Fremont Complex 1998

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of World Prehistory.

http://www.jstor.org

The Fremont Complex: A Behavioral Perspective Author(s): David B. Madsen and Steven R. Simms Source: Journal of World Prehistory, Vol. 12, No. 3 (September 1998), pp. 255-336Published by: SpringerStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25801129Accessed: 30-11-2015 18:11 UTC

REFERENCESLinked references are available on JSTOR for this article:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/25801129?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents

You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer

http://www.jstor.org/stable/25801129

http://www.jstor.org/stable/25801129?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp



Journal of World Prehistory, Vol. 1% No. 3, 1998

The Fremont Complex: A Behavioral Perspective

David B. Madsen13 and Steven R. Sirams2

The Fremont complex is composed of farmers and foragers who occupied the Colorado Plateau and Great Basin region of western North America from about 2100 to 500 years ago. These people included both immigrants and in

digenes who shared some material culture and symbolic attributes, but also varied in ways not captured by definitions of the Fremont as a shared cultural tradition. The complex reflects a mosaic of behaviors including full-time farm ers, full-time foragers, part-time farmer/foragers who seasonally switched modes

of production, farmers who switched to full-time foraging and foragers who switched to full-time farming. Farming defines the Fremont, but only in the sense that it altered the matrix in which both farmers and foragers lived, a matrix which provided a variety of behavioral options to people pursuing an

array of adaptive strategies. The mix of symbiotic and competitive relationships among farmers and between farmers and foragers presents challenges to de tection in the archaeological record. Greater clarity results from use of a be havioral model which recognizes differing contexts of selection favoring one

adaptive strategy over another. The Fremont is a case where the transition

from foraging to farming is followed by a millennium of adaptive diversity and terminates with the abandonment of farming. As such, it serves as a potential comparison to other cases in the world during the early phases of the food producing transition.

KEY WORDS: Great Basin; Colorado Plateau; farmer/foragers; agricultural transitions; behavioral perspective.

Environmental Sciences, Utah Geological Survey, 1594 West North Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114.

department of Sociology, Social Work and Anthropology, Utah State University, Logan,

Utah 84322. 3To whom correspondence should be addressed.

255

0892-7537/98/09(XW)255$15.00/0 O 1998 Plenum Publishing Corporation



256 Madsen and Simms

INTRODUCTION

In North America, the area west of the Rocky Mountains and east of

the Sierra Nevada is a landscape of variation and diversity. High alpine meadows, stark salt flats, deep slickrock canyons, broad terminal river

marshes, numerous canyon streams, and dry pinyon/juniper forests are all

found within a few hundred kilometers of one another. Variation is found

even within these environmental categories, with small spring-fed marshes

dotted through the salt flats and willow and cottonwood dominated stream

side vegetation meandering through the pinyon/juniper woodlands. These diverse landscapes are grouped into two primary geographic regions: the

northern Colorado Plateau area along the western slope of the central

Rocky Mountains and the basin and range topography of the Great Basin.

The former consists primarily of a dissected mountain and plateau topog

raphy with elevations ranging from 1500 to 4000 m. Temperatures are

somewhat cooler, in general, than are those to the west in the Great Basin, and the annual average precipitation of lower elevation areas is generally somewhat higher (there are major exceptions). The mountain/valley topog

raphy of the Great Basin engenders what Currey (1991) refers to as a "hemi-arid" environment. That is, the Great Basin is half wet (the moun

tains) and half dry (the valleys), with most of the valley water derived from snow-fed runoff from the mountains. Both the Colorado Plateau and the

Great Basin share the marked seasonality characteristic of all midlatitude zones.

The prehistoric societies of the northern Colorado Plateau and the eastern Great Basin (Fig. 1) are also characterized by variation and diver

sity, much like the landscape in which they were found. They are neither

readily defined nor easily encapsulated within a single description. During the period when farming was part of the human repertoire in the region, 500-2000 years ago, some people were primarily settled farmers, growing maize, beans, and squash in small plots along streams at the base of moun tain ranges. Others were mobile foragers, living primarily on wild flora and fauna. Still others may have shifted settlement locations and group size, adjusting the mix of farming and foraging to changing circumstances. In some areas, the population was relatively dense and social groups showed

signs of incipient stratification. In these locations, people experienced the intensification process associated with farming to the same degree as the

Anasazi and other better-known farming cultures of the Southwest. In other areas, only small, egalitarian, family groups were found widely scattered across the landscape, and were not greatly affected by the feedback loops often associated with agricultural intensification.



The Fremont Complex 257

0_300 KILOMETERS

Fig. 1. General location of the maximum extent of the Fremont com

plex in western North America.

When the parameter of time is added to that of geographic space, our

understanding of past behavior in the region can be even more obscured

by common descriptive categories. For instance, during periods as brief as a human lifetime, the lives of some people were relatively constant, while others may have shifted from farming to foraging or various mixtures be tween the two. Consequently, the complexity of social organization was spa tially patchy, with varying degrees of residential cycling among settlements.

The degree to which various groups were linked by consanguinity, by af

finity, or by purely secular association is subject to continued investigation, but variation across space and at several scales of time seems well dem

onstrated, and demographic fluidity was a common characteristic of these

farmer/foragers. If their rock art is a useful guide, these people may have had differing ideological views, as artistic representations vary in funda mental ways across the region. They may even have been linguistically di verse as well, much like the descendants of Southwestern Formative groups, such as the Hopi, Zuni, and eastern Pueblos, who exhibit linguistic diversity at the macro-level of language families.

Currently, these scattered groups of foragers and farmers are called the "Fremont." Despite (or perhaps because of ) the difficulty in catego




rizing them, the Fremont remain a fascinating topic of archaeological study, since they epitomize both the strengths and the weaknesses involved in

investigating human behavior through prehistoric material remains. They are relatively recent, and many of their sites are so well preserved that we are as likely to know as much about them as about any prehistoric society. These sites are widely distributed and include an array of open structural

sites, temporary camps, and cave/rockshelters. Literally thousands of sites have been documented and mapped and hundreds have been excavated and reported. Yet, unlike the Anasazi and any number of other nearby contemporary prehistoric groups, the Fremont have no known direct de scendants and historical analogy is unavailable to provide interpretive in

sights. While this means that Fremont research does not suffer from "the

tyranny of the ethnographic record" (Wobst, 1978), it also means there are no direct guides to understanding Fremont behavior. Everything we under stand about the Fremont must be inferred from material remains through the application of general theory. The Fremont thus provide an excellent case in which to employ ethnology, ethnoarchaeology, and general theory in both critiquing and refining our construction of a regional prehistory.

The Fremont may be especially pertinent to the food producing tran sition in other cases in the world, such as the Levantine Natufian and early

Neolithic in the Near East (e.g., Henry, 1995), Europe (e.g., Gregg, 1988), and elsewhere in the Americas (e.g., Gebauer and Price, 1992). The dual effects of the adoption of horticulture by foragers and its spread by colo nizing horticulturalists is exemplified by the Fremont. It is increasingly clear that the study of the food producing transition requires understanding the

foraging populations that formed the context of the transition and persisted long after regions were predominantly agricultural in character. Further, the relationships between early horticulturalists and foragers are likely to involve connections which constrain and shape the decisions of both. As

such, the spread of horticulture is much more than the spread of peoples with a farming way of life whose archaeological record dominates that of the typically unidentified foragers of ancient times. The perspective on the Fremont we take here is designed, in part, to facilitate the study of process in the food producing transition and we suggest that the Fremont may be a useful analogy for other cases.

Over the past 15 years there has been a tentative move toward exam

ining the Fremont in terms of behavior: a move we continue here. However, by emphasizing behavior, we do not wish to imply that we think culture is

free-form, infinitely plastic, or ahistorical. On the contrary, behavior is learned and shared, and any understanding of behavior requires an under

standing of evolutionary forces acting upon cultural and genetic variation via selection. As a metaphorical device, we also draw a parallel between




diversity in the natural ecosystems of the region and the evidence for Fre mont variability. We do not mean to imply, however, that the Fremont are variable because of a simple form of environmental determinism or that cultures in general are uniform or variable depending on gross measures of environmental characteristics. Rather, we suggest that behavioral vari

ability is always present, and when the subtleties of environmental structure are considered, an analysis of variability will be more enlightening than a

search for definitions or boundaries. We draw our perspective on the en

vironment from evolutionary ecology, where environment is "everything ex

ternal to the organism," where the "sources can be physical, biological, or

social," and where there is "an interdependence of decisions' . . . [and] no truly independent variables " (Winterhalder and Smith, 1992, p. 8).

To some extent we dislike using the term "Fremont" because its use

implies that we think there were indeed some coherent prehistoric phe nomena which fit together under such a label, and by writing this summary of the "The Fremont," we unavoidably imply that there was some bounded

entity to which the label applies. We use the term because we recognize the need for labels, and because we are cognizant of the historic back

ground which underlies the term. However, we must stress that we use

"Fremont" as a generic name for an archaeological construct, which, we

suspect, fails miserably in defining a people, who, like the landscapes of the Intermountain West, are not easily described or classified. This does not mean we can escape the need for classification?and this is not a pe destrian call to stop using labels. Instead, we suggest that archaeological classifications need to become attuned to what the evidence tells us about

behavioral variation across space and through time, and from which selec tion produces an evolutionary outcome represented by changing frequen cies of behaviors. In short, we think that Fremont research needs to focus less on categorical definitions and more on the alternative adaptive strate

gies employed by these farmers and foragers. We take this view, because, quite simply, such bounded definitions do

not work. Since the late 19th century, scholars have struggled, unsuccess

fully, to define the Fremont, and because they are not easily categorized and do not readily fit into archaeological classification schemes, they have

been a source of confusion and debate among archaeologists since they were originally identified. The differences between the many small groups of the Great Basin and northern Colorado Plateau areas of western North America were often quite great, and Fremont specialists have had a difficult time defining just who these people were and how they related to each

other. There are, in fact, only three things common to all these people: they grew maize or knew someone who did, they made or traded for pottery and they were not Anasazi (although there remains considerable debate




about this third common thread). Study has also focused on identifying the Fremont in the context of surrounding regions and has addressed questions framed through metaphors of origin, migration, abandonment, dispersal, and demise. Although all of these questions show concern for the inter

pretation of history as a sequence of bounded events, the effort has been

largely successful, and a general culture history of the Fremont can be told. Our interest in recasting research perspectives on the Fremont is based on

this work and, thus, requires a review of Fremont culture history and a

history of the Fremont concept. Unfortunately, we cannot hope to deal

comprehensively with the mass of information that is currently available for the Fremont in a short review paper such as this, and recommend a

number of recent summaries for more specific detail (e.g., Geib, 1996; Janetski et al, 1997; Metcalf et aly 1993; Spangler, 1995).

The prevailing consensus is that the Fremont developed out of existing groups of hunter-gatherers both on the Colorado Plateau and in the eastern Great Basin (but see Gunnerson, 1969; Madsen and Berry, 1975; Meighan et aLy 1956; Talbot, 1997). Existing adaptive diversity among these groups ensured that decision-making was variable in the face of agriculture arriving from the south. These late Archaic groups were themselves flexible and

adaptable and appear to have ranged from fairly large and relatively sed

entary populations in environments where high return rate resources were

both productive and closely spaced to small, highly mobile family-sized groups where resources were widely dispersed. Over a span of about a thou sand years, from sometime after 2500 years ago to about 1500 B.P., dif ferent groups of these hunter-gatherers adopted, in a piecemeal fashion,

many of the traits associated with the farming societies of the Southwest and Mexico (Fig. 2). However, maize, ceramics, and the bow and arrow were adopted in different spatiotemporal patterns, indicating that these fea tures did not arrive as a complex from the south. Thus, neither diffusion from a single source nor a categorical replacement of existing peoples by migrants can account for a phenomenon far more multifaceted than most

popular notions of the Archaic to Formative transition allow. Current evi dence suggests that the appearance of agriculture in the Southwest stimu lated demographic fluidity, either as a function of the addition of

agriculture to an indigenous foraging base or through the arrival of mi

grants (Berry, 1982; Berry and Berry, 1976; Geib, 1996, pp. 53-77; Janetski, 1993; Spangler, 1995, pp. 426-450; Talbot and Richens, 1996, pp. 196-197).

First, maize and other cultivated plants were added to the foraging subsistence base sometime about 2500 to 2000 years ago in areas on either side of the southern Wasatch Plateau. Outside this region, the hunting and

gathering lifestyles seem to have continued unchanged. In the deserts of the eastern Great Basin domesticates are absent during this early period




Fremont Radiocarbon Dates (?2 sigma)

?i????f??i???i? Calibrated Age (A.D.)

I 1 i

Fig. 2. "Fremont" radiocarbon dates displayed as a histogram illustrating the florescence and demise of the Fremont complex (adapted from Massimino and Mctcalfe, 1998).

and subsistence was based entirely on wild foods. Second, between about 2000 and 1500 years ago, many of the objects associated with the use of domesticates, such as pottery, large basin-shaped grinding implements, and

bell-shaped storage pits, were added to the tool kit. The production and use of these tools, in addition to the growing of maize/beans/squash, appear to have continued to spread to other hunting and gathering groups to the north and to both the east and the west of the central Wasatch Plateau

region, and by about 1500 B.P. maize and/or pottery are present throughout much of the Fremont region.

Third, between about 1750 and 1250 years ago, architecture at some

(but far from all) open sites changed from small, thin-walled habitation structures and subterranean storage pits to larger semisubterranean timber and mud houses and aboveground mud or rock-walled granaries. The pres ence of such substantial buildings suggests that, at some sites at least, peo

ple were becoming more fully sedentary and were relying more on farming than on collecting wild foods. By about 1200 B.P., foraging groups on the east and west sides of the Wasatch Plateau had adopted and modified many features of settled village life and had differentially integrated these fea tures into their subsistence and settlement strategies. For the next 500 years or so, these patterns defined the Fremont and its core context. Many Fre mont Complex features, however, such as pottery, spread to groups as far




away as central Nevada, southern Idaho, and northwestern Colorado/south western Wyoming. It seems likely that the spread of these items to these areas was part of the same array of processes common to the Archaic to

Fremont transition?the decisions made by in situ foragers about the adop tion of new items, coupled with the demographic fluidity of local hunter gatherers, conditioned the adaptive circumstances of the indigenous people.

Significantly, there are actually very few things that distinguish even this crystallized Fremont. Pithouse villages and farming are found over

large areas of the United States about this same time and are not very useful in distinguishing the Fremont from other groups. Since pithouses had been used in the Great Basin and Colorado Plateau during the Ar

chaic, they do not necessarily identify either agriculture or "sedentism" but,

rather, indicate greater tethering or redundancy in the structure of mobility. Even within the Fremont area, the form and construction techniques of

both habitation and storage structures are so varied as to preclude useful

classification. Many artifact forms, such as projectile point styles, are also not unique to the Fremont and are not helpful in separating the Fremont from their contemporaries. Indeed, the practice of ascribing a name to

some projectile point styles simply because they are found at a "Fremont"

site does not demonstrate distinctiveness. For example, Bull Creek points from the San Rafael area are morphologically similar to Kayenta points, so labeled because they are found in Anasazi sites to the south. "Uinta"

points, implying some sort of boundary and diffusion from a center in

northeastern Utah, are just as common in northwestern Utah, near the

Great Salt Lake. A number of other material items, such as stone balls, basin-shaped

"Utah-type" metates with small secondary grinding surfaces (Fig. 3), clay figurines (Fig. 4), and elongated corner-notched arrow points, are charac teristic of the Fremont, but they are either so variable from place to place or so limited in distribution that they are not very useful traits for distin guishing the Fremont from other people. Some perishable artifacts, such as one-rod-and-bundle basketry (Fig. 5) and a unique kind of hobnailed moccasin made with the dewclaws from a sheep or deer leg (Fig. 6), may be found at widely separated places within the Fremont area but have been recovered in such limited quantities that it is difficult to determine their distribution in time and space and difficult to analyze variability in the ar tifact style.

In short, it is impossible to categorize the Fremont in terms of material remains because trait lists specific enough to distinguish the "Fremont" from other Southwestern agricultural groups necessarily exclude some of the Fre

mont, while trait lists general enough to include all of the "Fremont" are not specific enough to distinguish the Fremont as a group from other




Fig. 3. " Utah-type" metate characteristic of some Fremont farming groups. Note the secondary

grinding platform which distinguishes these metates. (Photo courtesy of the Utah Museum of Natural History.)

agriculturalists in western North America. Despite these definitional limita

tions, at the height of the Fremont period, about 1000 years ago, people who in one way or another fit a rather broad description of Fremont could be found from the west slope of the central Rocky Mountains in what is now western Colorado on the east to the middle of the Great Basin in what is now central Nevada on the west. To the north, "Fremont" people ex tended as far as the Snake River plain in what is now Idaho and onto the

plains of western Wyoming. To the south the Fremont variously merged into or abutted the Anasazi areas along the drainages of the Colorado River.




Fig. 4. Elaborate painted trapezoidal clay figurine characteristic of Fremont groups on the Colorado Plateau. Such figurines strongly resemble rock art figures in some areas. (Drawing courtesy of the Archae

ology Center, Department of Anthropol ogy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.)

