'\ | 455*60,390*70,360*60, 275*70, 1 4 none ' r .165tl00 'Dates rejected by report authors

59

dated at approximately A,I) 300 suggests their grcatci antiquity than the other arrow points described here.

A lew sites such as the levee Site. O'Mallcy Shelter. and Deluge Shelter document Rose Spring points occurring in greater lrcqucncies in earlier occupations than ir !..:;, ::nes, It this trend is significant, higher proportir <•. ..: I'.osc Spring points sl;ould occur in the earlier Fremont sites. A regression analysis ol the frequency ol Rose Spring points (number ol Rose Spring points divided by the total number ol points excluding Cottonwood Triangular) and the average age of the site reveals a significant decrease of the Rose Spring point Irequcncy over timr The resultant regression equation is: 9 4 5 - 530f= Y± 110

uhcte ! is the treqtiencv <>! R o s e Spring points and Y is I he date A I), (i corrected lor degrees ol liccdom -" .""2). I able XIV compares the predicted date ot occupation with the radiocarbon d a t e s recovered from the site.

I he most notable inconsistency is the predicted date lor Pharo Village. Three r a d i o c a r b o n dates wc r " pr -<-essed but the earliest was considered unacceptable However, i he predicted dale (A. I). h2i):: I 10) falls between the early date (A.I). 460+KO) and the t w o later dates ( A . D . I 190 t:K0 and 1260+90) suggesting that there may have been two occupations at the site: a n early one, represented by several projectile points and n o dwelling structu.es, and ;• later one represented bv n u m e r o u s dwelling structures and lew projectile points.

C

<_

O I'

n^+!

Rose oints i

0

mber

d mea n ecu pa tion 110 y ears)

TABLE XIV Predicted dates based on the frequency ol Rose Spring Corner-notched points.

3 -

•£.

^° °00

^ i Q ci. -o Ci

n c O '5 h- 0.

945 945 945 945 945 945

41 57 36 15 5 39

(X) .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

Radiocarbon dates A.D. 885*120 955*105 920*235, 1005*50, 1075*190 780*250 none 1435*140, 1240*760. 1220*60. 1200*60, I130±55, 1130±60, 1120*65, 1055*75,980*65,945*60,940*105.910*55, 865*65, 785*65. 780*70

Median Village Evans Mound Snake Rock Levee & Knoll Caldwell Village Paragonah Poplar Knob

945 920 905 890 875 875 870

166 217 25 42 16 32 7

.00 .05 .08 10 .13 .13 .14

900*90, 930*90, 960*100. *I45(*80 1095*90, *655*90 •445*95 700*140,780*140. 1090*110, 1140*120, 1240*100, 1310± 110 *520*70 none 890*200

Turner-Look Backhoe Village Nephi Mounds Bear River 3 Injun Creek Uinta Basin Deluge Shelter

870 840 835 825 775 775 760-

457 10 38 12 19 22 40

.14 .20 .21 .23 .32 .32 .35

none 683*110,701*100,810*100,849*110,894*100, 1000*110, 1016*100 780*85, 860*75,920*70,* 1670*80 500*110 * 1605*100,*1365*90 670*60, 680*95. 710*85, 820*80, 860*60, * 1 630-modern 735*85. 920*85

Garrison O'Malley Shelter Swallow Shelter Innocents Ridge Hinckley Farm Hogup Cave Kimber Shelter

750 740 715 680 645 645 620

19 75 42 4 7 67 23

.37 .39 .43 .50 .57 .57 .61

none 1060*100, 1080*100 830*110 none none 420*80, 740* 100/1330*= 100, 680*120 none

Pharo Village Danger Cave Thomas Shelter Boundary Village Cowboy Cave Beatty Springs Pint-Size Shelter

620 615 600 500 445 445 415

67 53 23 19 16 18 6

Site Bear River 1 Bear River 2 Nawthis Village Old Woman . 1-70 Sites Bull Creek

^

-2.= ^ « c. c

a. <s> h -

.61 .62 .65 • .84 .94 .94 1.00

T

•460*80. 1190*80.1260*90 20*240 none none 455*60,390*70,360*60,275*70, 110*65, 60^65 none 165*100 * Dates rejected by report authors

59

Whatever the case may be at Pharo Village, there is a significant temporal trend in the frequency of Rose Spring points that is consistent throughout the Fremont area. Their occurrence at approximately A.D. 300 in the northern Colorado Plateau and at approximately

A.D. 500 in the eastern Great Basin (Hester and Heizer 1973), and their gradual replacement by regionally diagnostic types by A.D. 850-950 is documented by 20 radiocarbon-dated sites.

EASTGATE EXPANDING-STEM Eastgate Expanding-stem projectile points are recognizable by their deep, parallel-sided notches in the convex base (Figure 9, a-c). The points are usually short with their length not much greater than tneir width although a few long specimens occur (Figure 9, a).

Then spatial distribution is limited to the northwestern quarter of the Fremont area although they occur outside of the area in many other parts of the centra!

and western Great Basin (Figure 8).

Arguments for the association of Eastgate and Rose Spring series are convincing (Hester and Heizer 1973), and seem to be supported by the data collected here.

Wherever Eastgate Expanding-stem points are recovered, there are always Rose Spring points present.. The inverse, however, is not true because the Eastgate series is limited to the Great Basin and the Rose Spring series is not.

DESERT SIDE-NOTCHED The Desert Side-notched points, as defined here, are recognizable by their high side notches and pronounced basal notch or concavity (FigureN?j-1). They have been recovered from excavated sites near the northern and western periphery of the Fremont area (Figure 8) although they have been reported in uncontrolled situations throughout the Fremont area (e.g. Berry and Berry 1976). Of the excavated Fremont sites they have never been the dominant type making up only 12 percent of the total points recovered. Of significance is that most of those sites contain Shoshoni ceramics although they constitute only 3 percent of the total ceramic collection. The suggested association can be evaluated using a chi-square test of significance on Table XV which tabulates, by numbers of sites, the occurrence of Desert Side-notched points and Shoshoni pottery. The correlation of the occurrence of Shoshoni ceramics and the Desert Side-notched points is significant at the .001 level (chi square = 16.38). The correlation

has been inferred by Fowler et al (1973) at O'Malley Shelter, and by Frison (197 I) at the Eden-Farson Site in Wyoming. The conclusion is that the occurrence of Desert Side-notched points does not result from Fremont occupations but indicates post-Fremont (Shoshoni) use of the area after approximately A.D. 1150. This conclusion is supported by the presence of identical point types in the northern Plains (Plains Side-notched) after approximately A.D. 1590 (Kehoe 1966).

TABLE XV Ceramic- and Point- type Cooccurrence SHOSHONI

CERAMICS

BEAR RIVER SIDE-NOTCHED The Bear River Side-notched points are visually distinguishable from other types by their high side notches and straight to convex basal shape (Figure 9, g-i). The distribution of these points is limited to the northwestern corner of the Fremont area (Figure 8)

occurring from approximately A.D. 750 to 1350. Whereever they arc the dominant point, Great Salt Lake Gray is the dominant ceramic type. However, they also occur in low numbers at Pharo Village and Nephi Mounds where no Great Salt Lake Gray is reported.

UINTA SIDE-NOTCHED Uinta Side-notched are recognizable by their low side notches and irregular outlines. They are often crudely made with little care taken to make them symmetrical (Figure 9, m-o).

imately A.D. 800 to 1200. Sites where they are the dominant type usually contain a large percentage of Uinta Gray ceramics. Their similarity to the Prairie Sidenotched points recovered in the northern Great Plains dating from approximately A.D. 700 to 1300 (Kehoe 1966) supports conjectures of a Great Plains influence in the northern Fremont areas (Aikens 1966b).

They are widely distributed over the northern half of the Fremont region (Figure 8) dating from approx60

NAWTHIS SIDE-NOTCHED The Nawthis Side-notched points are long, thin points with low side notches (Figure 9, p-r). Their bases range from slightly concave to s l i g h t Âť.on\cx.

They are distinguished from the Uinta Sid-: notched by their greater length and greater precision >f flaking during manufacture. The resultant shape is very regular and more gracile than the other side-notched types with delicate tips and bases.

Their distribution is limited to the southern half of the Fremont region (Figure 8) dating from approximately A.D. 950 to 1250. They are similar, if not identical, to points associated with Pueblo II occupations south of the Colorado River, There is no apparent associations with any single ceramic type although m o s t sites also produce small quantities of both Kayenta and Virgin ceramics.

BULL CREEK POINTS Bull Creek points are relatively narrow Âťsosceles triangles with slightly concave to markedly concave bases (Figure 9, v-x). The points are thin and have delicate tips and tangs. Flaking is usually fine and edge grinding of the proximal lateral edges is sometimes present. A few specimens have remnants of resin on the faces of the point adjacent to the basal concavity.

Area IV includes the Bull Creek drainage and a single site at the confluence of the Dirty Devil and Colorado Rivers (Figure 10). The sites in this area are characterized by high percentages of both Kayenta (40%) and Fremont (56%) ceramic types (Table XIX).

Mesa Verde ceramics are present but always in low percentages (4%). The temporal span of these sites is between approximately A.D. 735 and 1080. However, most of the lithic and ceramic artifacts are from the fill of the dated house structures and probably are later than the above date range. Bull Creek points constitute 65 percent of the total arrow points.

The spatial distribution is limited to the southeastern corner of the Fremont area extending south of the Colorado River into the Mesa Verde and Kayenta Anasazi areas (Figure 8). A literature search of 92 excavated and surveyed sites has provided extensive data on the geographic range, temporal span, and ceramic associations of the point type. Based on the ceramic associations, five subareas can be clearly delineated.

Area V includes the Ivie Creek and M u d d y River drainages (Figure 10). The ceramics from the sites are predominantly Fremont (98%) with very low percentages (2%) of both Kayenta and Mesa Verde ceramics (Table XX). The temporal span ranges from approximately A.D. 1000 to 1300. Bull Creek points make u p 40 percent of the total arrow points.

Area I includes the Kaiparowits Plateau and most of the Escalante River drainage (Figure 10). Sites are characterized by very high percentages (90%) of Kayenta ceramics and low percentages (10%) of Mesa Verde and/ or Fremont Fremont ceramics (Table XVI). Temporal spans of the sites cluster between A.D. 1050 and 1250.

Bull Creek points make up about 38% of the total reported arrow points.

Of significance here is that Bull Creek points are almost always associated with Kayenta ceramics. Only five sites out of the 92 examined sites do n o t contain Kayenta ceramics, but those sites are all on the periphery of the Bull Creek point spatial distribution. Also, Bull Creek points have never been recovered from sites which have high percentages of both Fremont a n d Mesa Verde cerariTics. All sites which have high percentages of two ceramic groups are exclusively Kayenta and Mesa Verde or Kayenta and Fremont mixtures.

Area II includes the Colorado River from the Escalante River confluence upstream to Red Canyon and also the uplands to the east (Figure 10). This area is characterized by sites which exhibit varying mixtures of Kayenta (65%) and Mesa Verde (35%) ceramics without any Fremont ceramics (Table XVII). The temporal spans of the sites cluster between A.D. 1050 and 1300.