Beginning about 900 years ago, even this generalized "Fremont" began to disappear in a piecemeal fashion. This is most evident on the Colorado

Plateau, where spatial restructuring of horticultural village sites occurred, perhaps influenced by Anasazi aggression from the south. Between 700 and 500 B.P., classic traits such as one-rod-and-bundle basketry, thin-walled

gray pottery, and clay figurines disappear from the Fremont region. By 600

years ago, horticulture, the defining characteristic of the Fremont, seems to have disappeared from the central Fremont area, although it did hang on along the northeastern margins of the Fremont area in northwestern Colorado for an additional century or two. No one can quite agree on what

happened, but there seem to be a number of interrelated factors behind this change. Two things seem most likely. First, climatic conditions favor




Fig. 5. Schematic of Fremont one-rod-and-bundle basketry (adapted from Adovasio, 1977, p. 68).

able for farming seem to have been changing during this period, forcing local groups to rely more and more on wild food resources and to adopt the increased mobility that generally goes along with their collection. By itself, however, this climatic change probably would not have resulted in the Fremont demise, because the flexibility and adaptability that charac terized the Fremont had allowed them to weather similar changes in times

past. Second, demographic fluidity in the desert West increased, correlating with a millennium of rapid population growth among Southwestern agricul turalists and growth among foragers in California. The 12th and 13th cen

turies in both areas were times of intensification marked by increasing

population. This led to increased investment in farming in the Southwest and increasing social complexity and warfare in California. There was gen

Fig. 6. Construction schematic of a Fremont "hobnail" moccasin. (Adapted from Aikens, 1970,

p. 103.)




eral demographic upheaval across western North America and this is part of the context leading to the historically known cultural patterns for the

region?the Shoshoni, Ute, and Paiute. The nature of this process is not well understood and has generally

been considered in cultural historical terms which posit "new" groups of

foragers spreading across the Fremont area and hastening Fremont demise.

With the exception of plain ceramics and small side-notched projectile points, by the time of Columbian contact, the "Fremont" are unrecogniz able in the archaeological record. Traditional explanations tend to describe the transition in terms of full-time hunter-gatherers displacing or replacing the part-time Fremont hunter-gatherers with whom they were in competi tion. However, whether or not Fremont peoples were killed off, forced to

move, or integrated into historically known Numic-speaking groups is un

clear, and even the matter of the postulated Ute/Paiute/Shoshoni migration remains a matter of spirited debate (e.g., Madsen and Rhode, 1994). Given the Fremont variability we document below, all of these bounded meta

phors for describing this process can be questioned in terms of real behav ior and further support the idea that it is time for a fundamentally different theoretical perspective to guide study in the region.

In sum, most archaeologists consider the Fremont to have been highly diversified hunters and gatherers living in the eastern Great Basin and west ern Colorado Plateau who, over a period of roughly a thousand years,

gradually adopted and modified some Southwestern farming techniques and associated technology and who, after another 500-600 years of devel

opment, disappeared from the region, being displaced by or being incor

porated into immigrant populations (Fig. 7). Unfortunately, this rather simple scenario does not tell us much about what makes Fremont people "Fremont" or about the variation which characterized them at any one time. More importantly, it does not tell us much about the forces which drive human behavior and does not really explain how and why we have come to know the Fremont in the ways that we have. Much of how we see the Fremont is a product of the way archaeology has been conducted

during the last century, and understanding a little of the history of Fremont

archaeology is a necessary foundation to any interpretation of the Fremont.

A SHORT HISTORY OF THE FREMONT CONCEPT

The Northern Periphery (1890-1955). From the beginning of formal ar

chaeological research, the Fremont have always been defined in terms of the Anasazi. Based on the early antiquarian collecting of Fremont materials

by Don Maguire for the 1893 Chicago World's Fair, Henry Montgomery




Fig. 7. Major physiographic regions and important sites of the Fremont Complex. (1) Swallow Shelter. (2) Remnant Cave. (3) Hogup Cave. (4) Promontory Caves. (5) Bear River sites; Bear River 1, 2, 3; Levee; Knoll; Willard; Injun Creek; Warren; Great Salt Lake Wetlands sites. (6) Danger Cave. (7) Grantsville, Tooele, and Jordan River Area sites. (8) Utah Lake Area sites, Hinckley Farms, Woodard Mounds, Taylor Mounds. (9) Fish Springs sites. (10) Scribble Rock Shelter. (11) Topaz Slough. (12) Amy's Shelter. (13) Garrison, Baker Village. (14) Swallow. (15) Alta Toquima. (16) O'Malley Shelter. (17) Median Village, Evans Mound, Paragonah. (18) Beaver. (19) Marysvale. (20) Five Finger Ridge, Icicle Bench. (21) Elsinore Burial. (22) Backhoe Village. (23) Kanosh. (24) Pharo Village. (25) Nephi. (26) Ephraim. (27) Nawthis Village, Round Spring. (28) Innocents Ridge, Clyde's Cavern, Pint-Size Shelter. (29) Sudden Shelter, Aspen Shelter, Snake Rock, Poplar Knob, Old Woman, 1-70 sites. (30) Fremont River area sites. (31) Alvey, Triangle Cave. (32) Sunny Beaches. (33) Bull Creek area sites. (34) Cowboy Cave. (35) Windy Ridge, Power Pole Knoll, Crescent Ridge. (36) Cedar Siding Shelter. (37) Nine Mile Canyon area sites, Sky House, Upper Sky House, Four Name House. (38) Felter Hill, Flat Top Butte. (39) Whiterock Village, Caldwell Village, Steinaker Gap. (40) Dinosaur National Monument sites, Boundary Village, Wholeplace,

Wagon Run, Burnt House, Cub Creek sites, Deluge Shelter. (41) Yampa River area sites, Brown's Park, Mantle's Cave. (42) Texas Overlook. (43) Hill Creek area sites, Long Mesa.

(44) Turner-Look. (45) Coombs Cave. (46) Tamarron.




(1894, p. 234) described the people who produced these pots and projectile points as agriculturalists who were .. part of a large nation in possession of . . . almost all of the Southwestern portion of this Continent." More

formal work by Neil Judd (1917, 1919, 1926) at sites along the eastern margin of the Great Basin served to "establish a cultural kinship between

them and recognized Pueblo ruins elsewhere" (Judd, 1926, p. 1). A. V.

Kidder (1924) used Judd's work to include what was to become known as

the Fremont as part of a Southwest culture area. This definition of a

"Northern Periphery" was reified 3 years later during the first Pecos Con

ference (Kidder, 1927; see also Steward, 1933a) and the Fremont became

firmly fixed as a sort of poor man's Anasazi: people who grew maize, beans, and squash, made pottery, and lived in pit house villages, but who, as the

country bumpkin cousins of the Anasazi, were too backward to live in mul

tistory masonry dwellings. The term "Fremont Culture" was first employed by Noel Morss (1931)

to identify and describe materials recovered by the Claflin-Emerson Expe dition from sites along the Fremont/Muddy River drainage in south-central Utah. While these material remains exhibited some characteristics of the

Anasazi, Morss (1931, p. 77) felt that the "Fremont culture ... is not an

integral part of the main stream of Southwestern development." Further, the "originality shown in many details of their culture makes it difficult to

think of the Fremonters as merely a backward Southwestern tribe . . .

[They were] on the whole, as well fed, clothed, housed and generally com

fortable as their Pueblo II contemporaries" (Morss, 1931, p. 78). Not only were many of the artifact types unique, but the Fremont differed from the

Anasazi in being mobile farmer/foragers with a mixed subsistence base who ". . . moved about, in all probability living on the flats in summer and cul

tivating maize, and in the winter camping in sheltered canyons around the mountains and devoting themselves to hunting" (Morss, 1931, pp. 76-77). Morss felt that the Fremont were distinct not only from the Anasazi to the south, but from the Great Basin horticulturalists identified by Judd and

others, restricting them areally to drainages of the Green River and as far north as the Uinta Basin in northeastern Utah.

Few were willing to concede the distinctiveness pointed out by Morss, and the Northern Periphery concept held sway for more than two decades after the publication of his monograph. This was particularly true in the eastern Great Basin, where horticultural village sites excavated by Steward

(1933a, b), Gillin (1941), and Taylor (1954) continued to be identified sepa rately from the "Fremont" and grouped together loosely under the rubric of "Northern Periphery" and, later, "Puebloid" (Smith, 1941), While the subsistence base associated with the occupation of these open structural sites was thought to have a substantial foraging component, fully mobile,




full-time contemporary foragers identified at sites like the Promontory and Black Rock Caves were categorized as a completely separate "culture" by Julian Steward and his students at the University of Utah. Unlike Morss, who identified disparate cave and open structural sites as products of mo bile "Fremont" farmer/foragers, Steward separated them into a mobile,

hunting and gathering, Athabaskan speaking, "Promontory Culture" (Stew ard, 1937) and a sedentary, farming, "Northern Periphery" (Steward, 1933a, b) culture, which apparently coexisted for at least several centuries.

This notion of separate Great Basin farming and foraging "cultures" was challenged by Jack Rudy. Based on extensive survey work and some limited test excavations of cave sites, Rudy held that the "Puebloids" (he felt the phrase "Northern Periphery" was denigrating) "were gathering hunting peoples relying only secondarily upon horticulture

" (Rudy, 1953,

p. 169). Like Morss* "Fremont," the "Puebloids were a semisedentary peo

ple who built houses and practiced limited horticulture, [but whose] de pendence ... on gathering and hunting to supplement their diet is attested

by the large number of camp sites where numerous points and flaked stone

artifacts as well as Puebloid pottery are found" (Rudy, 1953, p. 4). In many respects, the interpretations of Rudy and his contemporaries exemplify the blind men and the elephant nature of Fremont research which has char acterized interpretation of the Fremont Complex from the very beginning, and which continues to the present (Janetski and Talbot, 1997a, p. 3). That

is, those whose interpretations are associated with their work at temporary camp sites tend to see the Fremont as mobile foragers, while those whose research is focused on horticultural village sites tend to see them as sed

entary farmers. To the east, in the "Fremont" area proper, where many horticultural

village sites were excavated after the 1930s (e.g., Gillin, 1938; but see Burgh and Scoggin, 1948), the latter view was strengthened in the last and most comprehensive summary of the "Northern Periphery" (Wormington, 1955). No longer were the Fremont the mobile farmer/foragers of Morss, but rather the "Fremont people were agriculturalists and grew corn, beans, and

squash" (Wormington, 1955, p. 173). While they "depended on hunting to a greater extent than is usual for agriculturists," and "there was an unusu

ally large dependence on wild plant products," the Fremont lived in per manent houses associated with numerous storage structures and appeared to be essentially sedentary farmers. In all but a few material culture dif

ferences, they were very much like the Puebloid people to the west and,

together with them, could be categorized, in Wormington's view, as a more

unified and tightly defined "Northern Periphery." This first step toward a unified concept of the Fremont was quickly

followed in 1956 by publication of the results of a symposia series sponsored




by the Society for American Archaeology. Members of the Southwest sym posium jointly recommended that the many similarities of the Puebloid and Fremont cultures be recognized by a change in nomenclature. Henceforth, horticulturalists in both the Great Basin and the northern Colorado Plateau would jointly be recognized as "Fremont," with a basic difference between

groups in the two geographical provinces recognized by the addition of a modifier separately identifying people in the west as "Sevier Fremont"

(Jennings, 1956). Fremont Variants (1956-1980). Now that the "Fremont" were no longer

peripheral to other Southwestern peoples and had been recognized as a

distinctive, albeit poorly defined, cultural entity, Fremont researchers saw

their job to be primarily twofold: to classify the Fremont into hierarchical cultural categories identified by discrete traits and to figure out where they came from and what happened to them. For the most part, the majority of archaeologists agreed that at least the initial aspect of the latter question had been largely answered. The Fremont were thought to be essentially a

product of in situ Archaic hunter/gatherers adopting maize/beans/squash horticulture from the Southwest, together with many of the tools associated with the use of domesticates. Suggestions that the Fremont were actually Anasazi people who moved north (e.g., Gillin, 1938; Gunnerson, 1960;

Meighan et al.9 1956) were largely ignored. That apparent unanimity rapidly changed in the 1960s when attempts

were made to reconcile the enigmatic "Promontory Culture" of Steward

(1937) with the rest of the Fremont. Gunnerson (1960) initiated the discord by following up Steward's correlation of the Promontory Culture and Athabaskan speakers with a detailed trait list correlation between artifacts of the protohistoric Dismal River Apache and those found by Steward and others in the caves around the Great Salt Lake. Aikens (1966) took excep tion to this reconstruction, but only its chronological aspects, suggesting that the Promontory Culture was but a "variant" of the Fremont and that the intrusion of Plains Athapaskans took place much earlier than Gunner

son, and even Steward, thought. Since the Fremont as a whole were now a coherent cultural entity, that meant that all the "proto-Fremont people were bison hunters of Northwestern Plains origin, probably Athapascans. They expanded westward and southward into Utah at approximately A.D. 500 [and] synthesized, from Plains and Anasazi elements, a mixed hunt

ing-horticultural economy. . . . After approximately A.D. 1400-1600, [they] drifted eastward [and] merged with Plains culture to develop the culture

represented by the Dismal River aspect . . ." (Aikens, 1966, p. 10). In one fell swoop Aikens (1966) thus solved the questions of both

where the Fremont came from and what happened to them. Unfortunately, few Plains specialists and even fewer Fremont practitioners agreed with




him, and the prevailing opinion on Fremont origins continued to be one of Southwestern horticultural traits added to an Archaic hunter-gatherer base. As for the "ultimate fate" of the Fremont, opinions continued to be

mixed, with some suggesting that the Fremont withdrew to the south to

become the Hopi (Wormington, 1955), others that they reverted to a fully mobile foraging lifestyle and were eventually absorbed by Numic-speaking populations (e.g., Jennings, 1960; Rudy, 1953), while still others believed that the Fremont actually were the original Numic-speaking peoples and

spread out to occupy historically known areas (e.g., Gunnerson, 1969). As a result, Aikens' basic thesis, while stimulating, was rather short-lived. It

did, however, have a major by-product in that many began to heed Aikens'

(1966, p. 88) suggestion that "the internal characteristics of the Fremont culture require further study. Areal divergences within the Fremont culture in Utah have been recognized, and require more thorough explication. The

exploitive cycle or schedule of Fremont horticulturists-hunters is yet unknown."

This call for the study of Fremont variants was almost immediately answered by Ambler (1966b) and Marwitt (1970). Based on a surge of new

descriptive studies, primarily of open village sites (e.g., Aikens, 1967; Am

bler, 1966a; Breternitz, 1970; Fry and Dalley, 1979; Leach, 1966; Marwitt, 1968; Sharrock, 1966; Sharrock and Marwitt, 1967; Shields, 1967, n.d.; Shields and Dalley, 1978; Taylor, 1954, 1957), Ambler and Marwitt both expanded the number of Fremont "subcultures" (e.g., Aikens, 1966) from two to five (Fig. 8). Although the definitions of these "variants" differed only in detail, Marwitt's treatment received the most play, despite being

largely derivative, since his dissertation was published in a widely distrib uted monograph series, while Ambler's dissertation had only limited dis tribution. As a result, the names applied by Marwitt have largely been followed.

Three of the five variants, the Parowan, the Sevier, and the Great Salt

Lake (from south to north), were in the Great Basin, and two, the San

Rafael and the Uinta (also from south to north), were on the Colorado Plateau. Both Ambler and Marwitt defined the "Fremont as a single cul

tural tradition with a number of regional variants ... [and] the entire area

representing the extent of Fremont culture is considered here an areal tra

dition . . . taxonomically equivalent to Anasazi" (Marwitt, 1970, p. 136;

original italics). In a number of instances, Marwitt was also able to define

temporal differences as well as spatial differences, and he identified se

quent phases for the Parowan, Great Salt Lake, and Uinta Fremont based on a wide array of newly available radiocarbon dates. The regional variants were defined on the basis of "congeries of traits," although "the defining traits are not all evenly distributed within a particular region and trait




Fig. 8. Fremont "variants" as defined by Richard Ambler (1966b).

gradients or transitional zones are apparent between regions" (Marwitt, 1970, p. 138). As a result, Marwitt (1970, p. 138) considered the regional boundaries to be only "gross approximation of possible cultural boundaries

subject to modification," as additional data allowed the boundaries to be more tightly defined.

The definition of these regional variants received almost immediate

acceptance, with the call for better definition of their "boundaries" direct

ing much of Fremont research for the next decade. Initially, refinements of these regional variants continued to be made through more comprehen sive lists of material traits, but this trait list approach ran into trouble al most immediately. Ambler (1970, p. 2), for example, in trying to define "Just What is Fremont," was "rather surprised [to find that] one of the




principal difficulties in the use of trait lists to define the Fremont is the problem that there are actually rather few distinctive and typical traits that are found over the entire area usually considered to be Fremont." Marwitt's

variants, despite the claim that they were based on "congeries" of traits, were defined primarily on the basis of pottery differences (e.g., Madsen, 1970; R. Madsen, 1977), and other kinds of artifact categories, such as pro jectile points and house types, soon proved to have markedly different kinds of distributions. However, Marwitt (1970, p. 138) also suggested that his regional variants had "more-or-less distinct ecological correlates . . . [al though] ... a defensible ecological definition of each variant is not possible at present." In keeping with larger trends in American archaeology, this

helped shift research toward Fremont cultural ecology. The focus of the cultural ecology studies which followed Marwitt's

summary was on "adaptation" and on the environmental settings where Fremont sites were found rather than on material traits, but these ecologi cally based definitions of Fremont variants ultimately suffered from the same basic problem as did the earlier artifact based definitions. The same

diversity which plagued trait list definitions of the Fremont made these

environmentally defined variants equally fuzzy because environmental traits were merely added to material traits in the definition of prehistoric "cul tures." For example, Madsen and Lindsay (1977; see also Madsen, 1979) questioned the five-variant classification scheme of Marwitt and Ambler based principally on differences and similarities in environmental settings and land-use patterns. They suggested instead a reversion to the larger categories of the Basin Sevier and Plateau Fremont, with the possible ad dition of a yet-to-be-named Plains-derived "culture." However, because of internal variability within each area, these proved to be just as unwieldy as the "cultures" derived through artifact trait lists, and they were ulti

mately no more useful and no more widely accepted. A more fruitful aspect of these cultural ecology approaches to under

standing the Fremont was a more intense focus on subsistence and settle ment patterns than was the case in earlier Fremont studies. Berry (1972, pp. 158-164), using a "systems" approach, created a subsistence model for the Parowan Fremont which identified horticulture as the defining charac teristic of settled Fremont village life in that area. Dynamism was introduced when Berry modeled three "system states" correlating changes in maize pro duction with the exploitation of wild foods. He argued that "none of the wild species exploited by the aboriginal populations was productive enough to allow sedentism in lieu of adequate crop yields" (Berry, 1974, p. 70; also

1972, pp. 163-164), and during periods of decreased maize production, peo

ple would disperse from the farming sites and become hunter-gatherers. "Two distinct adaptive strategies (agricultural and hunter-gatherer) were, in




part, contemporaneously practiced within the areas encompassed by the Parowan variant. The hunter-gatherer population aggregates were probably derived from households that had formerly practiced agriculture" (Berry, 1972, p. 169).

Madsen and Lindsay (1977) raised the possibility that settled Fremont village life along the western margin of the Wasatch Plateau was due, at

least in part, to a reliance on the collection of wild plants, particularly marsh resources, supplemented by maize agriculture. They based this hy pothesis on the distribution of village sites in or near marsh ecosystems and on pollen from the floors of many structures at the central Utah site of Backhoe Village, which suggested that an array of wild plant types, par

ticularly cattails, were heavily utilized. The seeming contrast between Berry

(sedentary by virtue of maize) and Madsen and Lindsay (sedentary in places because of concentrated wild food supplies) opened up the issue of Fre mont variability in behavior. Berry glimpsed the problem when he wrote, "Fremont specialists have primarily concerned themselves with minor re

alignments of his [Marwitt's] culture-variant 'boundaries/ leaving the broader concept of Fremont as a "unique" entity unchallenged" (Berry and

Berry, 1976, p. 37). Berry advocated a rereading of J. O. Brew's (1946) "The Use and Abuse of Taxonomy," a suggestion that in retrospect seems even more relevant 20 years later.

It was becoming clear that Fremont specialists were beginning to spin their wheels, and the results of a 1978 Fremont symposium intended to

produce some consensus were modest at best (Madsen, 1980). While eve

ryone agreed that there was some phenomenon that could be labeled "Fre

mont," few could agree on what it was. Some felt that the Fremont was a

"Culture" and that "any population which constructs Fremont basketry is Fremont" (Adovasio, 1980, p. 40; original italics), but most felt more com fortable thinking of the Fremont as, at best, a culture area encompassing a variety of groups operating in a variety of ways.

Behavior and Fremont Farmer/Foragers (1980-1998). By 1980 it was clear that the long struggle to define what amounts to ethnic and or linguistic identities among Formative complexes north of the Anasazi had ended in failure. While the Fremont were distinctive enough to preclude explanation as a result of mass migration from outside their known area, there was so much internal variation that it was impossible to define bounded cultural entities using any criteria, from tools to food sources to site types. The re action to this failure was varied, and for a while Fremont research seemed at loose ends. Some viewed this failure as a product of the limited material record and contended that archaeologists could never (or rarely) address the kinds of ethnicity questions that had structured Fremont research in the

past (e.g., Adovasio, 1980). Some tried, but the difficulty of bridging the




cultural ecology common to American archaeology at the time and the trait lists of Fremont culture history is apparent in an ill-fated attempt to develop "a composite model" (Anderson, 1983). There was an emerging sense that the very concept of "Culture" was at the heart of the problem. This view

was some time in developing, but it had its roots in the growing consensus

(e.g., Hogan and Sebastian, 1980; Holmer, 1980; Madsen, 1979) that the problem with the definition of Fremont "subcultures" was more a product of theoretical orientation than it was of poor or confusing data.

By 1982 this view began to crystallize. First, there was the recognition that the Fremont were composed not merely of farmers who did a lot of

foraging for wild foods, but distinct groups of farmers and hunter-gatherers. In summarizing the Fremont of the eastern Great Basin, Madsen (1982a, p. 218) pointed out that "despite the relative uniformity in tools and other artifact types, subsistence and settlement modes ranged from sedentary groups dependent on both domesticated and locally procured wild re

sources, to sedentary groups dependent primarily on local wild resources, to nomadic groups dependent on resources from a variety of ecological zones," and recognized that "the presence of nomadic collectors/harvesters who made the same tools (including pottery) and either grew or traded for corn does not Tit' well with the classic definitions of Formative Stage cultures. . . ."

Second, there was a shift toward an elucidation of "behavior" as an

alternative to the preoccupation with definitions, categories, and bounda ries based on a narrow model of culture comprised of shared traditions

and, by implication, identity, and even language. Madsen (1982b) found it difficult to classify a site along the southern margin of the Fremont/Anasazi

interface, speculating that people there could as well be called "Freazi" or

"Anamont" and bemoaning a cultural/historical approach which required such labels. O'Connell et al (1982) called for a shift away from both culture history and cultural ecology and toward theoretically based attempts to "re construct behavior." They proposed "... that one cannot successfully in

terpret and explain past behavior patterns except in terms of some

consistent theoretical perspective that identifies the principles underlying these patterns and provides the basis for predicting the forms they might take under various circumstances" (O'Connell et al9 1982, p. 236). Based on work at seasonally occupied sites in the Sevier Desert, Simms (1986), like others before him, directed attention to the patterns from small sites but attempted to operationalize the behavioral goal using the concept of

adaptive diversity. This referred to behavioral plasticity during the life his tory of individuals, a plasticity which may be accompanied by residential

cycling between settled and nomadic populations. Similarly, in a summary of the Fremont designed around this same behavioral perspective, Madsen




(1989, pp. 27-28) emphasized that Fremont variability does not consist of people with different types of shared behavior, but rather that "a single individual may well have lived the entire range of variation, from full-time farmer in a settled village to full-time mobile hunter-gatherer, in the space of a few years." All of these are views which exemplify the dynamism and unboundedness of a behavioral perspective.

By the end of the decade, the abandonment of "culture" as an organ

izing concept and a focus on "behavior" as a research strategy had infiltrated much of Fremont archaeology, probably because the old goal of creating more classifications, while offering the pretense of originality, failed to lead to any new understanding. We have strongly advocated this point of view. In 1989/1990 we pointed out that "it is our concept of culture which is at the heart of our problem in defining the Fremont. [We have] tended to see

culture as something tangible; something having boundaries and limits and

which can be placed in categories. [But culture is] more elastic, a kind of unbounded social environment in which individuals find themselves. [As a

result,] ... we cannot always expect to define clearly recognizable sets of

traits that identify prehistoric 'cultures,' and that the problems Fremont ar

chaeologists have had over the last half-century in trying to define the limits of Fremont culture and its variants, may not be due to poor excavation tech

niques or insufficient amounts of data, but to the fact that such limits do not exist" (Madsen, 1989, pp. 23-24). Rather than view the Fremont as a

"culture," it was suggested that we use ". . . the term 'Fremont' as an um

brella which includes a diversity of human behavior" (Madsen, 1989, p. 67). Nearly 60 years after Morss (1931) had first defined the Fremont, it was clear that the "... historical preoccupation with defining the Fremont has

outgrown its usefulness. The concept is a stereotype, routinely confusing the variables of material culture, techno-economic patterns, language, and eth

nicity, [and] . . . presents a naive and reductionistic scenario of prehistoric cultures. [The Fremont should] be examined from a behavioral rather than a cultural perspective" (Simms, 1990, p. 1).

The recognition that we can do more with the Fremont is now wide

spread, and most current workers seem to use the term as an umbrella

covering an array of behaviors. There remains, however, a tendency to see

variability itself as just a fancy way to classify the Fremont along a one dimensional forager-farmer continuum, a tendency which fails to come to

grips with the implications of adaptive diversity and a less bounded concept of culture. The utility of recent proposals for yet additional categories in the absence of theoretically informed questions awaits demonstration [e.g., the "Tavaputs Phase" (Spangler, 1995) or the "Gateway Tradition" (Home et aL, 1994)]. Nor has the concern with finding a unitary definition of the Fremont expired. One recent Alexandrian solution used in classifying the




diversity of behaviors encompassed by the term "Fremont" is simply to limit that diversity by definition (Talbot and Richens, 1996, pp. 13-14, 197). In this view, only farmers are Fremont, and foragers are perforce not Fremont even though they may make "Fremont" basketry (contra Adovasio, 1980) or pottery. By definition, this implies that people must have sometimes

been Fremont and sometimes not in instances where they lived an agricul tural lifeway while they were young, but in middle age no longer did (contra

Madsen, 1989; Simms, 1986,1999). This view denies study of the life history of individuals by substituting the term "adaptive strategy" for the old terms "culture" and "peoples."

The dominant current view is that the Fremont can be anything we

want the Fremont to be, and in several recent treatises, distinctions among researchers and research interests have been drawn as a way to accommo

date eclecticism. Some researchers are "stretching outward in search of

variability, while others cling to evidence of cohesion within the Fremont world" (Wilde and Talbot, 1996, p. 14), some search for "patterns," and still others ask what "causes variations" (see Janetski and Talbot, 1997a,

p. 9). This apparent eclectisism is deceiving in that it masks a theoretical void which currently seems to plague Fremont research. The Fremont can

be all things to all people only because we have devised no way to come to grips with the many ways in which farmers and foragers were operating in the region and with how they were interacting with one another. While

we subscribe to an interest in what causes patterning and hold that because

patterning amounts to varying mixes of alternative behaviors selected from extant variation, it is impossible to study pattern without knowing variabil

ity. A coherent model of Fremont foragers and Fremont farmers remains to be drawn, but it will have to avoid the delusion that we can understand

what went on in prehistory by definitional proclamation.

A BEHAVIORAL MODEL OF MIXED FARMERS AND FORAGERS

To provide a context organizing the variation and patterning that com

prises the Fremont complex, we outline here a behavioral model that de

scribes the circumstances encountered by people during the Fremont

period. At the same time, we seek to build upon previous Fremont culture

history by avoiding another description cast in terms of cultures and their

boundaries, with accompanying descriptions of "interactions" among these

conceptually closed entities. Our goal is a model reflecting the dynamics of life. Such a model must incorporate change in the frequencies of alter native behaviors over time and recognize that behavioral variation is ex

pressed within cultural systems (resulting from competition and conflicts




of interest), not just between them. It must also incorporate the fact that

identity, ideological belief, and language exhibit plasticity as well as per sistence and that, while they are part of the environment that shapes decision-making, they are an evolutionary result of "the tyranny of circum stance" (Blurton-Jones, 1991, p. 95).

Aspects of the Fremont archaeological record that may be organized by such a model include the time- and space-transgressive nature of the

spread of traits, the variation in adaptive strategies, the fragmentary nature

of the Fremont "demise," and the degree of synchrony in process between the Fremont and patterns elsewhere, most notably the American Southwest and the Great Basin. Like all theoretical statements, this model is com

posed of categories. They are devised, however, to recognize that while there is unity in the Fremont pattern in some respects, there is also a de

gree of variation that makes it impossible to define the Fremont in any but the most trivial and indefensible manner. By modeling the circum stances in which people of the Fremont period interacted, we can move on to a more human understanding of the prehistoric record, model the reasons for the diversity, and better address issues of social boundary for

mation, maintenance, and change, We are interested in a model of behavior that recognizes the dynamism found across cultures in the historically known world, a dynamism that is often denied in idealized archaeological reconstructions.

The historical foundation for describing the behavioral circumstances of the Fremont period centers around the appearance of agriculture in a

region occupied by Late Archaic foragers. These foragers had a long history in the area and exhibited diversity in adaptive strategies. Some were teth ered to productive, but variable wetland habitats, which conditioned the

tempo of mobility and the intensity of use of surrounding areas. Others were foragers of the deserts and mountains moving among patches but po tentially tethered at times to productive areas or caches of stored foods.

The Late Archaic was a mosaic of adaptive strategies that ranged along a

continuum from the settled to the nomadic, but a continuum also exhibiting a temporal dimension in the expression of mobility (Kelly, 1995, 1997; Upham, 1994). This diversity is unified under the term Late Archaic by a material culture that extends widely across western North America. The

degree of Late Archaic ethnic and linguistic variability across the area that would later be called Fremont is unknown, but the general trend through time is toward greater differentiation with increasing population (Madsen, 1999). However, there may also have been broad connections of language and other integrative features across the Late Archaic of the Colorado Pla teau and the Great Basin. At the Archaic-Fremont transition, some in

digenous populations adopted agriculture by incorporating cultigens into




their adaptive strategy, probably in places where mobility was either teth ered or spatially redundant. Other people found that an agricultural option was not in their immediate favor and rejected it. Still others with a farming way of life may have migrated into the region, colonizing unoccupied areas, areas occupied by low density foragers, or areas of indigenous foragers who were beginning to practice farming. The implications of this historical foun dation for constructing a model are several.

First, the farming transition is not simply a matter of farmers encoun

tering foragers, regardless of whether the farmers are indigenous converts or immigrating colonists. Diversity in Late Archaic adaptive strategies must be taken into account if we are to understand the spread of agriculture into the Fremont area. This issue has been obscured by the tendency to see horticultural sedentism and nomadic foraging as polar types, discount

ing the evidence that the Archaic of western North America had long ex

hibited instances of decreased mobility in the absence of agriculture. Second, the circumstances faced by indigenous peoples changed, re

gardless of whether they adopted farming or not. This point should also hold for interactions among foragers at and perhaps beyond the fringe of the agricultural spread, since the impact of the agricultural transition ex

tends beyond the area where it can be recognized through the presence of

farming societies. Thus, a continuation of foraging during Fremont times is not simply a continuation of the Late Archaic. For the foragers of the Fremont period, the Late Archaic no longer existed. This issue has been obscured by the bounded nature of cultural-historical discourse, where the

workings of prehistory are sacrificed for the convenience of evolutionary stage terminology (e.g., Archaic/Formative, Mesolithic/Neolithic), a habit that diverts attention from evolutionary processes such as selection from

among alternative forms.

Third, the circumstances of farmers must include the impact of fora

gers in an area because the matter of influence is far from being a one

way street. This dynamic has been obscured by the tendency to describe

the prehistory of regions in terms of the most archaeologically visible pat terns, in this case, that of farmers. A similar problem in the nearby Ameri can Southwest has led to conceptual shifts significant to the Fremont case.

Plog (1984) refers to the archaeological record of farmers as "strong" pat terns, contrasting with the "weak" patterns of foragers. Upham (1988,1994) contends that there are "two archaeologies" in western North America, one associated with foragers of the Archaic period, followed by farmers "that are generally referred to as Formative, despite the fact that both gath erer/hunters and agriculturalists were common features of the landscape"

(Upham, 1994, pp. 119-120).




Finally, the Fremont period is over 1200 years long, and while change has always been recognized, the model we promote here casts this change, in terms of cultural variability organized not as variants, phases, or any number of other kinds of subdivisions, but as changing contexts of selection. The concept of selection focuses on the processes by which patterns we

recognize as archaeological cultures are produced from behavioral variabil

ity. This is an advantage over those who see patterning and variability as

mutually exclusive categories, since within the context of selection they are

merely aspects of the same evolutionary process. The historical bases for modeling Fremont behavior combine in vari

ous ways. They weave through a four-part model of the contexts of selection we term here behavioral options, matrix modification, symbiosis, and

switching strategies. As in all archaeology, the success or failure of theo retical models in adding new insights hinges on the ability to recognize past behavior in the archaeological record. We do not, however, propose a specific archaeological manifestation for each context of selection. Each context of selection is a form or subset of the others, and they are not

mutually exclusive. The exceptions may be symbiosis and switching strate

gies, which may or may not occur in association. We thus organize our

discussion of archaeological manifestations by context of selection, not with the intent of separating matrix modification from behavioral options, but to show how each context of selection illustrates aspects of the Fremont

archaeological record. Our intent is to redirect which questions are asked and how data are used, not redefine the Fremont.