Bull Creek points constitute 32% of the total points.

It is also significant that only rarely (two sites) are Bull Creek points the only arrow point type recovered at a site. On the average, they account for approximately 43 percent of the total arrow points from a n y single site.

Area III includes the south side of the Colorado River upstream from Red Canyon (Figure 10). The sites are characterized by high percentages (80%) of Mesa Verde ceramics, low percentages (20%) of Kayenta ceramics, and no Fremont ceramics (Table XVIII).

The temporal span for the sites ranges between A.D. 1100 and 1250. Bull Creek points constitute 54% of the total reported arrow points.

The temporal span of Bull Creek points consistently falls between approximately A.D. 1050 and 1300. The accumulated data does not allow temporal priority to be assigned to any particular area. In all five areas, Bull Creek points appear at about the same time (late Pueblo II) and continue well into the Pueblo III period.

61

M!I Point*

Fig. 10. Distribution map of Bull Creek points and Parowan Basal-notched points.

62

TABLK XVI Occurrence ol Hull Creek Points: Area I

(' :ramics '/< Site

Date

u.

'->

E= £ 3 3 O Zffio.

7

-t _ '£. £ « c ~ B mC j- o a.

_ r.

=

—

^

E

yi

--

1 5 A

3 9 10

u 92 98 96 96 84 92 99 89 19

8 29

18 59

98 96

42Ka3l4* 42Ka326* , 42Ka330* 42Ka333* 42Ka338* 42Ka339*

1 1 1 2 2 1

3 1 1 3 5 1

39 86 89 94 79 100

19

42Ka344* 42Ka 360* 42Ka 368* 42Ka369* 42Ka376* 42Ka406* 42Ka407* 42Ka421* 42Ka753*

1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

3 2 3 2 1 3 1 2 2

88 95 97 97 100 94 92 92 92

1 3

42Ka764* 42Ka766* 42Ka778* 42Ka789* 42Ka793* 42Ka809* 42Ka8l9* 42Ka823* 42Ka824*

1 I 1 I

I 2 6

-i

1 1 I 1

2 1 2 3 4

None 91 98 100 94 100 26 82 79

42Ka829* 42Ka840* 42Ka844* 42Ka849* 42Ka869* 42Ka884* 42Ka885* 42Ka896* 42Ka505*

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2

3 3 1 3 3 1 3 1 2

2 1 1 1 1 2 5 Yes 9

3 1 7 1 1 11 54

Talus Ruin Golden Stairs Ava Pocket Hollow Farm.-. II Pridgette Mudhole Pueblo Tcwap Knoll Observatorv Circle Terrace

A.D.IIOO-I250 A.D. 950-1300 Late Pll-Middle PHI L. Pll-M. PHI A. D.| 050-1300 Pll-M. Pill L. PII-M. PHI L. Pll-M. Pill L. PII-M. Pill

Alvey Coombs Village

A 13.1075-1275

42Ka287* 42Ga290* 42Ga70 * 42Ga67 * 42Ga89 * NA7498 N A 7961 RB568 Neskahi Village

A.D. 1100-1225 PII-PIII A.D. 1200-1275 A.D. 1070-1300

-»

1 2 3

*»

7 4 2 2 8 7

->

98 100 71 Single"sherd 94 90 100 87 100 99 90 79

•>

8 2 4 4 8 6 1 1

•Surveyed Sites

63

8 2 1 3 80

39 8 6 17

4

1 2 3 3 6 8 8 4 9 2 4

1 3

74 16 18

I

1 29

7

6 3 13

!

10 6 7

None 99.7 100

0.3

96.8

0.8

Reference

Lipc IJOV'

2

•i

42

— -

~ •

8

Fowler & A.idcns Fowler & Aikens Fowler 4 Aikens Fow':r& Aikens r-owler& Aikens Fowler 4 Aikens Fowler & Aikens Fowler 1963

1963 1963 1963 1963 1963 1963 1963

Gunnerson 1959 Lister 1959, Lister & Lister 1961 Fowler et al 1959 Fowler et al 1959 Fowler et al 1959 Fowler et al 1959 Fowler et al 1959 Fowler et al 1959 Fowler et al Fowler et al Fowler et al Fowler etal Fowler etal Fowler etal Fowler et al Fowler etal Fowler et al

1959 1959 1959 1959 1959 1959 1959 1959 1959

Fowler et al Fowler et al Fowler etal Fowler etal Fowler etal Fowler etal Fowler et al Fowler etal Fowler etal

1959 1959 1959 1959 1959 1959 1959 1959 1959

Fowler etal Fowler etal Fowler et al Fowler etal Fowler etal Fowler etal Fowieretal Fowler etal Fowieretal

1959 1959 1959 1959 1959 1959 1959 1959 1959

! Fowieretal 1959 Fowieretal 1959 Fowieretal 1959 Fowler et al 1959 Fowieretal 1959 Ambler etal 1964 Ambler etal 1964 Bealsetai 1945 Hobler 1974

PAROWAN BASAL-NOTCHED .old \er\ small percentages o l Kayenta. Mesa Verde or Seuci ceramics (2r.'<) ( 1 able XXI). 1 lie temporal span clusters between a p p r o x i m a t e l y A.I). 900 and 1200.

I'af'jw.m n< tnts constitute 6 3 percent ol the total arrow poi \\, imi-.', sites in this a r e a .

Area VII includes the P a r o w a n Valley, part ol the Sc\iei River drainage, and p a r t ol southeastern Nevada (Figure 10). The ceramics f r o m the sites in this area arc predn-ninantly Sevier c e r a m i c s . The temporal span clusters around A.D. 950 to 1 150 (fable XXII). Parowan points con:;.i.ute 55 percent ol the total arrow points recovered.

Parowan Basal-notched points arc relatively n a n o u isosceles triangles with straight bases. I wo notches, each parallel to the longitudinal axis ol the point jorm a stem in the middle ol the base (figure 9. s-u). The basal notches may be parallel-sided as they are at the type site (Median Village) and neighboring vicinity or rounded as at Backhoe Village or O'Malley and Conaway Shelters.

The spatial distribution ol Parowan points can be divided into two groups basvd on the ceramic associations. Area VI includes the Virgin River. Santa Clara River, and Johnson Canyon (Figure 10). The sites in the area have high percentages ol Virgin ceramics (98%)

TABLE XVII Occurrence ol Bull Creek Points: Area II —————

i

Shadv Alcove Doll Ruin 435a588 Buried Olla Husted'sWell Defiance House Widows Ledge The Fortress Horsefly Hollow Dead Tree Flats Axe Groove Alcove The Watchtower Scorup Pasture | Steer Palace

Date

A.D.1130-1250 A.D. 1200-1300 AD. 1050-1300 A.D.1050-1150 A.D. 1110-1300 PHI A.D. 1150-1300 AD. H50-1300 A.D. 1200-1300 .

L. Pll-M. Pill A.D.I 100-1250 Pll-PIH A.D. 1000-1100

J-

u

3

3 C

umber otal Pi mis

Ceramics';/ Site

z j-

Z m t 2 3 1 4

}

13 3 9 7

i

1 1

5

7 5 16 12 1

3 5 i

1 4 1 1

b

3 7

Reference c

x U

ir.

61 50

32 50

96 99 17 45

4

82 54

Lipeetal 1960 Lipeetal I960 Lipeetal I960 Lipeetal I960 Lipeet al I96i/ Lipeetal 1960 Sharrock 1964

55 64 91 90 40 98 42

45 31 4 10 59 2 57

Sharrocketal1961 Sharrock etal 1961 Sharrocketal1961 Sharrock etal 1961 Sharrock etal 1961 Sharrock etal 1961 Sharrock etal 1961

•>

'Surveyed Sites TABLE XVIII Occurrence ol Bull Creek Points: Area III

A.D. A.D. A.D. A.D.

1130-1200 1200-1300 1150-1250 1150-1250

Henry's Cave* Sandy Camp* Turkev House* 42Sa797* Sweet Alice Spring* Deer Flats* Ridge Site Sweet Alice L-House

L. Pll-PIH L. PII-M. Pill L. PII-M. PHI

Number Total Points

Forked Stick 42Sa566 Dave's Site Loper Ruin 42Sa790*

Number Bull Creek Points

Ceramics 9r Date

Site

1 3 4 17 1

3 5 6 17 2

1 3 3 1

2 3 7 1

-)

7

1 1 1 1

9 2 9 1

c

—

1

§

* / • * * > gi C M _3 ~C U.

E 41 i_ J-

$ 17 16 86 35

70 83 14 59 •J

•) Single sherd Single sherd Single sherd

0.3 2

100 99.7 67 69

Reference

Lipeetal 1960 Lipeetal I960 Lipeeial I960 Lipe 1960 Sharrock & Keane 1962 Sharrock Sharrock Sharrock Sharrock Sharrock

& Keane & Keane & Keane & Keane & Keane

Sharrock & Keane Rudv 1955 Rudv 1955 Rudv 1955

-

*Surveved Sites

64

I ABLE XXII ()ccun.ence ol Parowan Points: Area V l i

Ceramic' i s

c

\ 1) 1050-1150 A.D. 960-1020 A D. 700-1100

Numbe Total Points

Evans Site Median Village Paragonah

Date

Pa row a Points

Site

206 166

307 215 16

.

R rlcrence

c a

71

7.

Qt)9 1)4

0.07

99 5 100

lierrv 1972 Marwitt 1970 Mciphan et al 1956

TABLE XXI11 Occurrence ol Parowan Points: Miscellaneous Sites

A.D. 850-920

3

73

Alvev Coombs Village

A.D 1075-1275

1 1

18 59

98 96

Bull Creek Area* 42Wn231 Struct 42Wn23l Struc 2

A.D. 735 AD. 1080

2 2 1

24 X

27 34

Kayenta

Number Total Points

Number Parowan Points

Nephi

Kelerence —mC

<U

ra zz zz 7i IS-. >

99.9 2 Not applici ble 2 3

Sharrock & Marwitt 1967 Gunnerson 1959 Lister 1959.