Behavioral Options. This context of selection points to an ever-present dynamic, a dynamic that plays out not simply between cultures, but between

groups of people with competing interests. The transition from the Late Archaic to the Fremont changed the behavioral options available to people by increasing both the number and the kinds of technological and social

concepts from which they were able to learn and select. There is more to this transition, however, than a unidirectional diffusion of cultigens and/or the migration of people leading to the Fremont. Due to the variable nature of the underlying foraging base, the concept of behavioral options cannot be applied in monolithic terms. Rather, behavioral options vary with par ticular situations, a point which should apply to any region of the world at the dawn of the food producing transition.

The situational nature of farming and foraging options is particularly critical in understanding the Fremont complex. Barlow (1998, pp. 160-161) provides an in-depth analysis of the economic efficiency of farming and for

aging among the Fremont and concludes that "... corn farming with simple technology is economically comparable to collecting and processing a variety of eminently storable seeds and nuts." She estimates that the caloric return




rates for farming maize are of the order of 300 to 1800 kcal/hr, return rates that are well within the range of many wild plant resources and substantially less than most faunal resources. Collecting a number of wild plant resources, such as cattail pollen and rhizomes, bulrush seeds, and pinyon nuts produces return rates higher than does farming maize, and ". . . the abundance [of these] resources should structure spatial and temporal variation in time in vested in farming activities" (Barlow, 1998, p. 194). That is, economic for

aging models suggest that farming should be found only where the resource

base is depressed to the point where lower-ranked seeds such as shadscale and wild rye begin to appear in the diet. In situations where high-ranked resources are abundant, farming is unlikely to occur. Farming among fora

gers, then, is a behavioral option that allows them to mediate variations in the resources base on the lower end of the efficiency scale.

Changing behavioral options can be tracked in the traditional archae

ological manner with the spatiotemporal appearance of traits such as maize, the bow and arrow, and ceramics. These data indicate the direction of in troduction and identify where gaps in the presence of the trait occur. For

example, maize, the bow and arrow, and ceramics were adopted succes

sively across the Fremont region. While maize clearly arrives from the south via Basketmaker and the later Anasazi populations, the bow and arrow

appears as part of a broad regional adoption of this technology across the Great Basin during the Late Archaic and early Fremont periods (Aikens, 1976). Initial use of the bow and arrow by some Fremont occurs when Basketmaker populations in the Southwest were still using the atlatl and

dart, despite the adoption of maize from these Southwestern populations. On the other hand, maize made up a significant portion of the diet at

Steinaker Gap in northeastern Utah by 1800 B.P. (Coltrain, 1996, p. 119), in association with atlatl and dart technology (Talbot and Richens, 1996, pp. 81-86). This illustrates the multi-directionality of trait introduction and the patchiness that is possible in the spatial distribution of traits. Ceramics are adopted by the Fremont from the Southwest four to five centuries after

maize, probably in response to changing Fremont mobility. These kinds of

patterns suggest that there is something to be gained by envisioning the Archaic to Fremont transition as less about contact between different peo

ples and more a function of local decision making by groups presented with new options.

Tracing the movement of traits in the context of increasing behavioral

options should also help distinguish the adoption of farming by indigenous

peoples versus colonization by immigrant farmers. Some caution is war

ranted here, however, because the appearance of both indigenous farming and farming brought by immigrants may occur in a patchy fashion. A classic

and oft-cited example is the differential movement of 40 material culture




traits across tribal boundaries in east Africa documented by Hodder (1977). That case is a useful reminder that inference about ethnic and linguistic boundaries dependent on one or two traits may be correct or incorrect

depending on the traits chosen, but there is no consistent way to choose

the right traits from the wrong ones. We consider the problems with dif ferentiating colonists from indigenes as part of other contexts of selection that arise from changing behavioral options.

The notion of changing behavioral options can be applied at various times during the Fremont period and holds the potential to explain pat terning in artistic styles, the appearance of ceramics among foragers in east ern Nevada, and perhaps the influx of populations associated with the Numic Spread. The concept of behavioral options is also useful in under

standing geographic regions outside the area of immediate interest and how

change can be synchronous with events in other areas. This is reminiscent of Berry's (1982) model of synchrony between Anasazi demographics of the Colorado Plateau and the southern Basin and Range regions. While these patterns were interpreted in terms of migration versus diffusion and

we do not wish to revive the notion of repeated, wholesale population movement, the attempt to direct attention to the larger picture and a more

dynamic pre-Columbian America is significant. Demographic change out

side of the Fremont area proper undoubtedly altered the behavioral options available to Fremont foragers and farmers, and the northward movement of Basketmaker-period groups in the Colorado Plateau portion of the Fre mont region may have been shaped in part by demographic change in the Southwest. Perhaps more important, however, are the relationships be tween regions expressing the strong archaeological patterns of farmers and the weak patterns of foragers. Rather than advocate a return to the days

when the hinterlands around centers of complexity such as Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, or Mesa Verde, Colorado, were mere epiphenomena of

change at the centers, we suggest that the relationships may be more subtle than mass migration or an expectation of routine movement of "tradeware"

ceramics, since neither characterizes the boundary between the Anasazi and the Fremont. The relationships may, nevertheless, be significant when viewed in demographic terms and as spheres of influence. This perspective has been useful in understanding the seeming hodgepodge typical of the weak archaeological patterns surrounding Chaco Canyon, such as the Zuni, Acoma, and Albuquerque areas, in light of the dynamics of Chaco, without

attributing boundaries to the vague and behaviorally unrealistic concept of shared cultural traditions (Tainter and Plog, 1994). We suggest that a broader picture framed in terms of spheres of influence and strong versus weak patterns may help organize the hodgepodge of the variable patterning characteristic of the Fremont region.




Matrix Modification. The presence of farmers alters both the physical and the social environment of indigenous foragers and, thus, represents a

specific expression of behavioral options. As a subset of changing behav ioral options, matrix modification emphasizes the impact the appearance of farming has on the settings in which both foragers and farmers lived, and on how change in these selective contexts affected the decisions people made. In other words, the concept of matrix modification focuses on the circumstances that shape behavior, rather than on trying to define the Fre mont by tracing the spread of styles and artifacts. For example, the de

pression of the local foraging resource base and constraints on the movement of foragers created by the presence of sedentary farmers alter the behavior of indigenous foragers regardless of whether or not they en counter new technological and social concepts.

A hallmark of Fremont development was the appearance of local

population centers such as the Parowan Valley, the Sevier Valley, the Wasatch Front, and perhaps the east Tavaputs Plateau, to name a few. The chronology of relatively large Fremont sites is consistent with the proposition that farming promoted a dynamic mosaic of intensified human presence. Occupations at most of these large sites were accretional and/or

episodic. Talbot and Wilde (1989) attempted to document variations over

time and space in the intensity of Fremont occupations using compilations of radiocarbon dates. Massimino and Metcalfe (1998), on the other hand,

suggest that the sample sizes of dates in most regions are not yet large enough to support the degree of patterning proposed by Talbot and Wilde, and for the Fremont complex as a whole, radiocarbon dates increase and decrease in a classic uninterrupted battleship curve. Clearly, there is still some work to do before we can fully describe this mosaic across the Fre

mont region. Nevertheless, the emerging picture, apparent in studies of

fluctuating intensities of trading patterns (McDonald, 1994) and in sum maries of radiocarbon data on a more local level (e.g., Spangler, 1999b), is that sites and locales experience punctuations in the intensity of occu

pation within a general theme of growth across the Fremont region. This holds implications for human impact upon the environment and for the

relationships between people using contrasting adaptive strategies. Any in crease in understanding the behavioral constraints imposed by matrix modi fication can only help attempts to identify and understand the social,

linguistic, and boundary formation processes that arise from these circum stances of living.

Janetski (1997) provides the first attempt to document the Fremont impact upon large game populations using archaeologically recovered faunal remains and concludes that declining foraging efficiencies is evident in some

locales. A similar decrease has been noted in a number of ethnographic and




archaeological situations where settled, growing populations occur (e.g., Broughton, 1994; Szuter and Bayham, 1989). In a sense, Barlow's (1998) work suggests there may be something of a feedback loop associated with

farming, in that decreased mobility associated with crop production likely reduced the local abundance of higher ranked plant resources. This in creased diet breadth and made farming more attractive than foraging for more abundant but lower ranked wild foods. In instances such as these, we

may see stylistic demarcation between these islands of farmers and the fora

gers of the hinterlands as a by-product of the reduced resource base between the two. On the other hand, this sort of spatial segregation caused by matrix

modification may, at the same time, promote connections of a more prag matic sort, creating the characteristic hodgepodge of traits found in the Fre mont. The concept of adaptive diversity helps make sense of this facet of interaction. Adaptive diversity refers to behavioral plasticity during the life

history of individuals, a plasticity which may be accompanied by residential cycling between settled and nomadic populations (Madsen, 1989; Simms, 1986; Rushforth and Upham, 1992, pp. 52-57; Upham, 1984, 1994).

This can be expressed in several ways. Pockets of intensification may become sinks for surrounding foragers whose ranges are disrupted and who cannot adjust to the circumscription caused by the presence of farm ers (Upham, 1994). Variability in the production of cultigens and the avail ability of high-ranked wild resources may also select for residential cycling of people into and out of the farming system. At times this process may be stimulated by the inherent instability of farming, with alternate sur

pluses and shortfalls, as well as the negative health effects of the more

crowded conditions associated with raising crops. On the other hand, when intensification is successful and production produces surplus, it usually combines with reduced mobility to stimulate population growth. When an inevitable drop in production occurs, farmers must either cycle excess

population into the surrounding area as colonists seeking new farming areas, intensify labor input to attempt to meet the growing need, or shift to foraging.

Upham (1994, p. 139) argues that as villagers "fell out" of farming and joined nomadic groups, and as nomads "experienced sedentarization

through impoverishment. .. . Both groups probably entered their new life

ways in positions of greatly reduced status." This leads to an important observation: the spread of farming is a disruptive force modifying the matrix of selection. As social, ethnic, and linguistic boundaries are crossed, cir cumstances fostering increased stylistic demarcation may occur. On the other hand, the demographic fluidity of individuals, families, and camp groups who are forced into change, often through unfortunate circum

stances, lays the foundation for change in social organization, language,




and ethnicity by introducing new behavioral options resulting from status differentiation, new alliances, intergroup marriages, and opportunities cre

ated by multilingualism. The cultural trajectories created by these circumstances should vary

depending on whether the spread of farming was via the adoption of farm

ing by indigenous foragers or migrant colonists bringing farming into a re gion. The different material culture fingerprints these alternative processes

produce can potentially be investigated archaeologically. The existing net works among indigenous peoples would provide greater continuity and tend to crystallize into recognizable archaeological patterns across sites and

subregions, but probably not as units of shared cultural traditions, given the dynamism in the early transition to farming. Indigenous adoption seems to be the primary process by which farming spread in the Fremont case.

On the other hand, there is evidence that migrant colonists also play a role in the transition. In these cases, contrast among sites, isolated patterns, less regional continuity at least initially, and patterns of stylistic blending from contrasting sources should be more apparent.

Symbiosis. This refers to a subset of matrix modification and results after farming is established and the conflicts, interactions, and movement characteristic of adaptive diversity lead to mutual interdependence. Speth (1991) observes that periods of subsistence shortfall for farmers are often

asynchronous with those of foragers. This leads to exchange, which may be

represented by exotic trade items, but which, at the root, amounts to the movement of food and people. Headland and Reid (1989) contend that where farming and hunting/gathering adaptations cooccur throughout the world, hunter-gatherers rarely operate in isolation. Rather, they tend to

form symbiotic relationships with local farming groups which serve as the basis for economic, social, and ideological exchange. While some continue to see foragers as social isolates (e.g., Schrire, 1984), most archaeologists and ethnologists (e.g., Davis, 1996) now view continuing relationships be tween foragers and farmers as quite common, and fundamentally successful,

adaptive strategies that maximize the advantages of what are essentially different ecological niches.

These symbiotic relationships can take many forms (e.g., Solway and

Lee, 1990), but most common is that of a symbiotic dyad which can be either

egalitarian or hierarchical in nature. Symbiotic dyads most often take the latter form (Jolly, 1996), with status differences, and something of a client

patron relationship, developing between hunter-gatherers and the farming groups with which they interact. In these hierarchical dyads, behavioral

changes tend to be unidirectional, with the lower status hunter-gatherers

adopting many of the social characteristics, including language and symbol ism, as well as material culture items, of the higher-status farmers. As a




result, it is often difficult, archaeologically, to detect a difference between farmers occasionally acting as foragers and foragers and farmers acting in

terdependently, since many of the tools and even the rock art symbols they employ are the same [e.g., Upham, 1994; see Mazel (1989) and Parkington and Hall (1987) for examples outside the Southwest].

The manner in which symbiosis is reflected in the archaeological re

cord is important to how research questions are framed. For instance, it

may be tempting to search for the identification of the farmers versus the foragers. In the event that clear contrast is shown, as may be the case in the Glen Canyon area, where Geib (1996) argues for ethnic delineation between Basketmaker II Southwestern populations and early Fremont

populations to the north, then a symbiotic dyad may not be present. On the other hand, while there may be significant distinctions between these populations, the strength of the distinction varies depending on which ma

terial remains are employed. Ceramics in the Glen Canyon area seem to

indicate greater demarcation than projectile points, but this may have as much to do with the differential behavior of men and women as it does with marking an ethnic boundary (Holmer and Weder, 1980; Madsen, 1989; Simms, 1990). We discuss this case further in a later section, but our pur pose here is to show that even in cases where ethnic boundaries may be

suggested, interesting behavioral questions remain about the nature of in teraction across these boundaries.

We think it likely that symbiotic dyads were part of the Fremont com

plex, if only because they are so common throughout the world in places where both foragers and farmers are found together. We cannot, however,

always offer an archaeological demonstration of that likelihood because of the tendency for foragers to adopt the "cultural clothing" of local farming communities (Jolly, 1996, p. 279). It probably makes very little difference in the long run. We agree with Wilmsen and Denbow (1990) that attempts to distinguish foragers and farmers categorically in regions where they in teract continuously over long periods of time is probably misplaced. Since

marriage partners, along with nouns, stitching patterns, and rabbits are ex

changed between farmers and foragers in a symbiotic relationship, they are (or become) fundamentally the same. There is some suggestion of a status

hierarchy within some Fremont village sites (e.g., Barker, 1994; Hockett, 1998), and it is plausible that this status differential extended to surround

ing foragers or was, indeed, a product of an interaction with them.

Symbiosis is best detected by the adaptive diversity which should ac company these systems. Symbiosis among foragers and fanners in estab lished farming settings has been documented for the Southwest (Speth, 1990; Spielmann, 1986, 1991). At Grasshopper Pueblo, Price et al (1994, p. 315,327) report "diverse social groups of both local and nonlocal origin."




These studies documenting symbiosis in the Southwest all benefit from the availability of human remains and the analysis of stable isotopes and stron tium ratios. The work of Whalen (1994) does not rely on human remains and he too finds complex interactions between farmers and foragers of the Late Prehistoric Jornada-Mogollon. In the Fremont case, data from human remains around the Great Salt Lake indicate that full-time foragers were indeed present with full-time farmers (Coltrain and Stafford, 1999; Simms, 1999). This diversity is expressed regardless of whether the sites at which these people were buried exhibit the trappings of sedentism or mobility, or locations chosen for agriculture or foraging. Further, DNA analysis in dicates that this variation is expressed across a sample that is relatively homogeneous in terms of population genetics (O'Rourke et al.y 1999). This may indicate symbiosis and the residential cycling characteristic of adaptive diversity were common behavior among the Great Salt Lake Fremont.

Recognition of adaptive diversity in the Fremont is not limited to cases with human remains. The example from Glen Canyon, where projectile points vary in only subtle ways across the Fremont and Basketmaker Anasazi "boundary" (Holmer and Weder, 1980; Geib, 1996; Madsen, 1982b), while at times ceramics vary markedly, may present an opportunity to consider the nature of the boundary. The different degrees to which

projectile points and ceramics reflect the Fremont-Anasazi boundary may have to do with the degree or kind of interactions of men and women.

The well-known study of Weissner (1983) showed that among San hunters, variation in projectile points was less within groups who shared risk, and these groups were much larger than bands. Stylistic variation in points was

greatest at the level of linguistic groups. Weissner (1983, p. 269) observes, "For archaeologists, these stylistic differences could be used to delimit the boundaries between language groups, but they give no further information about degree of contact across them." Our interest here is to suggest that

archaeological boundaries are constructs and that there may be possible differences in a "boundary" which varies according to gender and other factors. There may be permeability across a boundary in an activity done

by men, while women exhibit a tie to the land as is found in recent Pueblo groups. Sinopoli (1991) studied Great Basin arrows from the J. W. Powell collection and found that arrow points do not signal group identity but vary in a clinal pattern according to distance. Thus, arrow points were most

similar among groups in proximity. Sinopoli (1991) did find variation in attributes of arrows not typically recovered from archaeological contexts, but the greatest distinctions in visually apparent traits such as shaft designs were between groups who interacted frequently. This result is consistent with the findings of Wobst (1977) of increased stylistic variation in social contexts which select for group identification. In the case of the Fremont




in south-central Utah, the differential similarity among projectile points and ceramics across the archaeological boundary suggests differential

strength of the early Freemont-Anasazi boundary by gender. This kind of

approach to boundaries should improve our ability to identify adaptive di versity and behaviors that cross archaeological, ethnic, and perhaps linguis tic boundaries. The documentation of Fremont ceramic raw material sources and morphological variability illustrates their potential for deter

mining interaction spheres and differential mobility among people who used the plainware ceramics that dominate the Fremont ceramic inventory (Dean, 1992; Dean and Heath, 1988; Geib and Lyneis, 1993, 1996; Simms et al., 1997; Spurr, 1995). We apply the results of these ceramic studies in our description of Fremont symbiotic dyads in the next section.

Switching Strategies. This refers to the temporary movement out of

farming into foraging, and vice versa, by group fission and fusion, behav

ioral options which may or may not be associated with symbiosis. This con

text of selection flags a particular behavior that may be amenable to

archaeological detection. A useful ethnographic example occurs among the

Dorobo groups of Kenya and Tanzania, where, as Jolly (1996, p. 279) points out, "While some Dorobo are former pastoralists or farmers who have lost livestock or crops and resorted to hunting and gathering to survive . . . , others appear to be descended from people who have hunted and gathered for a very long time but have since adopted many of the customs and beliefs of dominant neighbouring farming communities. . . . There is considerable movement across economic modes, and Okiek Dorobo are as likely to be come pastoralists when they have accumulated sufficient wealth to purchase cattle as Maasai and other pastoralists are to become Dorobo after losing their cattle."

The archaeological manifestation of switching is one facet of the gen eral evidence for adaptive diversity, since switching is one form of adaptive diversity. Switching is important to the origins of the food producing tran sition or to areas with marginal horticulture, such as the Fremont area,* because foragers experimenting with farming would be expected to fall into and out of the strategy. The idea behind switching in the Fremont case was first proposed as part of the original definition of the Fremont (Morss, 1931) and later expanded by Rudy (1953). It was described more explicitly by Berry (1972, 1974) as a behavioral option during agricultural shortfalls in southwestern Utah. Berry proposed that during years of limited agricul tural production, farmers would switch to pine nuts (pine nuts are storable and ripen soon after the maize crop is in), which, at a minimum, require logistic forays away from the residential base, if not temporary relocation.

Subsequent work on the cost of transporting pine nuts (e.g., Barlow and

Metcalfe, 1996) suggests that unless the pinyon groves are close, it is more




efficient to live at the point the nuts are collected and stored rather than to transport them to a residential farming base. A "temporary" relocation

may therefore last for several months or even an entire winter. Since the return rates from collecting pine nuts are, on average, higher than those for producing maize, it is also likely that the basis for a switch was not limited by agricultural production but "... that local pinyon harvests should have been at least as important as expected prehistoric corn yields in determining prehistoric foraging and farming strategies in the Fremont area" (Barlow, 1998, p. 181).

One archaeological manifestation of switching is the variability in the size and complexity of sites most apparent near the zenith of the Fremont

period. Janetski et al (1997, pp. 24-25) argue that "large complex sites are

common," a position that counters the past tendency to see the Fremont

only as very small groups of marginal farmers (Sammons-Lohse, 1981). Their evidence simply increases the disparity between the large sites that have often been excavated and the archaeological patterning of the hinter lands that have rarely been the subject of work beyond the level of surveys and test excavations. At a site-specific level, an archaeological manifestation of switching should be reflected in occupational punctuation at Fremont

farming sites, in spite of the general tendency for site growth as the zenith of the Fremont approached. Punctuation is evident at sites such as Pharo

Village, where all the trappings of a residential farming base (adobe struc

tures, pit houses, location near the toe of an alluvial fan, broad assemblage composition, cultigens, etc.) occur in what is stratigraphically a relatively brief experiment with farming at that location (Marwitt, 1968). Switching may also be expressed through punctuations in building episodes at archi

tecturally rich Fremont sites such as Five Finger Ridge (Janetski et al,

1997) or reflected in the stratigraphic punctuations at sites such as Evans

(Berry, 1972; Dodd, 1982). Switching may account for site-specific abandonment but does not re

quire it. This behavioral context refers to an ethnographically known strat

egy of risk management, when foraging may be a more favorable option for subgroups than a continued effort at farming. Such patterns can be

produced not only by group fission that sends small groups of farmers to new areas to attempt farming, but also by a move into foraging. As suitable areas for farming became colonized during Fremont history, the opportu nity simply to move and continue farming may have become more limited as the strong pattern of farming dominated some locales. As the dual proc esses of farming spread and intensification of foraging ranges increased, the ability of people to manage risk decreases. Here, too, the Fremont case

is characteristic of the food producing transition in general, since switching behaviors should be expected in many contexts in the world where people




are experimenting with food production and adjusting to the consequences of such a fundamental change in the mode of production.

Another archaeological manifestation of a switching strategy may be contrast in the sources of raw material in ceramics between temporary camp sites left by foragers and farmers. For instance, if ceramics at short-term

camps and residential camps more than a day or two walk from residential

farming bases are manufactured from the same material as those at resi dential bases and are morphologically comparable, then some sort of unified symbiotic system is indicated, probably accompanied by switching. If there is strong contrast in ceramic raw materials and in vessel morphology, espe

cially the degree of production investment (Simms et aL, 1997), then sym biosis may still be operating, but less switching may be occurring.

Switching should also be expected in the early Fremont period, during the initial experimentation with farming by indigenous populations. It should not, however, be a feature of colonists migrating to the Fremont

region with a relatively established farming strategy. Having made the choice to migrate and continue farming rather than switch to foraging, and since the opportunities for farming in the new region were quite open,

they would be unlikely to switch to foraging in their new home. The peak frequency of a switching pattern likely occurred as the zenith of the Fre mont was approached at 900-700 B.P. Migrant groups of farmers splitting off from existing farmers was the primary force behind Fremont growth. However, the climatic variability characteristic of the Fremont region, combined with decreased opportunities for horticultural colonization in the parts of the region with the most intensified expression of farming, also led to splitting which produced new groups of Fremont foragers. These new full-time foragers would have been clearly linked to the farmers from whence they came and were also part of the Fremont complex, not

just some unspecified cultural "Other" simply because they did not farm. Toward the fringes of the Fremont region where the expression of farming was weak, and beyond into portions of the Great Basin, Snake River Plain and Colorado Plateau where no farming occurred, foragers were likely more distinct. Foraging did not result from switching in these contexts, and similarities were more likely a product of indigenous foragers adopting some trappings of the farmers. Again, some of the material culture indi cators mentioned in the sections on symbiosis and switching may help identify the character of the association and whether associations cross an ethnic boundary or not.

The archaeological manifestations we refer to here illustrate only some

aspects of our model. We do not expect clear distinctions between sym biosis and switching, for instance, or between those and matrix modifica tion. Each context of selection is both integrated and hierarchical, and aims




at refraining the kinds of questions that might be addressed in order to build a behavioral understanding of the Fremont. In the following section we employ these contexts to give meaning to the archaeological record of the Fremont while at the same time pointing the direction for future inquiry along these lines.

GEOGRAPHICAL AND TEMPORAL VARIATIONS

Given the behavioral variation described above, the geographical limits of the Fremont are impossible to define since hunter/gatherers who made and used pottery, and who farmed or interacted with farmers in some way, feather out, on the margins of the Fremont area, into hunter/gatherers who did not. If one uses Fremont-like ceramics to demarcate the limits of the Fremont umbrella, however, then the Fremont were, at times, operating as far west as central Nevada (e.g., Madsen, 1989), as far north as the Snake River plain (e.g., Butler, 1981, 1983; Holmer and Ringe, 1986), and as far east as the northwestern Plains of Wyoming (e.g., Day and Dibble, 1963; Sharrock, 1966; Smith, 1992) and the western slope of the Rocky

Mountains (e.g., Baker, 1993, 1997; Creaseman, 1981; Creaseman and

Scott, 1987; McKibbin, 1992). While some of these marginal areas, such as northwestern Colorado, represent farmers and foragers in some degree of interaction, in other areas, such as southwestern Wyoming and central

Nevada, full-time foragers probably had little interaction with farmers on

any scale relevant to a human lifetime. To avoid the temptation to open yet another definitional quibble as to who really qualifies as Fremont, we

prefer to focus on selection contexts and note that the area covered by the Fremont umbrella was initially quite small, grew to a maximum by 800-1000

years ago, and was again reduced to a relatively small area before the "Fre mont" disappeared entirely (Fig. 9).

Temporal limits of the Fremont are likewise less bounded when viewed from a behavioral perspective. The use of maize begins before the appear ance of the bow and arrow, and well before the use of ceramics, implying a complex demographic pattern. Individual traits do not help, for if we

seize upon maize farming to define the Fremont, then some Fremont must be Archaic, not Formative. At the other end of the temporal window, farm

ing disappears in a "fragmented" temporal pattern (Lindsay, 1986). Fre mont farming and material culture persist until less than 500 years ago in some areas such as northwestern Colorado. In other areas, farming disap pears earlier, and in cases such as the Great Salt Lake wetlands, a relatively tethered settlement pattern and Fremont artifact types persist until less than 600 years ago (Simms, 1999; Simms and Stuart, 1993).




Fig. 9. The area of the Fremont complex at (A) 1800 B.P., (B) 900 B.P., and (C) 500 B.P.

We thus want to deemphasize the relevance of drawing firm spatiotem poral boundaries. Instead, we see zones and times of transition among al ternative adaptive strategies employed by people with a mix of identities, alliances, obligations, and languages that are not necessarily symmetrical with the archaeological identification of adaptive strategies. The two cross

cut in interesting ways and we want to focus on that?a goal that is hin dered if we set up categories that assume these variables are symmetrical in time and space. To organize our discussion, we continue to use the time tested distinction between the Colorado Plateau and the Great Basin. Like

many of our colleagues, we also see patterns and differences at smaller

scales, but we attempt to treat these and the larger, regional variations in terms of the processes and behavior that may have produced them.

Transition (2500-1500 B.P): Foragers with Food Producing Options. The

general consensus is that the advent of farming in the Fremont region is

largely a result of the northward spread of cultigens from Mexico and the Southwest. In this sense, the early Fremont period is very like the transition to Basketmaker II in the Anasazi areas to the south (Janetski, 1993), and it is the presence of farming which defines its inception. The transmission of horticultural practices initially occurred along the drainages of the Colo rado River and farming became common in the eastern Great Basin sue to seven centuries after it spread to the northern Colorado Plateau. The ear liest maize north of the Colorado River seems to be part of a package

which includes shallow, basin-shaped, pit house structures and bell-shaped storage pits, which Janetski (1993, p. 241) refers to as a Basketmaker II

"strategy." In this view, the addition of farming and its accoutrements to an Archaic foraging base formed the Fremont (see discussions by Geib, 1996; Janetski, 1993).




The earliest maize north of the Colorado River comes from the Elsi nore Burial, a site in the upper Sevier River drainage, and is technically in the Great Basin. It dates to ?2150 B.P. and was found in a bell-shaped storage pit which served ultimately as a burial pit (Wilde and Newman, 1989). Direct dating of the burial suggests the age of the maize may be slightly younger (Coltrain, 1994a). The site was disturbed by highway con struction and no evidence of associated habitation structures was found. Sites of roughly similar age immediately north and south of the Elsinore Burial do contain shallow pithouse structures (Talbot and Richens, 1993; Talbot et a/., 1997a), although there is no direct evidence of farming. In some cases, the temporal association of pithouses may be a proxy measure of the consequences of farming, particularly decreasing mobility. On the other hand, pithouses may identify only those foragers most likely to adopt cultigens, foragers already invested in a tethered and/or redundant settle ment pattern. After all, the use of pithouses does not require farming; pithouses are known widely in the western United States from periods well before agriculture and from places where agriculture was never adopted. In some cases, the use of pithouses may indicate circumstances favorable for the adoption of cultigens, rather than always be a consequence of farming.

On the Colorado Plateau, the earliest structural sites with direct evi dence of farming occur along the southern margins of the San Rafael Swell and in the Uinta Basin. At the Confluence site along Muddy Creek (a tributary of the Colorado River via the Dirty Devil River), maize pollen and macrofossils were recovered from six bell-shaped pits and the floors of five pithouse structures. Associated radiocarbon dates range from 1700 to 1300 B.P. (Greubel, 1996). Maize from an isolated storage structure in Nine Mile Canyon (a tributary of the Green River south of the Uinta Ba sin) dates to *1700 B.P. (Spangler, 1999a). Bell-shaped storage pits con

taining maize pollen and macrofossils, together with shallow pit house

structures, were also found farther north at Steinaker Gap on the southern

margin of the Uinta Mountains along a tributary of the Green River. These date to 1750-1600 B.P., with occupation (and farming) beginning possibly as early as 2100 years ago (Talbot and Richens, 1996). Irrigation features were constructed during the latter part of this sequence. A number of other sites in the Uinta Basin area, with similar shallow pit structures and bell

shaped pits but with no evidence of domesticates, also date to this period (Spangler, 1999b). Several of these (e.g., Biggs, 1970) were excavated be

fore the advent of flotation and palynology techniques, and they may also have been associated with farming. These early farming sites may represent some of the earliest use of the Fremont "switching" strategy. Wilde and Talbot (1996) suggest that these sites with bell-shaped pits are reminiscent of subsistence strategies found ethnohistorically on the North American




Plains and feel that, like the Mandan and Hidatsa, these early Fremont

farmers were seasonally switching to mobile foraging. Given the rarity and

geographically spotty nature of these sites, it is likely that this seasonal

switching may often have led to full-time foraging as well. The most southerly occurrence of early farming attributable to the Fre

mont transition comes from the nonstructural Alvey site in the Escalante

River area. Ample quantities of maize and squash occur in aceramic levels

dated between ?1850 and 1700 B.P., and a slightly later sample as young as ?1600 B.P. came from a level with locally manufactured Fremont ce

ramics (Geib, 1996, pp. 58-59; Geib and Lyneis, 1996, pp. 176-179). A number of cave sites on the northern Colorado Plateau also containing maize macrofossils dating to this period complement these aceramic, struc

tural sites and are probably related to them in several of the ways we de

scribed above. Maize at Cowboy Cave, located south of the San Rafael

Swell between the Dirty Devil and the Green rivers, dates to between 2000 and 1700 B.P. (Geib, 1996; Jennings, 1980), while maize from Clydes Cav ern on the northern San Rafael Swell dates to ?1700 B.P. (Geib, 1996;

Winter and Wylie, 1974). At Triangle Cave along the Escalante River, maize dated to ?1800-1600 B.P. is associated with basketry "of probable Fremont manufacture" in the lowest, aceramic, level at the site (Fowler, 1963; Geib, 1996, p. 58). At Cedar Siding Shelter along the Price River on the northeastern margin of the San Rafael Swell, maize cobs were re

covered from mixed fill containing materials dated from ?2200-1200 B.P.

(Martin et al9 1983). Unfortunately, the cobs were not directly dated, but the early dates of ?2200-2000 B.P. come from slab-lined cists very like

those in the earliest level of Triangle Cave. These sites with evidence for the use of domesticated crops occur

within an array of northern Colorado Plateau cave and rockshelter sites with aceramic components dating to the same period that have evidence of a foraging subsistence focus. Some of the better-known and reported sites include Sudden Shelter (Jennings et aL9 1980), Aspen Shelter (Janetski et al91991), Mantles Cave (Burgh and Scoggin, 1948), and Deluge Shelter (Leach, 1970). Evidence of maize dating to ?1750 B.P. also occurs at open

foraging sites in the Browns Park area of the Uinta Basin data (McKibbin, 1992). Spangler (1999b) has tabulated more than a hundred radiocarbon dates from sites in the Uinta Basin and to the south in the Book Cliffs area which correspond to this proto-Fremont era. These data, together with an array of surface survey data from the northern Colorado Plateau, suggest that groups practicing full-time mobile foraging continued to be common

throughout this early proto-Fremont period. Other than the cultigens, the

assemblages at these sites are consistent with the long-standing argument




of Jennings (1956, 1978) that the Fremont complex was a process of dif fusion of ideas onto an Archaic base.

In some of these early cases, crop production formed a substantial

part of the subsistence base. At Steinaker Gap, two burials dating to about 1800 B.P. yielded stable carbon isotope values of 11.2 and 11.9, indicating that over 60% of the calories came from C4 resources (Coltrain, 1997). Even in this case, however, the settlement pattern featured seasonal mo

bility (Talbot and Richens, 1996), much in the manner suggested by Morss (1931) for the later Fremont. The initiation of farming on the northern Colorado Plateau does seem to have occurred much later than it did south of the Colorado River. Its adoption in the Fremont area has been referred to as a "large-scale adaptive shift that swept the northern Colorado Plateau so that by about 300 A.D. corn was occurring in most suitable locations"

(Geib, 1996, p. 75). A related view suggests that agriculture soon became the focus around which all other resource scheduling occurred and that there was an "instant switch" to agriculture (Talbot and Richens, 1996, pp.