Lister & Lister 1961

49 19

Surve\ed Sites

TABLE XXIV Occurrence ol Parowan Points: Miscellaneous Sites Ceramic r'r Date

Snake Valley

Virgin

Reference

Number Total Points

Site

Number Parowan Points

l

Date

Virgin

Ceramic' 'r Site

•>

2 8 11

2 45 28

71 85 59

29 12 12

Fowler, etal 1973 Fowler, etal 1973 Fowler, et al 1973

Conawav, Level IV Conaway. Level V

A.D. 900 A.D. 1010

7 22

9 30

84 15

8 85

Fowler, etal 1973 Fowler, etal 1973

Backhoe. Struc. 3 Backhoe, Struc. 3

A.D. 850 A.D. 850

1 4

4 16

14 12

O'Mallev, Level IV O'Malley, Level V O'Malley. Level VI

1020(7) A.D. 1070

66

83 88

Madsen and Lindsav 1977

TABLE XIX Occurrence ol Hull Creek Points: .Area IV

A D 895 A 1) 1080

42Wn231 Struc 1 42Wn23l Struc 2

\ D. 735 \ D 1080

z :—

• ^

1 5 1

h2 17

IS 1

42Wn26l 4zWn326 42Wn23l General Occupation

>: 4 4

100 18 44

l-uwiei-etal 1959 Fowler et al 1959 Fowieretal 1959

••<;

Fowieretal 1959 F o w i e r e t a l 1959

T7

23 8

34

1

19

IS 1(1

52 13

1

31 31

8

Relerenc:

1 remont

42Ga3l4* 42Wn229 42Wn230

x. _

Points

Date

Number B u l l Creek Points

t "cranuc' i Site

1

Fowieretal 1959 Fowieretal 1959

•Siirvcvcd Sue

TABLE XX Occurrence ol Bull Creek Points: Area V

11 6 8 21 2 1

33 14 15 52 5 156

1075-1325 700-1200 1190-1260

Fremont

PH-PIIl PH

Relerence

San Juan

Number Total Points

Old Woman Poplar Knob Emery Site Snake Rock Village Fallen Woman Pharo Village

.06 3.3

98.6 95.4 98 99.3 100 99

Taylor 1957 Taylor 1957 Gunnerson 1957 Aikens 1967 Wilson & Smith 1976 Marwitt 1968

_

Relerence

Kayenta

Date

Number Bull Creek Points

Ceramic %

Site

.08 1.3 0.6

0.1

Virgin

Kayeni San Jua

42Ws45 42Ws53 42Ws63 42Ws73 42Ws75 42Ws77 42Ws82 42Ws99

3

3 1 1 2 2 2 2 5

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Rudy&Stirland Rudv&Stirland Rudy & Stirland Rudv&Stirland Rudv & Stirland Rudy&Stirland Rudv&Stirland Rudy&Stirland

10

99.7

0.3

Pendergast 1962 Schroeder1961 Day 1966

->

Frei Site Lost Citv Gunlock Flats

A.D.I 100-1300 ca A.D. 1150 A.D.PH-PIH

Bonanza Dune Sand Hill Three Mile Ruin ReuschSite Lamb's Knoll Parunuweap Knoll

A.D.900-1200 A.D. 900-1200 A.D.900-1200 A.D. 900-1200 A.D. 900-1200 A.D. 750-900

Ceramic % c

<-

T> ca

Numb Total Points

Date

Numb Parow Points

Site

Kremon

TABLE XXI Occurrence ol Parowan Points: Area VI

10 4 16

23

99.1

0.9

8 4 7 3 3 2

26 5 9 3 5 3

98.3 98.8 99.0 96.5 99.0

1.7 0.3 0.8 2.7 0.5

7

65

97

0.O3 0.2 0.2

Aikens 1965 Aikens 1965 Aikens 1965 Aikens L965 Aikens 1965 Aikens 1965

1949 1949 1949 1949 1949 1949 1949 1949

Parowan points have been noted at other sites at low frequencies as Jar east as the Bull Creek drainage.

Not surprisingly, the two pithouses at Bull Creek from which Parowan points were recovered were the ones which had significant quantities of Virgin Kayenta

ceramics (Tables XX111 and XXIV).

Parowan points are the predominant points i n both the Parowan and Virgin Kayenta cultural regions. They were used ca. A.D. 950-1150.

CHRONOLOGICAL SUMMARY The temporal distributions of projectile points in the Fremont area are summarized in Figure 11. The earliest point type is the Rose Spring Corner-notched which appears to have been introduoed into the northern Colorado Plateau with the bow and arrow at approximately A.D. 250 to 300 (Jennings n.d.a) and probably reached the eastern Great Basin by A.D. 500 (Hester and Heizer 1973). The Eastgate Expandingstem has a similar temporal range but occurs only in the Great Basin. It may represent a regional development soon after the introduction of the bow and arrow from the Rose Spring stock.

The Bear River and Uinta Side-notched points developed or were introduced into the northern half of the Fremont area after approximately A.D. 750 or 800. In the southern half of the Fremont area the Parowan Basal-notched, Nawthis Side-notched, and Bull Creek points became the dominant type after approximately A.D. 950.

Each of the projectile point types indicates a sharing of hunting-related traits with surrounding peoples; the northern half with the Great Plains and central Great Basin, and the southern half with the Anasazi. After approximately A.D. 1150 the Desert Side-notched point occurs sporadically throughout the Fremont area. The

presence of this type seems to mark the m o v e m e n t of Shoshoni-speaking peoples into the Fremont a r e a .

Fig. 11. Temporal distributions of Fremont p o i n t types.

CONCLUSIONS ics and other trade items of foreign origin.

It is no surprise to find that regions s h a r i n g projectile point technology (and the associated c e r a m i c trade wares) are those that have similar faunal r e s o u r c e s . For example, sites that yield Uinta and Bear R i v e r Sidenotched points also yield elk and bison r e m a i n s duplicating the artifact and faunal collections c o m m o n l y recovered from sites in the adjacent Great P l a i n s areas.

The Bull Creek, Parowan Basal-notched, a n d Nawthis Side-notched points are associated primarily with bighorn sheep remains. The projectile point t y p e s and the preference for sheep meat is a trait shared b y the Fremont, Kayenta, and Virgin Branch Anasazi. D e e r seems to have been heavily utilized throughout t h e Fremont, Great Plains, and Anasazi areas.

If it can be agreed upon that the a p p a r e n t pattern may be the result of men roaming considerably more than women, then the next question c o n c e r n s the formality of interaction among the moving men and the stationary women: or post-marital r e s i d e n c e patterns. Matrilocality would explain the complete sharing of hunting-related technology (male-related)

The most significant results of the research reported here is that there is nothing uniquely Fremont about the Fremont projectile points. There seems to have been a single hunting technology shared by the earliest postArchaic inhabitants of a large area of which the Colorado Plateau and Great Basin are only a portion. Regional differentiation in the Fremont area developed about A.D. 750 in the north and A.D. 950 in the south.

Of importance is that the regional differentiation indicates a stronger interaction with peoples outside of the Fremont area than within.

It is apparent that projectile point distributions show little regard for the traditional ceramic boundaries often used to define the Fremont culture area. However, other material remains such as dwelling structures and basketry support the ceramic boundaries. Explanations for this pattern may simply indicate that hunters (presumably men) move around and are constantly sharing hunting technology with inhabitants of the surrounding areas. Women were probably much more stationary keeping the home fires burning while making pottery and basketry. Hunters may also have transported ceram67

have been the architects only occasionally allowing foreign traits to be incorporated in their homes. This is a possibility but the likelihood of males contributing nothing to dwelling structure design and construction seems small.

Interaction between the Fremont and surrounding groups has been postulated by many. Convincing arguments have been formulated for origins and/or interaction of the northern Fremont with the Great Plains cultures (e.g. Aikens 1966b, Sharrock 1966, Madsen and Lindsay 1977); and for the southern Fremont with the Anasazi (e.g. Morss 1931, Gunnerson 1969, Winter 1973). The projectile point data strongly support those hypotheses and suggest that the movement of men as a result of their hunting routine provided the means by which hunting technology, ceramic trade wares, and possibly even agriculture spread throughout the northern Colorado Plateau and the eastern Great Basin.

between areas and the lack of sharing of ceramics and basketry technology (female-related). It also would account for the complete independence of projectile point frequencies from ceramic frequencies.

For example, the frequency of Bull Creek points varies independently from the frequency of Knymta ceramics. They would be expected to vary denendently if Kayenta families were cohabiting areas with Fremont families. Additional support for the idea of permanent relocation of men is derived from the size and density of Fremont "villages" (see Lohse, this volume). In order for a population to be demographically viable, a minimum interbreeding population size must be maintained (Wobst 1974*.

The small size and scattered nature of the Fremont habitations may have required interaction from outside groups in order to maintain a flow of mates.

The major problem with the matrilocality explanation is that dwelling structures do not reflect the cultural interchange. Women would have had to

68

COMMENTS

J. RICHARD AMBLER Northern Arizona University Because it has been more than a dozen years since 1 have been actively involved with Fremont archeology, 1 am in both a somewhat enviable and at the same time awkward position. Awkward because my first-hand knowledge of recent Fremont archeology is less than that of most of the other authors here. However, because I am not actively involved at the moment, I may have a somewhat more detached viewpoint. Some of the axes I used to grind a decade ago have been kept sharp by others, and more have become so battered and rusty through neglect and abuse that they are no longer worth grinding. Of course, I won't be able to resist a few references to some of these worn-out axes, but I may be able to contribute something from the viewpoint of an extremely interested outsider.

My first impression upon reading these papers is one of deja vu. I have trouble defining the time and place, however. Was it in Mexico City in 1970? The spring of 1966 as 1 was in the final throes of finishing my dissertation? The first time I read Wormington's summary? Or does it harken back to the days of Steward? I admit I wasn't reading much archeology in the 1930s, so let's take the last Friends of the Fremont meeting in Mexico City as a point of departure. How far have we come, what have we learned, what glorious new interpretations have been developed in the past eight and a half years?

One would hope that the papers presented here would reflect the latest advances in both substantive data and interpretations, so it is in order to very briefly look at them individually before getting into more general comments.

Perhaps the major point of the papers by Marwitt, Hogan and Sebastian, and Berry is that there is still no consensus regarding interpretations of the data, nor is there likely to be for some time. We call ourselves Friends of the Fremont, but can't even decide who our friends are, where they got their ideas, or whether they were friendly among themselves, and we don't even seem to care any more what happened to them. This is lamentable, and I think we should be able to reach a consensus on at least a few basics.

From Madsen, we learn that lots of cattail pollen was found on house floors at Backhoe Village. This leads him to the interpretation that the people of Backhoe village, and by extension, all those west of the Wasatch, depended largely on marsh resources for food,

and hence should be taxonomically separated from the rest of our friends on the other side of the mountains, a view that has been expressed by others for half a century, but for different reasons.

Lohse tells us that patterned regional variations in architecture exist, and that the clustering of architectural attributes in certain geographical areas lends credence to both Marwitt's five-fold division of the entire Fremont area and Madsen's basic divisions between east and west.

Adovasio is more concerned with demonstrating Fremont unity than diversity, and points out that Fremont (including Sevier) basketry forms a distinctive and cohesive pattern over the entire area.

Holmer and Weder point out that projectile point distributions indicate a three- or four-fold division of the area is plausible and may reflect some basic differences.

How far, then, have we really come in the last eight years? Or even the past 38 years? There never has been much disagreement over the interpretation that the postArchaic cultures over most of Utah have something in common, and yet were distinctive from those to the south, east, north, or west. N o r has there ever been any question that regional variation existed in the area. The differences of opinion seem to arise from difficulties in drawing boundary lines and what names to apply to the areas so neatly bounded on our maps. Names are important, for we like to think that the taxonomy is a reflection of the real world, and we also know that what we call a cultural entity influences the way we think about its origins and relationships. However, I hate to see us wasting our time quibbling over terminology and boundaries, when we should be gathering and processing data, so I would like to make a suggestion that will hopefully provide a means of communication without unduly restricting or biasing our thoughts.