196-198). While both statements are clearly untrue for the early Fremont on a specific level, they are probably valid on a general level given the impact that the adoption of farming has upon the scheduling of foragers throughout long term adaptive changes (Flanneiy, 1968). How such an im

pact plays out in terms of migration or diffusion, or an abrupt versus a

gradual spread of farming in the Southwest (Berry, 1982; Wills, 1988) or among the Fremont (Coltrain, 1997; Winter, 1973, 1976), however, has been, and remains, a subject of discussion.

The adoption of agriculture certainly requires shifts in forager sched

uling, but the issue is unlikely to be black and white. The difficulty of in corporating farming into a forager strategy is apparent only if one presumes all foragers have the same adaptive strategy. In all of the discussions cited

above, the northern Colorado Plateau is characterized as either sparsely occupied or occupied by highly mobile foragers. We suggest that the Late Archaic archaeology is so poorly understood (in part due to the focus on

the later farmers) that both of these statements are premature. In fact, we

have referred to the increasing evidence, in recent years, of Late Archaic settlement stability apparent in pithouse architecture and relatively seden

tary subsistence focus (e.g., Madsen, 1982a, 1999). Perhaps a better way to

approach the problem is to acknowledge that while the adoption of farming poses constraints upon existing forager lifeways, these are not of a cate

gorical nature. Further, given current knowledge of "the foraging spectrum" (Kelly, 1995), it is dangerous to stereotype foraging as a one-dimensional,

ftilly nomadic adaptive strategy. Finally, when the emerging evidence for

variability in Archaic adaptive strategies is considered together with caloric return rate data on the relative efficiency of farming and foraging, the




adoption of farming by some small groups can indeed be seen as piecemeal over the course of many centuries as others continued to forage (e.g., Janet

ski, 1993). This is not to deny the impact farming had, either upon indigenous

foragers or in terms of its regional (and continental) consequences. The mere presence of settled farmers operating within an area occupied by fora

gers changes the matrix of resource density and distribution, scheduling, and social interaction, as discussed above. It is clear that all areas of the northern Colorado Plateau and eastern Great Basin suitable for farming were not exploited in such a manner in the first few centuries of the Fre mont experiment. Further, it is evident that resource choice and settlement

patterns were not universally centered around farming at any time during the Fremont period. While there was a large-scale adaptive shift involving farming, it was not a bounded, categorical phenomenon.

Whether or not these small groups of early farmers represent migrant Basketmaker II people settling down in the midst of mobile Archaic fora gers (e.g., Talbot, 1995, 1996) cannot yet be ruled out (Spangler, 1999a), but Geib (1996, p. 74) shows there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the Colorado River formed a distinct boundary between recognizable groups to the north and the south. South of the river were the "White Dog Anasazi," characterized by sandals, two-rod-and-bundle bunched basketry, burial attributes, and a San Juan Anthropomorphic rock art style (among other features), while to the north were the "nascent Fremont," with one

rod-and-bundle basketry, leather moccasins, and Barrier Canyon/San Ra fael Fremont rock art styles (among other features). There were also many similarities, not the least of which was the use, in places, of a very similar Basketmaker II "strategy" composed of maize farming, bell-shaped and slab-lined pits, and the use of shallow pit structures.

In the Great Basin, outside the interior valleys of the upper Sevier River drainage, only a single farming site at Grantsville (Shields, n.d.) may date to earlier than 1500 B.P., but the excavation is unreported and the association of the date with maize agriculture is unclear. Why farming spreads later in the eastern Great Basin than it does on the Colorado Pla teau remains unexplained. Environmental explanations seem unlikely, since

precipitation and temperature regimes that would permit agriculture in the Uinta Basin would also be conducive to farming along the western front of the Wasatch Mountains (Lindsay, 1986). It may simply be that the abun dance of higher ranked wild resources, such as cattail and bulrush, in the

large marsh systems of the eastern Great Basin made farming less viable than foraging until relatively late in the Fremont period (e.g., Barlow, 1998). Madsen and Berry (1975), based on a review of radiocarbon dates from stratified cave and rockshelter sites such as Danger Cave (Jennings,




1957), Hogup Cave (Aikens, 1970), and O'Malley Shelter (Fowler et aL, 1973), suggested that there was an occupational hiatus between late Archaic and Fremont in the eastern Great Basin spanning a thousand years or more. While their conclusion about a lack of continuity between Archaic and Fremont populations in the area now seems untenable, there does ap pear to be a pause in the creation of new sites between 2500 and 1500 years ago (Madsen, 1982a, 1999). If this is a product of limited population growth or even of reduced population levels, it may also explain the rela

tively late appearance of farming in the Bonneville Basin.

Agricultural Consequences (1500-1000 B.P.). After about 1500 B.P.,

farming had been incorporated as a substantial part of the subsistence base of many Fremont groups throughout the Colorado Plateau (e.g., Coltrain,

1997). In the Great Basin, the growing of domesticated crops does not be come common until somewhat later, but by 1200 B.P. farming sites are

located in all the major valley systems along the western margin of the Wasatch mountains and plateau. Group size appears to have remained

small, however, and settled farming sites consist almost exclusively of small "rancheria" (Jennings, 1978) or "hamlets" composed of one to three house holds (Janetski et aL, 1997; Sammons-Lohse, 1981). Pottery and the bow and arrow were in use by 1500 B.P. in much of the Great Basin (Janetski et aL, 1997). Habitation structures are usually characterized by clay rimmed

firepits floored by stone slabs and often contain small subfloor storage pits. Storage structures occur both in association with habitation structures, usu

ally as single or double bin forms, and as smaller, isolated granaries in rockshelters and cliff overhangs.

The number of farming hamlets increased dramatically between 1500 1000 B.P. Early on, these were composed of small, shallow, circular

pithouse structures, but the use of stone begins to occur in a variety of forms. Along the eastern margin of the Wasatch Plateau, shallow pit struc

tures start to be lined with basalt boulders at a variety of sites such as

Snake Rock (Aikens, 1967), Round Spring (Metcalf et aL, 1993), and Power Pole Knoll (Madsen, 1975). In some cases, (e.g., Madsen, 1975) these are

surface structures built on hard, rocky soil, with dirt piled around the out

side of the rock ring to create a pit-like structure. Separate storage struc tures are rare at these early hamlet sites.

The importance of farming at some hamlets of this period is unknown, and sites in the wetlands east of the Great Salt Lake suggest that there

may be areas where, as return rate estimates and evolutionary ecology mod

els predict (e.g., Barlow, 1998), farming was less important, despite the

presence of the same architecture and material culture as at other Fremont

sites (Schmitt et aL, 1994). No evidence for maize has been found at Bear

River Number 1 (Pendergast, 1961), Bear River Number 2 (Aikens, 1967),




Bear River Number 3 (Shields and Dalley, 1978), 42Wb32 (Fawcett and Simms, 1993), or the early component of the Levee site (Fry and Dalley, 1979). These sites range from rancherias with shallow circular pole and

mud structures and numerous subsurface storage pits to hunting camps for the procurement of bison which appear to have been common during this

period on the northern Wasatch Front (Lupo and Schmitt, 1997). Slightly later, coursed masonry structures, including both habitation

and storage structures, occur at a variety of sites on the Colorado Plateau, from areas adjacent to the Colorado River (Jennings and Sammons-Lohse, 1981; Wormington, 1955), to the central San Rafael Swell (Schroedl and Hogan, 1975; Taylor, 1957), to the Uinta Basin (Breternitz, 1970). By 1000 B.P., coursed masonry is the dominant structural form among a highly vari able array of construction styles, including surface structures of jacal and coursed adobe, and deep pit structures lined with slabs and/or clay. This use of masonry is the basic architectural difference between the Great Ba sin and the Colorado Plateau, although it is a matter of degree rather than

kind, with the use of stone dominating on the plateau and adobe in the basin (Talbot, 1997a). Habitation structures are usually characterized by clay rimmed firepits floored by stone slabs and often contain small subfloor

storage pits. Storage structures occur both in isolation and in association with habitation structures, usually as aboveground single- or double-bin

forms, although multiple-room forms are not uncommon and, in some cases

(e.g., Nawthis Village [Metcalfe and Heath, 1990]), are relatively complex. Smaller, isolated granaries in rockshelters and cliff overhangs well

away from farming sites appear to have functioned as protected storage sites, keeping crops away from the eyes of human predators while Fremont farmers were temporarily away. Granaries such as these are common in the Southwest and occur in the southeastern portions of the Fremont area

such as the East Tavaputs Plateau, in central Utah near the Sevier Valley, to the south in the Capitol Reef area, and in the San Rafael Swell. Isolated

storage contrasts with the common practice of on-site storage known at

many Fremont farming sites (e.g., Marwitt, 1970) and is documented in

relatively early contexts at Steinaker Gap (Talbot and Richens, 1996). While poorly understood, these isolated granaries may be an archaeological manifestation of the switching strategies discussed above. Since on-site stor

age was utilized at virtually every Fremont farming site, it appears that these well-hidden and difficult-to-reach isolated granaries served to store

surplus crops when the entire village community abandoned the site and became mobile foragers. Fremont farming sites seem to be directly asso ciated with crop locations and it is unlikely that these isolated granaries served as interim storage for crops from distant fields. Rather, it appears that they represent an elaboration of the switching pattern described by




Wilde and Talbot (1996) for early Fremont farmer/foragers, with the aban doned storage facilities now having to be situated off-site to counter the

increasing likelihood of human predation. It seems probable that this switch to foraging was done primarily on

a seasonal basis, since the granaries themselves suggest an intention to re turn and use their contents. On occasion, however, it also seems probable that all or part of the group never returned to use the stored food. Caching of wild food crops, such as pine nuts, is common among Great Basin fora

gers (e.g., Kelly, 1997; Madsen, 1986), but the decision to return and use

that cache is determined largely by the trade-off between the transport costs involved in using stored foods and the return rates of collecting and

processing new resources (e.g., Barlow and Metcalfe, 1996; Jones and Mad

sen, 1989; Metcalfe and Barlow, 1992). On many occasions it is more eco

nomical simply to abandon the cached food and continue to forage for

newly available resources. This same situation undoubtedly occurred among Fremont farmer/foragers. Once the switch to foraging had taken place, even on a seasonal basis, there would be numerous times when it made more economic sense for part or all of the group to continue to forage rather than return to the cached crops in the hidden granaries. Even where the hidden stores served only as seed crops for a subsequent season of farming, they may have been abandoned in favor of a particularly productive set of wild resources.

Talbot (1997a), in a thorough review of architecture at later Fremont farming sites [structures built and used by mobile Fremont foragers (e.g., Simms, 1986; Smith, 1992) are not discussed], suggests that in terms of structure designs, construction techniques, and site layout, Fremont archi tecture was consistent with the historical tradition of the Anasazi. The forms are derived primarily from Pueblo I and early Pueblo II styles, and as might be expected, the copies follow geographical proximity, with Fre

mont architecture in the Great Basin more similar to Western Anasazi and

Kayenta forms and those on the Colorado Plateau to Mesa Verde Anasazi. The similarity to Anasazi architectural forms is reduced in the north, par ticularly in terms of site layout. Layouts consisting of L-shaped blocks of

storage rooms surrounding a pithouse are restricted to the Sevier River

drainage. Talbot (1997a) suggests that these were copies of Anasazi pat terns, implying diffusion, although the similarities may reflect colonists, kin

ship linkages, or other behaviors with direct demographic connections.

Pottery consisted of locally made wares, as described above, which can

be distinguished on the basis of tempering inclusions derived from readily abundant local stone. Madsen (1970) and R. Madsen (1977) defined five

principal varieties of gray ware based on tempering types and geographical distribution (Emery gray, Uinta gray, Great Salt Lake gray, Sevier gray,




and Snake Valley gray). More detailed lithologic examination of both clays and temper, however, suggests that these are more a product of the dif

ferential abundance of rock types in any one area and that a large number

of separable varieties can be recognized. On the Colorado Plateau south

of the Uinta Basin, Geib and Lyneis (1996) recognize four primary pro duction areas for pottery tempered with igneous rock: one centered around

the Henry Mountains, one in the San Rafael Swell, one on the margins of Boulder Mountains and along the Fremont River, and a very localized

fourth in the Escalante River Basin. Spurr (1995) also documents igneous temper in the San Rafael Swell. A crushed limestone tempered variety oc

curs in the Uinta Basin (R. Madsen, 1977) and petrographic analyses in that area strongly suggest that temper was chosen on the basis of local

availability (Spangler, 1995, pp. 561-562). A sand tempered ware is com mon in the Douglas Creek area of northwestern Colorado [although this

type may appear somewhat later (Hauck, 1993; Spangler, 1999b)]. In the Great Basin, temper types range from crushed rock and sand

of various kinds in the north around the Great Salt Lake (e.g., Dean, 1992). Again, local availability determines the variation in temper to the extent

that, on the northern Wasatch Front, the similarity in temper tends to occur

across ceramic types within a particular locale. Ceramics in Utah Valley use a distinct temper and contrast with those from the eastern edge of the Great Salt Lake only 100 km away, regardless of ceramic type or period represented (Simms et aL9 1997). Farther south, basalt temper is typical in the central area along the lower Sevier River Drainage (e.g., Forsyth, 1986;

Richens, 1997). In the southern and westernmost areas of the Bonneville

Basin, pottery was produced from a finely crushed volcanic rock that

yielded both clay and nonplastic inclusions (Lyneis, 1994a) . Snake Valley gray, the variety found in the latter area, is visually so uniform that it led

Berry (1972), Fowler et al (1973), and others to suggest that it occurred west of the Bonneville Basin as the result of foraging parties originating in the Parowan Valley. Now, however, it appears that even what has been called Snake Valley gray is composed of a number of locally made varieties

(e.g., Dean, 1987; see also Lyneis, 1994a). Within the Parowan Valley itself, the production of Snake Valley gray was highly standardized, and pottery produced in this region was traded for long distances throughout the Fre mont area. While production techniques employed in making both Snake

Valley and Sevier gray pottery differ significantly from that of Anasazi types to the south, they have many design elements in common.

The earliest pottery in all areas is plain with virtually no decorative elements. Coffee-bean appliques begin to be added midway through the

period and painted designs are added by ?1000 B.P. Corrugated pottery appears in the southern portion of the Fremont area at about the same




time that painted decorations take hold. Neither corrugation nor painted designs are found in the northern areas around the Great Salt Lake and Uinta Basin. Painted designs are derived primarily from Anasazi styles. A

unique slipped variety, Ivie Creek black-on-white, is found in small per centages at sites along both sides of the Wasatch in the central Fremont area. The earliest pottery is made in only a few forms, primarily jars, con sistent with a settlement pattern featuring a significant level of mobility, although the adoption of ceramics signals greater redundancy in settlement

and/or a logistic system regardless of whether the subsistence focus is for

aging or farming (Simms et aL, 1997). At larger village sites during the later Fremont periods, a diversity of forms, including bowls, cups, small to

medium jars, and pitchers, was produced. The use of pottery also begins to appear among full-time foragers as

the behavioral options available to foragers increase through the spread of

technology associated with farming. James (1986; see also Fowler et al, 1973) suggests that locally made pottery imitative of that at farming sites (e.g., thin-walled globular jars with recurved rims and jugs with strap han

dles) is found throughout the southeastern Great Basin at sites occupied by full-time foragers. This occurs even in areas well away from where farm ers and foragers could conceivably be directly interacting in any viable way, such as in Grass Valley, Nevada, in the central Great Basin (Madsen, 1989).

Projectile point types associated with the use of the bow and arrow,

primarily Rose Spring corner-notched, appear prior to 500 B.P. in a piece meal pattern. Reed (1990) presents evidence for arrow use in Basketmaker II contexts in western Colorado between 1700 and 1450 B.P. at the Tamar ron site and between 1820 and 1520 B.P. at 5DL896. Arrow points appear in Glen Canyon at the Sunny Beaches site between 1950 and 1520 B.P.

(Geib and Bungart, 1989), probably in the latter half of this range based on a date from wood found in clays underlying the points. Somewhat to the north, at Cowboy Cave, arrow points may date to between 1850 and 1700 B.P., but perhaps as late as 1550 B.P. (Schroedl and Coulam, 1994).

This recently reported material suggests that the appearance of Rose

Spring corner-notched points may be slightly earlier than the generally ac

cepted beginning date of 1650 B.P offered by Holmer and Weder (1980). In Browns Park, in extreme northeastern Utah, Rose Spring points occur at sites yielding dates in the 2000-1800 B.P. range (McKibbin, 1992). The association of the dates with the points is not clear, except at 42DA485, where a date calibrated to 59 B.C.-A.D. 217 is in direct association with a Rose Spring point (McKibbin, 1992).

This early adoption of the bow and arrow along the southern tier of the Fremont area is an example of changing behavioral options. Geib (1996, p. 65) observes that while the bow and arrow appears to be used in Fremont




areas immediately north of the Colorado River in the first two centuries after Christ, it is absent from Basketmaker areas only 30-60 km to the south and east, suggesting a boundary of some sort, despite the movement of other traits. Geib and Bungart (1989) propose that bow use by foragers of the Fremont area may have provided a competitive advantage in the face of Basketmaker populations expanding as a result of their investment in agriculture. We suspect that the evidence for early bow and arrow use

among the Basketmaker, such as reported by Reed (1990), will increase, based on the expectation that this technology was adopted through local

decision-making pressures as behavioral options increased during the Late

Archaic-to-Fremont transition.

These tantalizing cases, however, contrast with the well-dated case at

Steinaker Gap, where the early emphasis on farming discussed above is associated only with atlatl dart points. Rose Spring points date to sometime

after 1200 B.P. Further, Holmer and Weder (1980) show that most occur rences of arrow points begin between 1550 and 1350 B.P., as recent data

compiled by Spangler (1995, Appendix B) confirms. While there seems to be a south-to-north trend in the introduction of arrow points on the northern Colorado Plateau, recent discussion by Geib (1996, pp. 64-66) shows that the adoption is spatiotemporally patchy. As behavioral options changed, the

adoption of the bow and arrow by foragers or farmers of the early Fremont

period likely occurred first in areas where emigrating colonists were encoun

tering indigenous foraging populations. In the less competitive situation where indigenous foragers were adopting horticulture, the pressures to adopt the bow and arrow were probably lower. This might help explain why a

general pattern of Late Archaic bow and arrow use reflects a gradual spread from the northwestern Great Basin sometime after 2500 B.P. (Aikens et aL, 1977; Hanes, 1988), yet at finer scales of analysis the adoption is patchy,

with the earliest Fremont dates for bow and arrow technology occurring along the southern tier of the Fremont region. As changing behavioral op tions modified the context of selection during the Archaic-to-Fremont tran

sition, the adoption of the bow and arrow was likely a decision independent of those leading to the adoption of maize, and one that cannot be under stood as the spread of a shared cultural tradition.

After about 900 B.P. Rose Spring corner-notched points begin to be

replaced by a wider variety of points with a tendency toward regionalization of style (Holmer, 1986; Holmer and Weder, 1980). On the Colorado Pla teau, these are Uinta side-notched to the north and Nawthis side-notched and Bull Creek points to the south. There is a strong tendency for the

points from the southern portion of the Fremont area to have a great deal in common with Anasazi points south of the Colorado River, although fur ther study may be able to find quantifiable differences (Geib, 1996, pp.




107-108; Holmer, 1986). Holmer and Weder (1980) suggest that this simi larity may be due to matrilocality, and Simms (1990) broadened the topic to include all forms of male versus female mobility. The possibility that

these patterns are the product of gender differences has not been widely explored, and there remains a tendency to employ normative differences in point types for the purposes of identifying group boundaries only, with out consideration of the behavior associated with those boundaries.

In the Great Basin, the later point styles are primarily Bear River side notched in the north and Parowan basal-notched in the south. The latter

type seems to be a variant of Eastgate points found farther west in the Great Basin (e.g., Heizer and Hester, 1978; but see Thomas 1981), but it is also commonly found in Western Anasazi sites to the south (Holmer, 1986). The boundary between the Fremont and the Anasazi in the south eastern Great Basin may, as in Glen Canyon, reflect the differential move ment of traits depending on the behavioral realities associated with these boundaries. Indeed, across the Fremont area there is variation in point morphology within collections that confounds a clear geographic deline ation of styles. For instance, points with the notches placed "high" are la beled Bear River side-notched, while those with "low" notches are labeled Uinta points (Holmer and Weder, 1980, p. 60). The names imply geo graphic association, with the Bear River points centered in the northeastern Great Basin and the Uinta points with the Uinta Basin. Within collections from either area, however, there is variability in the height of side notching that is not distinguished by the poorly specified notion of "high" versus "low." A certain variability and grading among types is also apparent be tween the small side-notched Fremont points of the eastern Great Basin

and the more widespread Desert side-notched point (Simms, 1990). Simi

larly, analysis of a large collection of side-notched points from Five Finger Ridge suggests that these subsets/categories of side-notched points are not

useful (Talbot et aL, 1997b) There seem to be neither clear functional nor subsistence-based ex

planations for this array of projectile point styles (Fig. 10), suggesting that they may reflect some sort of ethnic differences in Fremont populations.

Yet these distributional patterns also do not match those of an array of

other tool types such as pottery, so the traditional definition of Fremont

"variants" is also difficult to support. There is, however, a marked differ ence in the diversity of chipped stone tools found at larger village sites

and that at sites occupied by Fremont foragers. As with vessel forms, a

variety of projectile points, drills, and large, thinned, hafted knives occurs

at larger village sites, but at temporarily occupied sites the kinds of chipped stone tools are much more limited.




Fig. 10. Common projectile points of the Fremont Complex (from Homer and Weder, 1980): (a-c) Eastgate, (d-f) Rose Spring, (g-i) Bear River side-notched, (j-l) Desert side-notched, (m-o) Uinta side-notched, (p-r) Nawthis side-notched, (s-u) Parowan basal-notched, and (v-x) Bull Creek.




In all areas of the Fremont, a variety of bone tools, bone "gaming pieces" and bone beads and pendants is common, much more common

than at contemporaneous Anasazi sites to the south. Again, the greatest variety of bone tools occurs at larger village sites. There is a marked dif ference between the ground stone found at village sites and that at foraging sites. At the latter, the dominant form of metate continues to be either

unshaped slabs of locally available material or thin, flat, shaped portable forms similar to those found in similar Archaic settings. In the former,

ground stone is characterized by large well-formed basin-shaped metates made of both sandstone and basalt. These differ from similar metates in the greater Southwest in having a small, secondary grinding platform on one end. The function of this second grinding area is unknown.

A shared symbolism, characterized by clay figurines and rock art which features trapezoidal figures with necklaces, hair bobs, earrings, and head dresses is characteristic of the Fremont on the Colorado Plateau and con trasts markedly with the Fremont symbolism found in the Great Basin

(Schaafsma, 1971). In the Great Basin, horned figures occur, but they are

simpler and triangular in form. Clay figurines are also generally quite sim

ple and usually lack the ornamentation common on Colorado Plateau forms. A unique kind of "portable" rock art consisting of geometric forms incised on flat pebbles or thin slabs is common in the Great Basin, par ticularly at foraging sites west of the western flank of the central Wasatch

Range. These forms are very similar to those found among full-time for

aging groups to the west in the central Great Basin (e.g., T. Thomas, 1983). In both the Great Basin and the Colorado Plateau areas, however, this

symbolism appears to be shared by both farmers and foragers in much the same manner as that suggested by Jolly (1996) for the San in southern

Africa, and it is this increase in shared ideological behavior, as well as tech

nological behavior, as a result of the change in available behavioral options that is largely responsible for past views of the Fremont as a unitary whole.

By the end of this period, variants of the basic adaptive strategies de scribed above can be found throughout the northern Colorado Plateau. Seasonal mobility combined with farming seems to have continued to be the most common adaptive form, but permanent year-round occupation is evident in specific locales. These appear to be characterized by the differ ences in storage facilities. At permanent farming sites, large, often multi

room, granaries appear to be associated with the storage of domesticates for winter consumption. There was undoubtedly logistical foraging by spe cialized task groups, but the focus of the interactive social group as a whole was on the permanently occupied residence. Seasonally mobile farmer/fora

gers, on the other hand, appear to have used small, isolated granaries situ ated in obscure, difficult to reach, locations to store small crops that were




temporarily abandoned and left unprotected. These mobile groups occu

pied a variety of temporary protected and open sites in many of the same locations used by earlier full-time foragers. We think it likely that fully

mobile foragers continued to be scattered among these farmers, but where both cooccur, it is virtually impossible to distinguish the full-time hunter gatherers from seasonally mobile farmer/foragers on the basis of material culture alone. Farther out on the margins of the Fremont area on to the north in the Snake River plain (e.g., Butler, 1986), to the west and south west along the western margin of the Bonneville Basin and beyond (e.g., Aikens, 1970; Fowler et aL, 1973; Jennings, 1957; McFarlin and Zancanella, 1997; Tuohy and Rendall, 1979), and to the east in Dinosaur National

Monument, the lower Yampa River, and Browns Park, there is a continu ous occupation by foragers with access to maize and ceramics throughout this period (e.g., McKibben, 1992; Spangler, 1999b; Tucker, 1986).

Thus far, ceramics offer the only opportunity to distinguish the full time hunter-gatherers from seasonally mobile farmer/foragers, and even

this has its problems. Simms et al (1997) find some support for the hy pothesis that short-term camps and limited activity sites left by farmers who are connected to a home base by a logistic system should contrast with those made by full-time foragers. In the former situation, ceramics manu factured at the residential farming base should be transported to the short term camps, reflecting the higher quality and consistent material sources

demonstrated for residential farming bases (Simms et aL, 1997). In the lat ter case, the ceramic quality will be lower, and the raw materials at short term camps left by full-time foragers not only will be different from those at residential farming bases, but may be more variable in source materials

represented since ceramics from contrasting mobility regimes may be left at a single forager site. Of course, when farming Fremont move away from their village and construct ceramics at their temporary camps, they too will adopt the cultural clothing of the full-time foragers, making the two indis tinguishable.

Demographic Fluidity (1000-700 B.P.). Shortly before 1000 B.P. a series of dramatic changes involving marked demographic shifts and a rapid as similation of architectural features and tool characteristics common to

Anasazi areas south and east of the Colorado River occurred throughout the northern Colorado Plateau. Farming sites virtually disappear from the

Uinta Basin by ?900 B.P. (Fig. 11), while settled occupation of the canyon country east and west of the Green River on the Tavaputs Plateau in creased dramatically about the same time (Spangler, 1999b). Structural sites in the Tavaputs Plateau area consist of surface and pit structures using dry-laid masonry construction on stream terraces above narrow canyon flood plains and dry-laid masonry structures on relatively inaccessible rock




40,

100 200 300 40 500 600 700 800 900 10001100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600

Year ?- North of Duchewe-Whte Rivers ? South of Duchetne-WhKe River*

Fig. 11. Frequency of radiocarbon dates from horticultural sites along the Green River and its tributaries in the Uinta basin and along its southern margin, suggesting a dramatic shift in the distribution of population through time (adapted from Span gler, 1999b).

outcrops which appear to reflect a defensive posture (Spangler, 1999a). In several cases, the latter structures resemble Hovenweep-Iike towers. The habitation sites appear to have been occupied seasonally and are associated with an elaborate storage system characterized by large, isolated granaries in obscure locations and by "construction of elaborately camouflaged and

remotely located subterranean cists, which imply both abandonment and the possibility of human predation" (Spangler, 1999a). There is limited evi dence of ceramics, and what does occur appears to have been manufactured in areas to the south. A unique rock art style also appeared locally during this period.

These changes are associated with an apparent breakdown in what

Geib (1996, p. 113) sees as an "ethnic" boundary along the Colorado River, with a "change from a relatively marked discontinuity in material remains to one that was spatially continuous." After about 1000 B.P., many habi tation sites north of the river are, in a number of ways, indistinguishable

from those south of the river. Late pit structures in the Bull Creek area, for example, are often slab-lined and contain mealing bins identical to those in Kayenta regions to the south (Jennings and Sammons-Lohse, 1981). At some of the larger farming sites along the eastern margin of the Wasatch

Plateau, such as Snake Rock (Aikens, 1967), granaries are built in a linked linear form common in Anasazi sites to the south. Sites along the Fremont

River drainage and farther north contain large percentages of ceramics

manufactured in areas to the south, and locally made wares begin to exhibit




corrugation and painted designs using Southwestern motifs (R. Madsen, 1977; Metcalf et al, 1993). Bull Creek projectile points (Holmer, 1986;

Homer and Weder, 1980) are distributed in sites north and south of the Colorado River, and a number of rock art elements are common to both

regions (Castleton and Madsen, 1981). It is this apparent south-north continuity that led Madsen (1982b,

1989) to describe Formative groups in this area as Freazi or Anamont and to question the utility of cultural historical classification schemes for the Fremont. Madsen (1989, p. 42) held that "as one moves north along the Green River across the Colorado Plateau, 'Anasazi' features diminish and more classic 'Fremont' features are more common." This view may be

overly simplistic, however, as there appear to be spatially discrete areas in which differing adaptive strategies (together with differing congeries of ma terial traits) prevailed. For example, the changes in the Uinta Basin and

Tavaputs Plateau area do not appear, to Spangler (1999b), to be related to a population shift from either the Uinta Basin or the San Rafael Swell into the empty, but horticultural^ marginal Tavaputs Plateau. Rather, he

argues for the adoption of a markedly different adaptive strategy, in other

words, the switching behavior we discussed above. The Tavaputs Plateau and Nine Mile Canyon case exemplifies the benefits of the behavioral

approach we model here. This model expects decision making to occur be tween competing groups of people, not just between "cultures" encompass ing regions far larger than were relevant to decision making groups. As

such, discussion of the relationship among regions must be more than a mere description of discrete Fremont and Anasazi artifacts and architecture in mixed contexts, lest we continue to juxtapose our vision of bounded cul tures against behavioral realities. Behavior itself is "mixed" and is exem

plified by a fragment of mongrel basketry with a "Fremont" foundation and an "Anasazi" finish recovered from Coombs Cave in the La Sal Moun tains above Moab (W. B, Fawcett, personal communication, 1997).

In the Tavaputs Plateau region on both sides of the Green River, these

changes are associated with a decidedly defensive posture involving both the protection of people and the protection of stored resources (e.g., Creaseman, 1981; Spangler, 1999a) and suggest a degree of competition not noted in other Fremont areas. That this conflict was sometimes violent is suggested by "head-hunter" rock art motifs on a number of Uinta Basin

panels. The use of dry-laid masonry "towers" and walled "forts," together with the array of other characteristics common to areas south and east of the Colorado River, suggests that the widespread conflict evident during Pueblo III times across much of the Anasazi area (e.g., Haas and Wilcox, 1994; Lindsay, 1981) may have extended north along the Green River drainages. Similar kinds of defensive architecture do not occur in the Great




Basin, but there is evidence of violent interactions and, possibly, cannibal ism at sites in the Sevier River Valley (e.g., Novak, 1995, 1998) and the

Uinta Basin (Shields, 1967) and at the Turner-Look site (Novak, 1998; Wormington, 1955).

Given the complexity and radical nature of these changes, this may have involved the movement of substantial numbers of people, in addition to the movement of ideas and trade goods. The ceramics from the Tavaputs Plateau appear to be made of exotic basalts found to the south in the vi cinity of the San Rafael Swell. While it is tempting to interpret this as a

migration of people from the south into the Tavaputs Plateau, several fac tors argue that the Tavaputs occupation was a function of switching be havior by people who resided to the south. Spangler (1993, 1995, pp. 565-571) explores the possibility that the Tavaputs Plateau occupations were seasonal or, as we would suggest, intermittent. If the Tavaputs Plateau

pattern represents a population shift from the south to a new residence, we should expect Tavaputs Plateau ceramics to be made from local mate

rials as is the case elsewhere in Utah (Dean, 1992; Geib and Lyneis, 1996; Simms et al, 1997; Spurr, 1995) and in ethnographic cases worldwide (Ar nold, 1985, pp. 49-50). In fact, the dominance of exotic ceramics suggests a logistical connection to the San Rafael Swell area, a pattern where vessels manufactured to the south were brought in relatively small quantity to the

Tavaputs sites when the defensive regime was operating. This is consistent with the relative infrequency of ceramics, little evidence for local manu

facture, the slightly higher presence of Anasazi trade wares, and the rarity of ceramics at Tavaputs Plateau forager sites (Spangler, 1993, 1995, pp. 565-571). There is ample potential in this case to explore ceramic analyses that are responsive to the expectations from different contexts of selection.

By formulating the problem in the above manner, we can also develop some expectations that justify the use of molecular genetic analysis in this case. Comparative DNA tests of "Fremont" burials recovered from around

the Great Salt Lake with "Anasazi" remains from southeastern Utah sug

gest they were part of different genetic populations (Parr et aL> 1996), but similar tests of late "Fremont" from the Tavaputs region have yet to be

conducted, although the samples exist. If the Tavaputs region was one ele ment of a switching pattern, a refuge of sorts, then genetic continuity should be expected with areas to the south. Should there be evidence of

genetic contrast, then switching is ruled out, and the approach to the ce

ramic data could then be revised. The Tavaputs Plateau is a particularly

graphic example of switching but illustrates our argument for the relevance

of a model in which the contexts of selection stimulate the nature of the

research questions.




In contrast to the Colorado Plateau, the period between 1000 and 700 B.P. appears to have been one of relative stability in the Great Basin. Tra ditional foraging localities such as Danger (Madsen and Rhode, 1990) and Hogup Caves (Aikens, 1970) continued to be used during this period and a number of additional temporarily occupied sites began to be used for the first time (e.g., Madsen, 1998). Many of these newly occupied sites (e.g., Janetski et aL, 1997) are located very close to major farming areas, sug

gesting that they either are a product of foraging farmers or represent full time foragers interacting symbiotically with local farming communities.

In a number of selected areas, Great Basin farming communities show marked growth in terms of both size and social complexity during this pe riod. Virtually all of these communities are located along the periphery of the Bonneville Basin (both the eastern and the western margins) at the base of large, high, mountain ranges where the year-round supply of water

is stable and access to wild resources is relatively easy. Around Utah Lake, the central Sevier River Valley, and the Parowan Valley, sites such as Five

Finger Ridge (Janetski et al, 1997) and Paragonah (Judd, 1919; Meighan et al.9 1956) easily meet the criteria defined by Sammons-Lohse (1981) for Fremont "villages." These include a number of contemporaneous habita tion structures, architectural features associated with communal economic

cooperation, and evidence of political integration in the form of communal structures.