Although I think Adovasio may overly stress the importance of basketry as a cultural indicator, and we know that there is a lot of artifactural, architectural, and economic variation within the area under discussion, his point is pertinent, a s there is a lot of cohesiveness as well. This is emphasized by the fact that all authors of this volume think that the archeology we are dealing with has something in common. Why not choose a single term to use when referring to the entire area, as long as we realize that the term does not necessarily 69

have connotations of a single origin or unified lifeway for all these prehistoric people? Why not continue to call all these manifestations, east or west, north or south, "Fremont?" Our other choice of a unifying term is, of course, "Northern Periphery," but I think we all now see too many differences with the Southwest, too many local innovations, and too much influence from elsewhere to be happy with that term.

Use of the term "Fremont" to apply to the sedentary populations over most of Utah about a thousand years ago should pose no great conceptual problem, since with the notable exception of David Madsen, most of us already use the term to apply to entities in both the Great Basin and the Colorado Plateau, but realize as we do so that we may be including rather diverse groups under that label. We should remember that labels are simply an aid in communication, as long as everyone agrees to the meaning of the label. Southwestern archeologists have no trouble talking about the Anasazi when they wish to generalize, but realize as they do so that they are including a tremendous diversification of origins, lifeways, religions, languages, and artifactual assemblages, and I see no reason why we can't do the same for our friends the Fremont.

However, I am not so sure any more, as Marwitt and 1 have previously suggested, that Fremont in the broadest sense is taxonomically equivalent to the Anasazi. Perhaps a closer analogy would be to say that Fremont is a culture area, conceptually similar to at least part of the Southwest, perhaps even including several "basic" cultures. (I refuse to become involved in a dendritic discussion of roots and stems, as this implies phylogenetic relationships we know nothing about yet.)

We should keep in mind that social groupings in prehistoric Utah may well have encompassed smaller geographical areas and included fewer individuals than may have been the case to the southeast.

We can, if we wish, continue to speak in terms of Fremont culture, or Fremont culture patterns, but to talk about the Fremont Culture with a "C" has fortunately passed into oblivion. But we can talk about the Fremont culture area, much as,we might talk about the Great Plains or the Northwest Coast culture areas.

Using the term "Fremont" to apply to the entire area then enables us to discuss various geographical and/or cultural segments of that area as we wish. Marwitt's divisions and terminology seem to be commonly accepted, and are basically similar to those that have been used for 40 years, so appear to have some cultural validity in the minds of archeologists. They can be retained without any confusion, as long as we again recognize that we don't really know yet whether we are talking about distinct cultural entities, closely related cultures, or groups with varying amounts of influence from other culture areas. We can, when we wish, easily lump the western variants together as Great Basin Fremont, the eastern as Colorado Plateau Fremont, and we will all know what our referent is. Or we can discuss the northern Fremont and the southern Fremont. Or,

if we wish to follow the lines suggested by Claudia Berry (as reported here by Marwitt), look at the central Fremont as an entity, contrasting, perhaps, with the defunct Conger Fremont or Colorado River Fremont.

In other words, we can cut the pie any way we want to -the important things at the moment are to increase communication, to stop wasting our time quibbling over nomenclature and boundaries, and to remember that taxonomies are tools of our profession, not goals.

As our data base grows it will eventually be possible to define our areas, subareas, and sub-subareas more definitively.

In sum, what 1 am proposing is a conceptually flexible terminology that will allow us to discuss the Fremont in any way we choose, without pigeonholing our assemblages into a classification that is so rigid we will have difficulty breaking out of it.

To revert back to my original question, what have we learned in the last eight years? We have learned a lot about settlement patterns, architectural styles, artifact distributions, and subsistence patterns, and we have learned that we still need to gather a great deal of basic data. However, we have hardly begun to tap the above topics, much less such subjects as ceremonialism, social networks, and trade relationships, data or even hypotheses on which could ultimately have much more bearing on the origins, interrelationships, and fate of the Fremont than the distribution of calcite temper. Admittedly, we have to start with the more tangible aspects of our profession, but to rephrase Berry's closing remarks, people working in the Fremont area are in the enviable position of being able to avoid all the numerous mistakes and take advantage of the more promising approaches of the so-called "new" archeology. Indeed, I see no reason why Fremont archeologists, being unencumbered with hypothetico-deductive-nomological platitudes, and blessed with an impoverished but untrammeled data base, could not forge into the forefront of modern archeological theory.

One subject suitable for a fresh approach would be something dear to every Friend of the Fremont's heart â&#x20AC;&#x201D; the drawing of cultural boundaries. A principal reason we have had such problems with defining "variants" of the Fremont and drawing boundaries around them is that no contemporary archeologist has yet devised a means of adequately describing the changes in time, space, and culture content that we see in the archeological record. I agree with Hogan and Sebastian wholeheartedly that we should start with our smaller entities, sites or components, and work up into more encompassing schemes for classificatory purposes. At the present state of the art in the Fremont area, however, a classification seems to be the end result, whereas it should enable us to go on to more sophisticated comparisons and interpretations. As far as classifications go, I would urge the adoption of the phase system as used successfully in many parts of the world as a preliminary ordering device for our Fremont data. It should 70

be fairly easy with the aid of a computer and good intuition to cluster the known components into phases, and this could well provide more orderliness than is presently apparent.

However, the phase concept, although useful, does not really do what we want it to. Archeologists are fond of saying that their field is the study of culture change, that the principal advantage they have over other anthropologists is the ability to study cultures over long periods of time, a maximally diachronic study. But the phase system, or any other system of classification, does not deal with culture change, but with stasis. If we were to diagram culture change through time, it might look something like this:

Amount of Chang*

S~

r

When we look at cultural variation through twodimensional geographic space, we might define phases (or variants, as the case may be) like this:

but in reality we know that the boundaries can only very rarely be drawn so sharply, and the real situation, although still oversimplified, may more closely resemble this:

r

-Time-

and the phases we define are usually the periods of relative stability, not change, thusly:

Amount of Change

y

Jr

X We don't really account for what well may be the most important manifestations for the study of culture change, those on the peripheries or between the "core" areas.

When we then try to p u t the cultural variations in time together with the variations in space, we have no archeological concepts or classifications that can really deal with the whole thing effectively. We can see it, understand it, and even laboriously put part of it into words, but our conceptual, classificatory, and graphic frameworks just can't handle it. There have been some attempts at the graphics, with Dee Ann Story's "polyisopleths" being a notable example, but it seems that in this day of being able to handle large masses of data with the aid of computers someone could do better.

Various programs can cluster and show degrees of relationship between clusters, others can simulate threedimensional variations in such things as contours or isobars, and as a necessary first step I can see the construction of visual representations of the variations in time and space through the use of print-outs, overlays, and three dimensional models. Ultimately, however, we should be looking for the concepts and classificatory schemes to deal with archeological data as it really is, a three dimensional continuum of cultural variation,

It might be more interesting, and perhaps more productive to the study of culture change, to define the phases as the periods centering around times of rapid change, like this:

Amount Phase

ot Change

-f

J"

J~

J"

but that doesn't really solve the problem. Nor would this:

Phase

"i

Amount of , Change

Y

IA

iase J -Time.

although it might come closer.

71

not a series of discrete units. We should then be prepared to start studying the mechanisms of culture change and develop the concepts to deal with it, instead of phrasing our "explanations" in terms of diffusion or migration, which as Berry points out, are not explanations at all. Nor should we fall into the trap of thinking that classifications represent explanations, even if those classifications are based on environmental factors rather than artifactual assemblages.

One other point is perhaps worthy of mention.

There is a strong tendency among Friends of the Fremont to promulgate and accept rather simplistic and limited hypothesis regarding Fremont origins, interrelationships, and ultimate disappearance, and the different views are often taken as competing, whereas they are more likely complimentary. It is probable that many different events, causes if you will, were occurring simultaneously, and no single hypothesis will serve to explain the past changes. As an example, let us take the demise of our late lamented friends.

To me, all the suggestions put forth concerning the fate of the Fremont seem to be too simplistic and limited in the possibilities considered. We have the Fremont becoming Athabascans and moving out onto the Great Plains, we see Shoshoneans taking over the pinyon crops, or other hostiles displacing the Fremont, drought causing a reversion to hunting and gathering, or drought causing a migration to the Hopi area, that Mecca of the Southwest, not to mention the last battle of the Mokis. But where do we find discussions of other alternatives? Drought, for instance, may not have been as important as a shortened growing season. Perhaps there was no drought, but increased flash flooding that wiped out the irrigation ditches on the Colorado Plateau and the marshes in the Great Basin. With the limited lands suitable for agriculture, what part did the depletion of

soil nutrients play? How rapidly and to what extent did populations increase? Did the Fremont simply use up their resources as has been so amply demonstrated in other parts of the world? We know that trade was important to the Fremont, as evidenced by woodpecker feathers and shells from California, turquoise and pots from the Southwest. With the abandonment of the greatest Southwestern trading center, that at Chaco, and the gradual withdrawal of the Anasazi from their frontier areas, could it be that trade dried up and the Fremont stagnated?

At any rate, my point is that even when we find out what happened to the Fremont, no single explanation will probably suffice. Many factors were probably at work, and all should be considered as possibilities unless proved otherwise. Again I would say that the Friends of the Fremont have the opportunity to take the good from archeological work elsewhere and forget the rest. We shouldn't fall into another common trap of dreaming up a single explanatory hypothesis and testing it alone. Call it General System Theory, call it Multiple Working Hypotheses, call the method what you will, but we should be as open ended as possible.

Admittedly we need incredibly more data, with only about two dozen sites presently excavated and reported in such a fashion that the data is usable, but once more data is in, and as it comes in, we should try not to get locked into preconceived and simplistic explanations, or get bogged down in terminological difficulities, or think that classification is our ultimate goal. Classification seems to be what a major portion of this volume has been about. I hope 1 can live to see the day that we have the data, the concepts, and the terminology to deal with the culture of the Fremont area as an irregular continuum in time and space, rather than a series of disconnected pigeonholes.

PATRICK HOGAN and LYNNE SEBASTIAN Washington State University In his comments on this volume of Antiquities Section Selected Papers, Ambler expresses dissatisfaction with the continued quibbling over the terminology of Fremont culture classification after 38 years at the expense of gathering and processing of data. While we can sympathize with this frustration, it seems that the authors of this volume are arguing that it is not a lack of data but a flaw in the theoretical perspective that has hindered the progress of Fremont research.

For us, this volume's contribution is that it documents a general trend among Fremont scholars toward challenging the concepts and assumptions that have guided previous research. We are finding the old methods and models inappropriate for the questions now being asked. Classification is, indeed, what the major portion of this volume has been about, but that does not imply that classification is the ultimate goal.

Rather, the importance of classification is that it has so pervasively structured out thinking and data collection. If the last 38 years of Fremont research have proved anything, it is that facts do not speak for themselves. Unless there is a conscious shift in both theoretical perspective and research strategy, the Friends of the Fremont will continue to crank out cultural classification that amounts to little more than plotting artifacts in time and space.

Three of the papers in this volume have dealt essentially with artifact typology. While we do not deny the importance of such basic research, its significance rests less with the data themselves than with their application.

As Aikens reminds us, artifact styles need not be just type fossils; they reflect, as well, spheres of interaction on several levels. Thus, an analysis of artifact distribution, in conjunction with studies of subsistence and 72

settlement systems, can be the foundation for addressing many of the unresolved questions of cultural relationships.

If the discussions in this volume are any indication, however, questions of relationship and of Fremont origins and demise appear premature. We have argued in our paper for intensive ecological analysis at the community level â&#x20AC;&#x201D; "ecological" in the broad sense of a human population's adaptation to its physical and social environments. We feel that until the range of adaptation is understood and chronologies are worked out at a local level, these larger questions cannot be adequately addressed.

We have suggested that the first step toward restructuring our research strategy is to recognize the biases inherent in the traditional approach to Fremont classification. Ambler's proposal that the term "Fremont" be used in the sense of a culture area rather than a culture in the taxonomic sense would greatly aid in reducing this bias, and we urge its acceptance. The next step, it seems, would be to collectively agree on new research priorities. With these priorities established, we can shift from "quibbling about terminology" to an exposition of Fremont culture process.

J. M. ADOVASIO University of Pittsburgh INTRODUCTION

every other inscriber of boundaries, very few (with the notable exception of Floyd Sharrock) have questioned the utility of the line drawing enterprise itself. Thus while it would appear that most of my colleagues and I are inveterate advocates of "nice neat lines," there may well be better and more productive ways to expend our individual and collective energies.

After reading and rereading these papers and particularly after a series of informal discussions with David Madsen and J. P. Marwitt, it has become painfully apparent that many more questions about that "cultural" entity have arisen than were resolved. While this in and by itself is probably beneficial, I am quite uncertain as to whether or not any of the unanswered old or new problems can ever be satisfactorily resolved.

While the same can easily be said about any prehistoric complex or culture, it seems to be particularly true in this instance.

As Madsen and many others have pointed out, there are probably no areas of similar size outside the American Southwest where more intensive research has been conducted on sites of a circumscribed time span than within the so-called Fremont domain. Site reports, technical papers, and syntheses abound as do radiocarbon dates and mounds of raw data. Equally prevalent are conflicting interpretations of the "meaning' of all this information.

ON THE DEFINITION OF PREHISTORIC CULTURES As noted above, the drawing of lines seems to go hand in hand with the greater goal of recognizing and defining the Fremont as a prehistoric cultural unit or series of units. Our inability to reach agreement on what constitutes this unit is scarcely unique to students of later eastern Great Basin prehistory. All archeologists, whatever their specialty or concern, must to some extent and at some time come to grips with the definition or recognition of prehistoric cultures.

As we all know, scarcely more agreement reigns outside the "Cactus Curtain" on the essential ingredients of a "culture" than exists within it. Adena/Hopewell, Monongahela, Olmec, Natufian, Gerzean, Lungshan, Jomon, Timber Grave and ten thousand other "cultures" are as intransigently difficult to define as "Fremont."

Moreover, in many cases much less is known about the settlement patterns, technology, chronology, and paleoecology of these groups than is presently known about the Fremont. With very few exceptions and despite polemics and pronouncements, most prehistoric "cultures" discussed so confidently in the literature are in reality more vague and nebulous constructs than are any of those heretofore posited for Fremont.

This is not to suggest that prehistoric cultures do not exist, that they cannot be defined, or even that they should not be defined. Rather, I question the entire

ON THE DRAWING OF LINES Many of the papers in the recent Fremont symposium as well as publications too numerous to cite devote considerable space to defining or circumscribing a Fremont entity or entities within a series of neat, hatched and/or solid lines that all can see and presumably recognize. Some use settlement patterns and/or architecture to draw these lines; others use "diagnostic" lithics or ceramics, and some "misguided" souls use baskets. Still others stress subsistence strategies as a means of delimiting the Fremont and their neighbors.

Whatever the criteria, the goal is apparently the same in all cases: the recognition or definition of a Fremont or Sevier/ Fremont population and domain.

While each drawer of lines apparently questions 73

role of cultural definition in formulating and executing modern archeological research strategies.

The present data base, vast as it is, grows yearly and affords the opportunity for systematic, controlled, indepth scrutiny unavailable in many other parts of this hemisphere or indeed the world.

The obvious productivity of multivariant computer studies of artifacts, architecture or settlement patterns, the patently evident utility of paleoecological studies such as those pursued by Madsen and others, and the insights gleaned from more "traditional" research into prehistoric technology can and do yield more data on prehistoric cultural process and processes than anything ever conceived in the pipe dreams of "armchair" theoreticians.

ON FUTURE GOALS In the few instances where the "ethnic" identity of a prehistoric complex is reasonably certain and further, where such a complex may be positively linked with an ethnographic or modern population, the links between the archeological culture and its descendant are many and usually far more complex than any considered for the Fremont. Furthermore, the rarity of such "cases" despite years of intensive research directly suggests that at least with our present methodological and theoretical capabilities, as well as our preconceptions and outmoded notions, these situations will remain very uncommon.

To be sure, 1 am not attempting to dissuade or denigrate those who attempt to recognize and define prehistoric cultures (indeed, I am one of those unreconstructed creatures). Rather, I am suggesting that the problem of cultural definition is essentially unimportant.

The data presented in many of these papers clearly indicate that the Fremont area whatever its size and whoever dwelt there is, as noted by Madsen, an almost unequaled laboratory for useful and productive research.

Most importantly, all of these studies — no matter what their focus — can be done without ever worrying about what or who the Fremont are or were. While I probably will scrutinize many more Fremont or Sevier/ Fremont baskets before 1 wither away, and further, while I will always be convinced that such artifacts are probably more diagnostic than any other single item ever produced by this culture or cultures, I really do not believe that such pronouncements give any real purpose. As one of my archeological colleagues at the University of Pittsburgh dryly noted, "Why do you people care what Fremont is or who they were?" At this point, suffice to note, I do not care any longer . . . .

C. MELVIN AIKENS University of Oregon Marwitt points out that the Friends of the Fremont have not been able to agree on their interpretations.

That is certainly true, but 1 believe, as he does, that this is healthy, and even though the specialists remain contentious, areas of firm ground are growing, as detailed and comprehensive studies of architecture, basketry, and ceramics have been undertaken, dealing with data from all across the area. Lithic studies are also coming along. The Fremont culture does not seem to be in danger of a premature and stultifying consensus among its devotees.

Hogan and Sebastian have argued that attempts to subdivide the Fremont area are wrongly based. That rather than being derived from trait list comparisons, any divisions to be recognized should be based on comparisons of subsistence and settlement patterns. It certainly would be well to develop an overall classification of Fremont subregions on such a basis, and work is now begun that will make such an overview possible within a few years.

But it is wrong to say that typological, trait list comparisons are of no value for recognizing cultural variation within an archeological entity such as the Fremont.

Whereas the approach Hogan and Sebastian advocate focuses on the process of cultural adaptation to environment, and will yield an ecologically oriented categorization of Fremont internal variation, the typolo-

gical/trait list approach properly focuses on culture history, and yields a categorization based on the dispersion and persistence in space and time of culturally patterned ways of making artifacts. A history of traditional concepts, and of the groups which held them, is properly the result of typological/trait list studies. I say "properly" twice in this context because it is true — as Hogan and Sebastian point out — that trait list comparisons have sometimes been made to do more than they are really capable of doing, but this abuse should not be eliminated simply by eliminating that form of analysis.

Both forms of analysis are important and should be pursued. They lead to different and complementary results. Just as the boundaries of linguistic/ethnic groups do not always coincide with the boundaries of economic/environmental zones, so the archeological boundaries derived from these two kinds of analyses will not necessarily be quite the same.

The heart of Berry's paper is his contention that "diffusionist-migrationist" (which is to say, culturehistorical) archeology explains nothing, since all the concepts of diffusion and migration do is to "pass the buck" back through an infinite regression of historical events, without really explaining those events. One gets the feeling, not only from Berry's comments but from the writings of others as well, that many contemporary 74

archeologists simply disdain the. question of diffusion and migration, even to the point of virtually denying its occurrence. And if its occurrence is not denied, its importance surely is. Yet migration and diffusion are so abundantly attested as major historical processes by linguistic maps, cultural distributions, and historical chronicles throughout the world, as to make the growing conspiracy of silence about them simply laughable.

It is objected that a diffusionist/migrationist interpretation explains nothing. But that is patently false. A diffusionist/migrationist interpretation that is well-conceived and well-supported by archeological fact can explain much about how a given culture-historical entity developed. Such an explanation of course cannot explain all, but that is surely no reason for ignoring diffusion and migration in archeological interpretation.

Of course, processual interpretation adds an important and satisfying dimension to archeological explanations, and it must be vigorously prosecuted. Not, however, in lieu of diffusionist/migrationist approaches, but in conjunction with them. Berry's critique, significantly, does not offer any processualist map showing a way out of the diffusionist/migrationist slough of despond which he perceives. One of the factors which forced him into such an eloquent silence is, I believe, that he has made the problem of archeological explanation seem much more difficult than it really is, by his vehement rejection of, and apparent determination to ignore, diffusionist/migrationist interpretations. This leaves him with no basis on which to build.

Madsen has done a good thing in pulling together all the available information on Fremont culture subsistence. The very limited yield of data he got for his efforts reveals a glaring deficiency in our knowledge of Fremont subsistence and settlement, but his exciting results from Backhoe Village illustrate one very promising approach to remedying the problem.

Madsen's recognition of the great importance that marsh resources such as cattail may have played in the subsistence of the Great Basin Fremont folk is a major new insight that is sure to generate additional interest in research into the relation of the Fremont people to the native biota of their natural surroundings.

I look forward with pleasure to seeing a florescence of new data, models, and contentions in this area.

Lohse's systematic and exhaustive attribute analysis of architectural variation in Fremont habitation structures should lay to rest any lingering doubts as to the objective reality of the five Fremont areal variants defined by Marwitt (1970). The architectural data thus confirm a pattern indicated with equal clarity by the ceramic data (Madsen 1970), and by other information as well Those divisions actually do exist, and with Lohse's numerical analysis and impressively high statistical significance levels, we can no longer imagine that they were simply artifacts of a subjective interpretation.

Interestingly, his data also show an even higher level of significance when grouped according to a simple east-west division of Great Basin and Colorado Plateau

Fremont. That division, too, really exists. Whether we are to view the five variants as due primarily to the local break-up over time of two earlier, larger, and more uniform culture-historical diffusion spheres, or whether we are to attribute primacy to an early adaptation to local environmental variation that was present from the beginning of Fremont occupation, and attribute the levels of observed cultural contrast to relative levels of environmental contrast between the respective geographic areas, is a primarily chronological problem that we cannot yet adequately assess for lack of sufficient dating information.

If we grant that Lohse's paper adds the last bit of analysis needed to conclusively settle the question of whether and to what degree there was, in fact, regional variation within the Fremont culture, we will not run out of interesting contentions. Rather, we will be freed to move the discussion up a notch, to questions of the process by which those divisions came into being. The concerns expressed by Hogan and Sebastian are clear evidence of an already existing tendency among Fremont researchers to move in that direction, as is the work of Madsen at Backhoe Village.

Adovasio focuses his presentation on the question of whether or not the Fremont, composed as it is of a number of regional variants, actually has sufficient integrity to warrant its definition as a single archeological culture. The idea that no definable Fremont entity actually exists at all has not been directly proposed in this symposium, but it was argued in a recent monograph by Madsen and Lindsay (1977), and is being pursued further in a paper by Madsen in American Antiquity (Madsen 1979). All participants are aware of the issue, and some have alluded to it in their papers. It is perhaps the most prominent of the ghosts present in this volume.

On the basis of a detailed attribute analysis of virtually every piece of reported Fremont basketry, and with characteristic emphasis, Adovasio shows that all Fremont variants are dominated by half-rod-and-bundle coiled ware, which has local antecedents in the Eastern Great Basin, and does not exist in significant amounts outside the Fremont range. In advancing his argument that the uniformity observed in this single craft is sufficient evidence, by itself, of the existence of a coherent Fremont culture entity, Adovasio refers, among other considerations, to the basketry of the southwestern Apache. Among the Apache, despite great differences in material culture from band to band, a clearly Apachean basketry complex is common to all groups.

He alludes to other evidence as well in arguing that in general, basketry textiles are the most sensitive indicators available for this sort of analysis.

Though it would have been reassuring to hear a more detailed exposition of the Apachean case, and even more to have heard of other similar cases, Adovasio's argument demands attention. Moreover, it does not stand in quite so lonely a position as he seems to feel, since Lohse, in this symposium, has marshalled 75

a good deal of architectural evidence to show that Fremont habitations, considered as a whole, are clearly distinguishable from those of cultures surrounding the Fremont area to the north, south, east, and west.

Holmer defines a series of eight projectile point types as characteristic of various parts of the Fremont culture area, suggesting that Rose Spring Cornernotched (a type widespread throughout the Great Basin) may have been the earliest Fremont type, while the others may be later regional developments. These others include Uinta Side-notched, Bear River Side-notched, Nawthis Side-notched, Desert Side-notched, Eastgate Expanding-stem. Parowan Basal-notched, and Bull Creek concave-base points. The side-notched types are refined out of the previously existing Desert Sidenotched category, and the Parowan and Bull Creek types are refined out of groups that would previously have been classified as Eastgate Expanding-stem and Cottonwood Triangular, respectively.

Some might bemoan this as excessive typological splitting. But to the contrary, it seems clear from Holmer's distribution maps alone that a gain in informa-

tion results from the exercise. It would have been extremely interesting to see what patterns might emerge if the table of site-by-site distribution of these points had been placed in a simple seriation ordering, and alternatively, in an ordering in terms of Marwitt's five Fremont subareas. 1 hope that Holmer pursues this analysis further, to put it on a firmer basis by reexamination of as many Fremont lithic collections as possible. This would also allow him to inject a quantitative element into the discussion, which might permit the kind of numerical evaluation of his distributions that Lohse has produced for architectural data.

In summary, 1 feel that this volume shows Fremont research to be in fundamentally healthy condition. The papers presented here have for the most part not been empty opinion and wrangling, but have presented new data and/or new analyses that transcend the level of mere rehashing. It seems to me that the culture-historical base is firming up quickly, and that the time is ripe for the shifts in research emphasis advocated and initiated here.

**%.**&Âť

76

REFERENCES Aberle, David F. 1968 Comments on New Perspectives in Archeology, L. R. Binford and S. R. Binford (eds.) Aldine Publishing Company. Chicago.

1970a Whence and Whither the Fremont Culture: A Restatement of the Problem. Paper read at the Fremont Culture Symposium. 35th Annual Meeting Society for American Archaeology. Mexico City.

Adovasio, J. M. 1970a Chipped Stone Artifacts. In Median Village and Fremont Culture Regional Variation by John P. Marwitt. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 95. Salt Lake City.

1970b Hogup Cave. University of Utah Anthropological Papers, No. 93. Salt Lake City.

1972

1970b The Origin, Development and Distribution ol Western Archaic Textiles. Tebiwa 13(2): 1-40.

Pocatello.

1976 Cultural Hiatus in the Eastern Great Basin? American Antiquity 4\: 543-550. Washington. D.C.

1970c Textiles. In, Hogup Cave by C. Melvin Aikens.

University of Utah Anthropological Papers 93.

Salt Lake City.

Ambler, J. Richard 1966 Caldwell Village. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 84: 118. Salt Lake City.

1971 Some Comments on the Relationship of Great Basin Textiles to Textiles from the Southwest.

University of Oregon Anthropological Papers 1.

Eugene.

1972

Prehistoric North American Basketry. 77^ Nevada State Museum Anthropological and Ethnological Papers 16. Reno.

1975

Fremont Basketry. Tebiwa 17(2): 67-76. Pocatello.

1977

Basketry Technology. Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago.

1978

1967 Caldwell Village and Fremont Prehistory. Doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado, Boulder.

1969 The Temporal Span of the Fremont. Southwestern Lore, Vol. 34, No. 4. Boulder.

Basketry as an Indicator of Archaeological Frontiers. Paper presented at the 37th annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Miami, Florida.

1974

1970 Just What is Fremont? Paper presented at the Fremont Culture symposium, 35th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archeology, April 30-May 2, 1970, Mexico City.

Ambler, J. Richard, Alexander Lindsay, Mary Anne Stein 1964 Survey and Excavations on Cummings Mesa, Arizona and Utah, 1960-1961. Glen Canyon Series No. 5 â&#x20AC;&#x201D; Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin, No. 39. Flagstaff.

Andrews, Janet 1972 The Paleopathology of the Eastern Great Basin Fremont. MA thesis on file at the Department of Anthropology. University of Utah. Salt Lake City.

Prehistoric Great Basin Textiles. In Handbook of North American Indians Volume X: Great Basin, edited by Warren D'Azevedo (in press).

Adovasio, J.M. and J.D. Gunn 1977 Basketry and Basketmakers at Antelope House.

In The Individual in Prehistory, edited by J.N. Hill and J.D. Gunn. Seminar Press, New York.

Armelagos, George J. 1968 Aikens1 Fremont Hypothesis and Use of Skeletal Material in Archeological Interpretation. American Antiquity, Vol. 33, No. 3 Washington D.C.

Adovasio, J.M., J.D. Gunn, etal.

1979 Basketry from Antelope House. In Antelope House by Don Morris, et al. Publications of the National Park Service (in press). Washington, D.C.

Armelagos, George J., John R. Dewey, and David A. Carlquist 1968 Physical Anthropology and the Uto-Aztecan Prolems. In Utaztecan Prehistory, Earl H. Swanson, Jr. (ed.). Occasional Papers of the Idaho University Museum, No. 22. Pocatello.

Aikens, Melvin C. 1965 Excavation in Southwestern Utah. University of Utah Anthropological Papers, No. 76, Glen Canyon Series, No. 27. Salt Lake City.

Ashby, W.Ross 1956 An Introduction to Cybernetics. Chapman and Hill Ltd. London.

1966a Virgin-Kayenta Cultural Relationships. University of Utah Anthropological Papers, No. 79. Salt Lake City.

Barnett, Peggy n.d. Appendix 11; Paleoethnobotanical Analysis. In Bullcreek Excavations 1976-77, edited by Jesse D. Jennings. Paper on file, Department of Anthropology, University of Utah.

1966b Fremont-Promontory-Plains Relationships. University of Utah Anthropological Papers, No. 82.

Salt Lake City.

1967

Fremont Culture: Restatement of Some Problems.

American Antiquity-. Vol. 37, No. 1. Washington D.C.

Baumhoff, Martin A., and J.S. Byrne 1959 Desert Side Notched Points As A Time Marker in California. University of California Archeological Survey Reports, No. 48: 32-65. Berkeley.

Excavations at Snake Rock Village and the Bear River No. 2 Site. University of Utah Anthropological Papers, No. 87. Salt Lake City.

77

Beals, Ralph L., George W. Brainerd and Watson Smith 1945 Archaeological Studies in Northeast Arizona. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 44. No. I. Berkeley.

Berge, DaleL. 1964 An Archaeological Survery of White Valley, Millard County. Western Utah. MA thesis, Brigham Young University, Provo.

Berry, Michael S. n.d. Evolution Versus Evolutionism. Unpublished manuscript.

1972

The Evans Site. Special Report, University of Utah Department of Anthropology (limited distribution).

Salt Lake City.

1974

The Evans Mound: Cultural Adaptation in Southwestern Utah. Unpublished MA thesis on file at the Department of Anthropology, University of Utah. Salt Lake City.

1975

An Archaeological Survey of the Northeast Portion of Arches National Monument. Antiquities Section Selected Papers, Vol. 1, No. 3. Salt Lake City.

1976

Clarke, David L. 1968 Analytical Archaeology. Methuen. London.

Colton, HaroldS. 1939 Prehistoric Culture Units and Their Relationships in Northern Arizona. Bulletin 17, Museum of Northern Arizona. Flagstaff.

Colton, Harold S. and Lyndon L. Hardgrave 1937 Handbook of Northern Arizona Pottery Wares.

Bulletin 11, Museum of Northern Arizona.

Flagstaff.

Dalley, Gardiner F. n.d.

The Levee Site and the Knoll Site. Ms, Department of Anthropology, University of Utah. Salt Lake City.

1976 Swallow Shelter and Associated Sites. University of Utah Anthropological Papers, No. 96. Salt Lake City.

Day, Kent C. 1966 Excavations at Gunlock Flats, Southwestern Utah.

Miscellaneous Paper No. 11, University of Utah Anthropological Papers. No. 83. Salt Lake City.

Douglas, F.H. 1934 Apache Indian Coiled Basketry. Denver Art Museum Leaflet 64.

Driver, H. E.

Numic-Fremont Relationships in the Southeastern Great Basin. Paper delivered at the 1976 Great Basin Anthropological Conference, Las Vegas.

Berry, Michael S. and Claudia H. Berry 1976 An Archaeological Survey of the White River Area, Northeastern Utah. Antiquities Section Selected Papers, Vol. II, No. 4. Salt Lake City.

1961

Indians of North America. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Emery, I. 1966 The Primary Structure of Fabrics. The Textile Museum, Washington, D.C.

Bertalanffy, Ludwig V. 1968 General System Theory â&#x20AC;&#x201D; A Critical Review. In Modern Systems Research for the Behavorial Scientist, W. Buckley (ed.). Aldine Publishing Co. Chicago.

Binford, Lewis R. 1968 Archeological Perspectives. In New Perspectives in Archeology, L.R. Binford and S. R. Binford (eds.). Aldine Publishing Company. Chicago.

Breternitz, David A. 1970a Archaeological Excavations in Dinosaur National Monument, Colorado-Utah, 1964-65. University of Colorado Studies, Series in Anthropology, No. 17. Boulder.

Ezell.PaulH. 1963 Is There A Hohokam â&#x20AC;&#x201D; Pima Cultural Continuum? American Antiquity, Vol. 29, No. 1. Salt Lake City.

Flannery, Kent V. 1968 Archeological Systems Theory and Early Mesoamerica. In Anthropological Archaeology in the Americas, Betty J. Meggars (ed.). Washington, D.C. Ford, James A. 1954 Comments on A. C. Spauldings, "Statistical Techniques for the Discovery of Artifact Types." American Antiquity 19 (4): 390-391. Salt Lake City.

1970b The Eastern Uinta Fremont. Paper read at the Fremont Symposium, 35th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology. Mexico City.

Fowler, Don D. 1963 1961 Excavations, Harris Wash, Utah. University of Utah Anthropological Papers, No. 64. Salt Lake City.

Buckley, William 1967 Sociology and Modem Systems Theory. PrenticeHall. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.

Fowler, Don D., and C. Melvin Aikens 1963 1961 Excavations, Kaiparowits Plateau, Utah.

University of Utah Anthropological Papers, No. 66. Salt Lake City.

Bullard, William R., Jr. 1962 The Cerro Colorado Site and Pit House Architecture in the Southwestern United States Prior to A.D. 900. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 64, No. 2. Cambridge.

Fowler, Don D., James H. Gunnerson, Jesse D. Jennings, Robert H. Lister, Dee Ann Suhm and Ted Weller 1959 The Glen Canyon Archaeological Survey, Parts I & II. University of Utah Anthropological Papers, No. 39. Salt Lake City.

Burgh, R. F. and C. R. Scoggin 1948 The Archaeology of Castle Park, Dinosaur National Monument. University of Colorado Studies, Series in Anthropology 2. Boulder.

Fowler, Don D., David B. Madsen, and Eugene M. Hattori 1973 Prehistory of Southeastern Nevada. Desert Research Institute Publications in the Social Sciences, No. 6. Reno.

78

Prison, George C. 1971 Shoshoni Antelope Procurement in the Upper Green River Basin, Wyoming, Plains Anthropologist, 16:54 pt. I. Lincoln.

1960 The Fremont Culture: Internal Dimensions and External Relationships. American Antiquity, Vol. 25, No. 3. Washington, D.C. 1962

Fry, Gary F. 1970a Salt Lake Fremont. Paper presented at the Fremont Symposium, 35th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology. Mexico City.

Plateau Shoshonean Prehistory: A Suggested Reconstruction. American Antiquity. Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 41-45. Salt Lake City.

1969 The Fremont Culture: A Study in Culture Dynamics on the Northern Anasazi Frontier. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Vol. 59, No. 2. Cambridge.

1970b Prehistoric Human Ecology in Utah: Based on the Analysis of Coprolites. Unpublished PhD dissertation on file at the Department of Anthropology, University of Utah. Salt Lake City.

Harris, Marvin 1968a The Rise of Anthropological Theory. Thomas Y. Crowell Company. New York.

Fry, Gary F., and Gardiner F. Dalley 1979 The Levee Site and the Knoll Site. University of Utah Anthropological Papers, No. 100. Salt Lake City.

1968b Comments on New Perspective in Archeology, L.R. Binford and S.R. Binford (eds.). Aldine Publishing Company. Chicago.

Heizer, Robert F., and M. A. Baumhoff 1961 The Archeology of Two Sites at Eastgate, Churchhill County, Nevada: I. Wagon Jack Shelter. University of California Anthropological Records, Vol. 20, No. 4. Berkeley.

Friedman, Jonathan 1971 Marxism, Structuralism and Vulgar Materialism.

Man. New Series, Vol. 9. London.

Gillin,John 1938 Archaeological Investigation in Nine-Mile Canyon, Utah, During the Year 1936. Bulletin of the University of Utah, Vol. 28, No. 11. Republished 1955, University of Utah Anthropological Papers, No. 21. Salt Lake City.

Hempel,CarlG. 1965 Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science. The Free Press.

New York.

Archaeological Investigations in Central Utah.

Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 17, No. 2.

Cambridge.

Hester, Thomas R., and Robert F. Heizer 1973 Review and Discussion of Great Basin Projectile Points: Form and Chronology. University of California Archaeological Research Facility, Berkeley.

Gladwin, Winifred and Harold S. Gladwin 1930 A Method for the Designation of Southwestern Pottery Types. Medallion Paper 1, Gila Pueblo.

Globe, Arizona.

Hill, James N. 1977 Explanation of Prehistoric Culture Change. University of New Mexico Press. Albuquerque.

1941

Hobler, Philip M. 1974 The Late Survival of Pithouse Architecture in the Kayenta Anasazi Area. Southwestern Lore, Vol. 40, No. 2. Boulder.

1934 A Method for the Designation of Cultures and Their Variations. Medallion Paper 15, Gila Pueblo.

Globe, Arizona.

Glassow, Michael A. 1972 Changes in the Adaptations of Southwestern Basketmakers: A Systems Perspective. In Contemporary Archaeology, Mark P. Leone (ed.). Southern Illinois University Press. Carbondale.

Hogan, Patrick and Lynne Sebastian 1978 The Variants of the Fremont: A Methodological Evaluation. Paper delivered at the 1978 Great Basin Anthropological Conference, Reno.

Goss,JamesA. 1977 Linguistic Tools for the Great Basin Prehistorian.

In Don D. Fowler (ed.) Models and Great Basin Prehistory: A Symposium. Desert Research Institute Publications in the Social Sciences, No. 12.

Reno and Las Vegas.

Green, Dee F. 1961 Archeological Investigations at the G.M. Hinckley Farm Site, Utah County, Utah 1956-60. Brigham Young University Press, Provo.

Huscher, B.H., and H.A. Huscher 1943 The Hogan Builders of Colorado.

Lore, Vol. 9. No. 2. Boulder.

Husted, Wilfred M., and Oscar L. Mallory 1967 The Fremont Culture: Its Derivation and Ultimate Fate. Plains Anthropologist, Vol. 12. Lincoln.

Irwin-Williams, Cynthia 1967 Picosa: The Elementary Southwestern Culture.

American Antiquity, Vol. 32, No. 4. Salt Lake City!

Gunnerson, James H. 1957 An Archeological Survey of the Fremont Area.

University of Utah Anthropological Papers, No. 28. Salt Lake City.

1959

Southwestern

1973 The Oshara Tradition: Origins of Anasazi Culture.

Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology, Vol. 5, No. 1. Portales.

1957 Excavations, Glen Canyon Area. University of Utah Anthropological Papers, No. 43. Salt Lake City.

Jarvie,I.C. 1964 The Revolution in Anthropology.

Press. New York.

79

Humanities

1968 Limits to Functionalism and Alternatives to it in Anthropology. In R.A. Manners and D. Kaplan (eds.), Theory in Anthropology: A Sourcebook.

Aldine Publishing Co. Chicago.

1917b Notes on Certain Prehistoric Habitations in Utah.

Proceedings of the Nineteenth International Congress of Americanists, December 1915. Washington, D.C.

Jennings, Jesse D. 1956 The American Southwest: a Problem in Cultural Isolation. Society for American Archaeology Memoirs, No. II, pp. 59-128. Washington, D. C.

1919 Archaeological Investigations at Paragonah, Utah.

Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, Vol. 70, No. 3. Washington, D.C.

1957

1926 Archaeological Observations North of the Rio Colorado. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin, Vol. 82. Washington, D.C.

Danger Cave. University of Utah Anthropological Papers, No. 27. Salt Lake City.

1966 Glen Canyon: A Summary. University of Utah Anthropological Papers, No. 81, Glen Canyon Series, No. 31. Salt Lake City. edition

Kehoe, Thomas F. 1966 The Small Side-notched Point System of the Northern Plains. American Antiquity, Vol. 31, No. 6:827-841. Salt Lake City.

1976 Preliminary Report: 1976 Archeological Excavations, Bull Creek Area. MS, Department of Anthropology. University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

Lamb, Sydney M. 1958 Linguistic Prehistory in the Great Basin. International Journal of American Linguistics, Vol. 24, No. 2. Baltimore.

1974

1977

Prehistory of North America.

McGraw-Hill, New York.

2nd

Lanning, Edward P. 1963 Archeology of the Rose Spring Site, INY-372.

University of California Publications in American Archeology and Ethnology, Vol. 49, No. 3 Berkeley.

Preliminary Report: 1977 Archeological Excavations, Bull Creek Area. MS, Department of Anthropology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

1978a Prehistory of Utah and the Eastern Great Basin.

University of Utah Anthropological Papers, No. 98. Salt Lake City.

Larson, Bruce and Ernest Lohse n.d. Faunal Remains. In Bullcreek Excavations 197677, edited by Jesse D. Jennings. Paper on file, Department of Anthropology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

1978b Preliminary Report, 1978 Archeological Excavation: Nawthis Village. University of Utah Archeological Center Special Report, Salt Lake City. n.d.a. Cowboy Cave. University of Utah Anthropological Papers. Salt Lake City, (in press)

Leach, Larry L. 1966 The Archeology of Boundary Village. University of Utah Anthropological Papers, No. 83. Salt Lake City.

n.d.b. Bull Creek Excavations. Report in preparation, Department of Anthropology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

1967 Archeological Investigations at Deluge Shelter (42Unl). National Park Service Report (Midwest Region). Lincoln.

Jennings, Jesse D., and Edward Norbeck 1955 Great Basin Prehistory: A Review. American Antiquity, Vol. 21, No. 1. Washington, D.C.

Levin, Michael E. 1973 On Explanation in Archaeology: A Rebuttal to Fritz and Plog. American Antiquity, Vol. 38, No. 4. Washington, D.C.

Jensen, F. Clair 1974 Evaluation of Existing Wetland Habitat in Utah.

Publication No. 74-17, Utah State Division of Wildlife Resources. Salt Lake City.

Lindsay, LaMar W., and Christian K. Lund 1976 Pint-Size Shelter. Antiquities Section Selected Papers, Vol. HI, No. 10. Salt Lake City.

Johnson, Bernhart E. 1972 An Analysis of Tool Distributions and Relationships at 42UT102 (Woodard's Mound), Goshen, Utah, MS on file at the Department of Archeology, Brigham Young University, Provo.

Lipe, William D. 1960 1958 Excavations, Glen Canyon Area. University of Utah Anthropological Papers, No. 44. Salt Lake City.

Johnston, R.J. 1978 Multivariate Statistical Analysis in Geography: a Primer on the General Linear Model. Longman: London and New York.

Lipe, William D., Floyd W. Sharrock, David S. Dibble and Keith M. Anderson 1960 1959 Excavations, Glen Canyon Area. University of Utah Anthropological Papers, No. 49. Salt Lake City.

Jones, Carl Hugh 1961 An Archaeological Survey of Utah County, Utah.

MA thesis, Brigham Young University, Provo.

Lister, Robert H. 1959 The Coombs Site, Part I. University of Utah Anthropological Papers, No. 41. Salt Lake City.

Judd, Neil M. 1917a Evidence of Circular Kivas in Western Utah Ruins. American Anthropologist, Vol. 19, No. 1.

Wasington, D.C.

Lister, Robert H. and FlorenceC. Lister 1961 The Coombs Site, Part 111, Summary and Conclusions. University of Utah Anthropological Papers, No. 41. Salt Lake City.

80

Lohse, Ernest 1978 Fremont Architectural Variation and Settlement Pattern. Manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology, University of Utah. Salt Lake City.

Madsen, David B. 1970 Ceramics. In, Median Village and Fremont Culture Regional Variation by John P. Marwitt. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 95. Salt Lake City.

Montgomery, H. 1894 Prehistoric Man in Utah. The Archaeologist, Vol. 2, Nos. 8, 9, 11. Waterloo, Indiana.

Morss, Noel 1931 The Ancient Culture of the Fremont River in Utah. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology.

Harvard University 12: 3. Cambridge.

1975a Dating Paiute-Shoshoni Expansion in the Great Basin. American Antiquity 40: I. Washington, D.C.

Nagel, Ernst 1961 The Structure of Science: Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation. Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc. New York.

1975b Three Fremont Sites in Emery County, Utah Antiquities Section Selected Papers Vol. 1, No. 1.

Salt Lake City.

Naroll, Raoul 1961 Two Solutions to Galton's Problem. Philosophy of Science, Vol. 28, No. 1. East Lansing.

1979

The Fremont and the Sevier: Defining Prehistoric Agriculturalists North of the Anasazi. American Antiquity 44:4. Washington, D.C.

Nie,Norman H.,etal.

Preliminary Analysis of Prehistoric Occupation Patterns, Subsistence Adaptations, and Chronology in the Fish Springs Area, Utah. Antiquities Section Selected Papers (in preparation). Salt Lake City.

Nielson, Asa 1978 Proposed Subsistence Model for the Sevier Culture: Sevier River Drainage, West Central Utah.

MA thesis, Brigham Young University, Provo.

n.d.

Madsen, David B., and Michael S. Berry 1975 A Reassessment of Northeastern Great Basin Prehistory. American Antiquity, Vol. 40, No. 4.

Washington, D.C. Madsen, David B. and LaMar W. Lindsay 1977 Backhoe Village. Antiquities Section Selected Papers Vol. IV, No. 12. Salt Lake City.

Madsen, Rex 1975 Topography, Climate and Soil Types as Indicators of Fremont Regional Variation. MS, Department of Anthropology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

1977

Prehistoric Ceramics of the Fremont. Museum of Northern Arizona Ceramic Series, 6. Flagstaff.

Marwitt, John P. 1968 Pharo Village. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 91. Salt Lake City.

1970

Median Village and Fremont Culture Regional Variation. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 95. Salt Lake City.

Mason, O.T. 1904 Aboriginal American Basketry: Studies in Textile Art Without Machinery. Annual Report of the U.S. National Museum, pp. 169-548, Washington, D.C. Meighan, Clement W., et al.

1956 Archeological Excavations in Iron County, Utah.

University of Utah Anthropological Papers, No. 25. Salt Lake City.

Miller, Wick R. 1966 Anthropological Linguistics in the Great Basin.

In The Current Status of Anthropological Research in the Great Basin: 1964. Fred Eggan and Warren D'Azevedo (eds.). Publications Office of the Desert Research Institute. Reno.

1975 Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, 2nd edition. McGraw-Hill: New York.

O'Connell, James F. 1975 The Prehistory of Surprise Valley. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers 4. Ramona, California.

Palmer, E. 1876 Exploration of a Mound in Utah. American Naturalist, Vol. 10, No. 8, pp. 410-414. Chicago.

1878 Cave Dwellings in Utah. Reports of the Trustees of the Peabody Museum, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 269272. Cambridge.

Parmalee, Paul W. n.d. Utilization of Birds by the Archaic and Fremont Cultural Groups of Utah. Manuscript in preparation.

Pendergast, David M. 1962 The Frei Site, Santa Clara, Utah. University of Utah Anthropological Papers, No. 60. Salt Lake City.

Plog, Fred 1975 Systems Theory in Archeological Research. Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 4. Annual . Reviews Inc. Palo Alto.

Putnam, F.W. 1876 Reports of the Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Vol. 1 (1868-1876). Cambridge.

Reagan, Albert B. 1931 Early House Builders of the Brush Creek Region in Northeastern Utah. American Anthropologist, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp. 660-61. Washington, D.C. Rouse, Irving 1955 On the Correlation of Phases of Culture. American Anthropologist 57 (4): 713-722. Menasha.

Rudy, Jack R. 1953 Archeological Survey of Western Utah. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 12. Salt Lake City.

1955 Archeological Excavations in Beef Basin, Utah.

University of Utah Anthropological Papers. No. 20. Salt Lake City.

Rudy, Jack R. and Robert D. Stirland 1949 An Archeological Reconnaissance in Washington County, Utah. University of Utah Anthropological Papers, No. 9. Salt Lake City.

Sahlins, Marshall, and Elman R. Service 1960 Evolution and Culture. University of Michigan Press. Ann Arbor.

Salmon, Merrilee H. 1976 "Deductive" Versus "Inductive" Archaeology.

American Antiquity, Vol. 41, No. 3. Washington, D.C. Sargent, Ned 1972 Flotation. In The Evans Site, by Michael S. Berry.

A Special Report, Department of Anthropology, University of Utah. Salt Lake City.

Schiffer, Michael B. 1978 Taking the Pulse of Method and Theory in Amercan Archaeology. American Antiquity, Vol. 43, No. 2. Washington, D.C.

Sharrock, Floyd W. and Edward G. Keane 1962 Carnegie Museum Collection from Southeast Utah. University of Utah Anthropological Papers, No. 57. Salt Lake City.

Sharrock, Floyd W., and John P. Marwitt 1967 Excavations at Nephi, Utah, 1965-1966. University of Utah Anthropological Papers, No. 88. Salt Lake City.

Shields, Wayne F. 1967 1966 Excavations: Uinta Basin. University of Utah Anthropological Papers, No. 89. Salt Lake City.

Shields, Wayne F. and Gardiner F. Dalley 1978 Excavations at Bear River No. 3. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 99, Miscellaneous Collected Papers 22. Salt Lake City.

Shutler, R . J r .

1961 Lost City: Pueblo Grande de Nevada. Nevada State Museum Anthropological Papers 5. Carson City.

Steward, Julian H. 1931 Archaeological Discoveries at Kanosh in Utah.

El Palacio, Vol. 30, No. 8. Santa Fe. 1933a Archaeological Problems of the Northern Periphery of the Southwest. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin, No. 5. Flagstaff.

Schroeder, Albert H. 1961 The Archeological Excavations at Willow Beach, Arizona. University of Utah Anthropological Papers, No. 50. Salt Lake City.

1933b Early Inhabitants of West Utah, Part 1: Mounds and House Types. Bulletin of the University of Utah, Vol. 23, No. 7. Salt Lake City.

Schroedl, A.R. and P.F. Hogan 1975 Innocents Ridge and the San Rafael Fremont.

Antiquities Section Selected Papers, Vol. 1, No. 2.

Salt Lake City.

Service, Elman R. I960 The Law of Evolutionary Potential. In Evolution and Culture. M. Sahlins and E. Service (eds.). University of Michigan Press. Ann Arbor.

1964 Archeological Theory and Ethnological Fact. In Process and Pattern in Culture: Essays in Honor of Julian H. Steward, Robert A. Manners (ed.).

Aldine Publishing Company. Chicago.

1936

Pueblo Material Culture in Western Utah. University of New Mexico Bulletin, No. 287, Anthropological Series, Vol. 1, No. 3. Albuquerque.

1937

Ancient Caves of the Great Salt Lake Region.

Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 116.

Washington, D.C.

1940 Native Cultures of the Intermontane (Great Basin) Area. In "Essays in Historical Anthropology of North America." Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, Vol. 100. Washington, D.C.

Severance, M.S. 1874 Preliminary Ethnological Report. In G.M. Wheeler, Progress Report upon Geographical and Geological Surverys and Explorations West of the One Hundredth Meridian, in 1872, Appendix F. Washington, D.C.

1955a Theory of Culture Change. University of Illinois Press. Urbana.

1955b Review of Rudy's "Archeological Survey of Western Utah." American Antiquity, Vol. 21, No. 1.

Salt Lake City.

Sharrock, Floyd W. 1964 1962 Excavations, Glen Canyon Area. University of Utah Anthropological Papers, No. 73. Salt Lake City.

Story, Dee Ann Suhm 1963 Polyisopleths: A New Approach to Distribution Studies in Archaeology. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. Los Angeles.

1966 Prehistoric Occupation Patterns in Southwest Wyoming and Cultural Relationships with the Great Basin and Plains Culture. University of Utah Anthropological Papers, No. 77. Salt Lake City.

Strauss, David J., and Martin Orans 1975 Mighty Sifts: A Critical Appraisal of Solutions to Galton's Problem and a Partial Solution. Current Anthropology, Vol. 16, No. 4. Chicago.

Sharrock, Floyd W., Keith M. Anderson, Don D. Fowler and David S. Dibble 1961 1960 Excavations, Glen Canyon Area. University of Utah Anthropological Papers, No. 52. Salt Lake City.

Swanson, Earl H., Jr. 1972 Birch Creek: Human Ecology in the Cool Desert of the Northern Rocky Mountains 9,000B.C.-A.D. 1850- Idaho State University Press. Pocatello.

82

Taylor, Dee C. 1954 The Garrison Site. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 16. Salt Lake City.

1957

Willey, Gordon R. and Jeremy A. Sabloff 1974 A History of American Archaeology. W.H. Freeman and Company. S a n Francisco.

Two Fremont Sites and their Position in Southwestern Prehistory. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 29. Salt Lake City.

Wilson, Curtis J., and Howard L. Smith 1976 Interstate Highway 1-7G Salvage Archeology. Antiquities Section Selected Papers, Vol. II, No. 7.

Salt Lake City.

Thomas, David H. 1973 An Empirical test for Steward's Model of Great Basin Settlement Patterns. American Antiquity 38:2. Washington, D.C.

Winter, Joseph 1973 The Distribution and Development of Fremont Maize Agriculture: Some Preliminary Interpretations. American Antiquity, Vol. 38, No. 4: 439-452.

Washington, D.C.

Vermeulcn, C.J.J., and A. de Ruijter 1975 Dominant Epistemological Presuppositions in the Use of the Cross-Cultural Survey Method. Current Anthropology, Vol. 16, No. 1. Chicago.

Watson, Richard A. 1976 Inference in Archaeology. American Vol. 41, No. 1. Washington, D.C.

Wobst, H.Martin 1974 Boundary Conditions for Paleolithic Social Systems: A Simulation Approach. American Antiquity, Vol. 39, No. 2: 147-178. Washington D.C.

Antiquity,

Wood, J.J,and R.G. Matson 1973 Two Models of Sociocultural Systems and Their Implications for the Archaeological Study of Change. In The Explanation of Culture Change, Models in Prehistory, C. Renfrew (ed.). Duckworth. London.

Wedel, Waldo R. 1967 Review of Fremont-Promontory-Plains Relationships in Northern Utah, C. Melvin Aikens, University of Utah Anthropological Papers, No. 82.

American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 71, No. 4.

New York.

Weder, Dennis G. n.d. Projectile Points. In Bull Creek by Jesse D. Jennings. Manuscript in preparation, Department of Anthropology, University of Utah. Salt Lake City.

Wormington, H.M. 1955 A Reappraisal of the Fremont Culture. Proceedings of the Denver Museum of Natural History, No. I. Denver.

1956 Archaeological Investigations of the Uncompaghre Plateau in Westcentral Colorado. Proceedings of the Denver Museum of Natural History, No. 2.

Denver.

Willey, Gordon R., and Philip Phillips 1958 Method and Theory in American Archaeology.

University of Chicago Press: Chicago.

83