Talbot (1997a, b) provides a detailed review of architectural features associated with socially integrated Fremont villages (for an earlier view see

Lohse, 1980). An essential characteristic consists of a centrally located pit structure, similar in form to, but much larger than, surrounding pithouses. Exactly what kind of integrative function these large structures may have

performed is unclear. Often, they are associated with a "big mound" at these

village sites, suggesting a higher degree of activity (hence, producing in creased discard and mound growth) took place in and around these central structures. Detailed analysis of faunal remains at Baker Village on the east ern slope of the Snake Range (Hockett, 1998) suggests the possibility that these structures are the product of a social hierarchy associated with a dif ferential access to resources (Fig. 12). How valid such a social hierarchy may be, and how common it may be at other Fremont sites, remains an

open question, but the "big man" model of Hayden (1990) may be applicable to the issue of Fremont status differentiation (Barker, 1994). Certainly there is a difference in grave goods associated with burials at several of these sites

(e.g., Janetski and Talbot, 1997b; Madsen and Lindsay, 1977). On the other

hand, in a skeletal collection of 85 individuals from the Great Salt Lake, only a single case of status differentiation was observed (associated with an interment of 4 to 11 individuals), and a range of social organization and its



H sr <*

?,e ̂ 20e 30e 40e 5cme ?0e 70e m ?,0N + + ~k (1 + 4t -h 4- 4- ?ion ^

3 o 3

v . ; <yj^"rl a

L-^ . Li O : a

HTMOuse<?>^-^ // ^2; N\ ^^^i^/y . ....v. -

' . . If if }] ^^zJ j I_1 hthouss r

/ / // If ff cewnwt J. . j/5^^X*Y

^^*Xy prrHou?E awe*) /~vK

^Xl!^^Sj7^Lr ?t?uctoii? 7 r surface ^ I I

?' + , . -i- : ....... :;jfi/. :,.on4U

U / r~ 126 "*'? _J","oo*y / rij-"'" j 'om

:l 8twuctohc > chos8 TWFNCH

,1 n,i .. . ' . [ also at hot .

170n+ -f + + + -^r?- ' ;:;:.;.^jfv, - ::- ^=^,7on^~^

oe <0c 20e 30e *0e 506 . ?0e ; ^ 70e ?

Fig. 12. Plan map of architectural features at Baker Village showing pit houses and double-binned granaries around a large central structure. The arrangement is typical of many complex Fremont village sites in the Great Basin (drawing courtesy of Brigham Young University Museum

of Peoples and Culture). S




ideological reflection is apparent for the Fremont complex (Simms et aly 1991).

The economic basis for the social integration found at the compara

tively few large village sites is unclear. Irrigation features are found at some

Fremont village sites such as Nawthis Village (Metcalfe and Larrabee,

1985) and Median Village (Marwitt, 1970). These may be a product of communal labor requiring some sort of social integration, but they are com

paratively rare, are of relatively small scale, and also occur at early, less

complex sites (e.g., Talbot and Richens, 1996). Other than these few irri

gation features and the central village structures themselves, none of which is markedly different from regular pit structures, there is little to suggest a centralized organization of labor. Black and Metcalf (1986) suggest that these larger villages with higher populations are simply a product of in creased maize production associated with climatic conditions better suited to horticulture after ?1000 years ago, while Lindsay (1986) similarly ascribes the breakdown of these villages after ?800 B.P. to a climatic shift away from these favorable precipitation and temperature regimes. Talbot and

Wilde (1989) suggest that aggregation into larger, socially integrated vil

lages may have been episodic throughout a longer period from ?1250 to 600 B.P., but also imply that this was due largely to change in environ mental conditions suitable to farming.

While climate surely conditions all of the contexts of selection in which

people live, there are many ways in which climatic change might shape de cision making. The contexts of selection for the height of the Fremont period were very different from those of the preceding period, and climatic change, population pressure, or any other "factor," cannot be transformed into ex

pectations without considering the different situations in which the changes occur. For instance, the same conditions that promote demographic fluidity at the peak of the Fremont period constrain the options available to people. Despite strong links between people of the hinterlands (e.g., former farmers,

logistic parties of farmers, full-time foragers) and nucleated farming occu

pations, movement across the landscape was probably more regulated by band associations, trading networks, and alliances that in some cases may have been under the control of headmen. Thus, while demographic fluidity increased, the contexts of switching and symbiosis are increasingly subject to matrix modification. The case of switching on the Tavaputs Plateau, which

appears to be a radical, defensive posture to manage risk, may be the only way in which switching could be expressed in that case. Simply returning to

foraging becomes more difficult when the hinterlands are filled with the

demographic consequences of centuries of farming and the networks among people that accompany the transition to farming. The options of group fis sion and colonization are likewise constrained. Intensification thus becomes




a more attractive option but, ultimately, reaches a point where it cannot

proceed without an additional increase in the complexity of the social

organization. Meanwhile, demographic adjustments in the Southwest after 900 B.P.

may also contribute to the mix and may explain the gradational boundary after this time between the Anasazi and the Fremont (Geib, 1996, p. 115) and the architectural similarities between the two noted for Fremont resi dential farming bases (Talbot, 1997a, p. 220-233). Contrary to Talbot (1997a, p. 221), who interprets diffusion and culture contact as something distinct from ecological change, we find diffusion to have long been rec

ognized, as our history of the Fremont illustrates. Critics of diffusion do not deny its existence, nor do they argue for its replacement with climatic or economic prime movers. Diffusion, however, begs to be given behavioral

relevance, and this has been called for in Fremont studies (e.g., O'Connell et a/., 1982). The behavioral approach we employ here gives meaning to

diffusion, and our suggestions about the nature of demographic fluidity in clude the prediction that it should increase during the peak of the Fremont period (also see Simms, 1994, 1999; Upham 1994). We further predict that demographic fluidity (and by extension diffusion) should continue to be

high during the Fremont denouement but that the reasons for its existence

change because the contexts of selection change. Denouement (700-400 B.R). While "the A.D. 1300s marked the de

nouement of the Fremont lifeway that had flourished throughout Utah for several centuries" (Janetski, 1994, p. 174), the underlying causes remain unclear. As a generalization, farming ended across much of the Fremont

region by 700-650 B.P. (Lindsay, 1986; Talbot and Wilde, 1989), but the loss of the agricultural element from the Fremont complex was "fragmen tary" (Lindsay, 1986), as farming terminated earlier in some areas and per sisted in others. Farming continued in some fashion in northwestern Colorado at sites like the Texas Overlook until after 500 B.P. (Creaseman and Scott, 1987; Hauck, 1993; Liestman, 1985; Spangler, 1999b). It appears to have declined in significance in the Parowan Valley at sites like Evans and Median (Lindsay, 1986) and in the Great Salt Lake wetlands by 800 850 B.P. (Coltrain, 1994b, 1997; Coltrain and Stafford, 1999). In the Uinta Basin, there is no evidence for farming after about 950 B.P. (Spangler, 1995, p. 616).

Fremont denouement has often been associated with the spread of the

historically known Numic languages into the eastern Great Basin and north ern Colorado Plateau after about 800-1000 B.P. (Madsen and Rhode, 1994). The argument for an abrupt demise of the Fremont in response to the im

migration of Numic-speaking foragers can be traced to a host of archaeolo

gists in the 1920s and 1930s (Madsen, 1994, pp. 25-26). This archaeological




interpretation was later supported by linguistic data, beginning with Lamb (1958). However, while there clearly were population movements over much of the Desert West at this time, there are varying degrees of archaeological discontinuity between the Fremont period and the subsequent Late Prehis toric period. In some areas, the discontinuity is pronounced enough that,

given the linguistic evidence for a recent spread of Numic languages, ar

chaeologists feel comfortable in assuming a clear relationship between ma

terial culture and linguistic/ethnic boundaries. In other areas, description focuses more on the changes in the cultural clothing that come with the

elimination of agriculture, especially in mobility and settlement, regardless of population movement. The issue has recently been summarized as an

alternative between "migrationist" and "adaptationist" perspectives (Janet ski, 1994, pp. 177). While Janetski uses these terms to describe traditional views of the Fremont demise, we consider them to be one and the same

thing. An exploration of causation does not deny the existence of migration, only its value as an explanatory prime mover. Migration occurred throughout the Fremont period: colonizing Basketmaker II farmers, adaptive diversity among symbiotic dyads and switching subgroups of farmers, and the demo

graphic fluidity we described for the Fremont zenith. The influx of material culture traceable to the historic Numic-speaking inhabitants of the region surely involves migration as well, but it is increasingly apparent that the Fre

mont denouement is much more than a simple relationship between farmers and climate, with a dash of immigrants.

While denouement can be rhetorically fixed at 700 B.P., the process apparently begins during the Fremont peak between 800 and 1000 B.P. During this time, farming is at its maximum intensity and extent, population is reaching its peak, and foragers have been a regular feature in and around the farming landscape. This leads to a paradox in comparing the origins of the Fremont complex to its terminus. In the beginning there were both

indigenous foragers who adopted farming and immigrating farmer-colo nists. Both were in competition with foragers of the region. At the terminus of the Fremont, there were indigenous farmers adopting foraging, some of them possibly emigrating, as well as immigrating foragers. All of these were in competition with farmers. At first glance, one wonders how immigrant farmers hold the competitive edge at the beginning, while the immigrant foragers hold the edge at the end. Previously we argued that the demo

graphic fluidity found near the zenith of the Fremont period continued

during denouement, but for different reasons. An exploration of the dif ferent contexts of selection between these two times may help clarify this

paradox.

Competition is important in understanding contexts of selection, and the Tavaputs Plateau provides a graphic example to discuss farmer-forager




interactions during the Fremont denouement. Spangler (1995, pp. 616-619) notes the correlation of the Tavaputs Plateau defensive posture beginning by 1000 B.P. and the decline in farming in the Uinta Basin, suggesting that there was competition between farmers and foragers. Janetski (1994, p. 177) cites ethnographic evidence that while farmers hold a competitive edge

when population is increasing, foragers fare better when population is de

creasing. The evidence for contrast between the foraging sites of the

Tavaputs Plateau and the defensive, storage-oriented farming sites is also

consistent with farmer-forager competition. We previously suggested that the Tavaputs Plateau florescence results from episodic use of the area by farming groups moving north from the San Rafael Swell area. The perma nent residents of the Tavaputs Plateau would have a competitive advantage because they would control hunting and gathering patches (Spangler, 1995, p. 618). This competitive situation could exist with or without the migration of new groups of foragers. Thus, new groups of foragers may have moved into the region, but they become part of a process of conflict that escalated as the Fremont peak was reached. We know little about the specifics, but our references in the previous section to evidence for social hierarchies and shifting interaction spheres, as well as the scattered, but direct evidence for conflict and possibly cannibalism, all point to various forms of compe tition typical of tribal societies.

During this period, the number of behavioral options decrease as eco

logical niches fill and matrix modification limits opportunity. Instead of managing risk by exporting colonizing farmers, exporting farmers into the foraging hinterlands, and the development of symbiotic relationships, the Fremont complex increasingly features intensification such as the input of more labor into farming systems, increases in social complexity, investment in hidden storage, and more direct forms of conflict exemplified by the

Tavaputs Plateau and northwestern Colorado.

Climate has long been a widely accepted factor in the termination of farming in the Fremont region. Competition during the Fremont period of demographic fluidity between 1000 and 700 B.P. would heighten the impact of climatic fluctuations that, in earlier centuries, were managed by less in tensive means. The well-documented droughts in the Southwest around 800

B.P. and again at 700-650 B.P. may have been expressed in the Fremont

region, especially as a decrease in growing season and shifts in the season

ality of rainfall (Lindsay, 1986). Pollen records from central Utah show that the period of Fremont denouement was relatively warm and dry, with increased winter precipitation (Newman, 1997). These findings are consis tent with studies in surrounding regions indicating that this period featured

frequent positive temperature spikes (Graumlich, 1993) and lower summer

precipitation (e.g., Peterson, 1988). Unfortunately, temperature and pre




cipitation reconstructions as precise as those found in the Southwestern

tree-ring record are not available for most of the Fremont region. Under the conditions encountered late in the Fremont period, some

farmers likely abandoned farming in the Fremont region and emigrated to places where they would be accepted, probably using established kin link ages and interactions based on long-standing traditions. While this conjures up images of farmers moving south into the Anasazi area, we do not see

this behavior in monolithic terms. The late expressions of farming in north west Colorado, and perhaps the Tavaputs Plateau case, may reflect immi

grating farmers. Migration to the south by some families or kin-based groups is another possibility. Wormington's (1955) hypothesis that the Fre mont ultimately became the Hopi reflects this behavior. If some of the sites along the Colorado River drainages are indeed a product of a disper sion northward of people from south of the Colorado River and an amal

gamation of Fremont and Anasazi groups, then denouement for some

Fremont would be related to the general post-Pueblo III contraction which occurred all across the Anasazi realm (Cordell, 1984). While it is currently

impossible to determine the modern Pueblo society with which these north ernmost Anamonts may be associated, it is certainly reasonable to assume that they shared the same fate as the rest of the Pueblo people along the Colorado River. It is worth noting that the Hopi language is an early off shoot of the Numic languages, and linguistic evidence suggests that it split from Numic about 3000 B.P. This would place a Uto-Aztecan presence in at least a portion of the Fremont region at an early date but, more im

portantly, points to the possibility that, like the Anasazi, the Fremont com

plex may cover considerable linguistic diversity that is subsumed and, hence, obscured by the term "Fremont/'

Farmers who did not emigrate from the region would suffer in the face of increasing forager competition, as Janetski (1994, p. 177) suggests and is exemplified in the Tavaputs Plateau case. In the same way, the Pueblo III contraction is a migration and may have involved Uto-Aztecan

speakers. The spread of Numic speakers (a later split from Uto-Aztecan) would simply add to the competitive mix. The relatively prolonged inter mingling of Fremont farmer/foragers and Numic-speaking foragers in some

parts of the northern Colorado Plateau over the course of 400-500 years (Reed, 1994) suggests a merging process among veiy similar groups of hunter-gatherers. Metcalf et al (1993) raise the possibility that merged Fre

mont/Shoshonean groups may have pursued increasing herds of large game onto the plains of the Wyoming basin during more productive periods as sociated with the Little Ice Age. While this hypothesis is mostly speculative, it does gain some surprising support from rock art studies. Keyser (1975; see also Wright, 1978) contends, for example, that the shield-bearing




warrior motif (traditional trapezoidal figures with added shields) usually associated with the Fremont (Schaafsma, 1971; Wormington, 1955) is found well across the northern plains and is most likely related to the spread of

Numic-speaking peoples. Dating of real "Fremont" shields from sites along the Fremont River drainage to ?400 B.P. (Kreutzer, 1994; Loendorf and

Conner, 1993) suggests that this is a notion worth pursuing (but see Schle sier, 1994).

Coalescing of indigenous and immigrant populations also appears to

have been a possibility in the northern portion of the Bonneville Basin. The sequence differs, however, in that it seems to have occurred at the end of a two-step transition from mixed foraging and farming to full-time

foraging hypothesized by Julian Steward (1937, 1940) more than 50 years ago. Based on excavations at caves near the Great Salt Lake, Steward

thought that Fremont material culture was replaced by a less well-made, thick-walled pottery, Desert side-notched projectile points found widely over western North America, and a "gusset"-style moccasin very unlike the Fremont "hock" moccasins. Dubbed the "Promontory" culture, Steward

proposed that these people were largely responsible for driving out the Fre mont farmers. The Promontory culture was, in turn, replaced 300-400 years ago by protohistoric Shoshonean peoples with their own distinctive style of

moccasin, a flat-bottomed style of pottery, and distinctive kinds of basketry. This sequence has been recycled a number of times, in a number of

forms since it was first proposed by Steward (see also Smith, 1939). Its greatest failing was that many of the features of the "Promontory" culture

proved to overlap temporally those characteristics of Fremont farmers, sug

gesting either that two separate groups coexisted for a time or that the different material remains represent different functional uses of the same

landscape by the same people. The distinctiveness of the Promontory cul ture also founders on the fact that it is essentially based on ceramics be cause the other traits occur in such small sample sizes. It is difficult to

argue for a shared cultural tradition and strict boundedness of categories with this evidence.

Dean (1992), based on similarities in construction materials of plain ware ceramics, contends that "Promontory" and "Fremont" pottery are es

sentially the same, while Forsyth (1986), based primarily on dissimilarities in vessel form and decoration, concludes that they are essentially different. Janetski (1994) argues for Promontory distinctiveness based on stratigraphi cally documented change in ceramic morphology during the Fremont de nouement. The main point in this debate, however, is that there is much more variation in Fremont ceramics than allowed for in studies that dis count variability in favor of defining normative types. Fawcett and Simms

(1993) excavated superimposed houses dating to 950-800 B.P, clearly within




the Fremont period, but yielding ceramics ranging from thin-walled, well made vessels to thick, poorly constructed vessels. Simms et al (1997) ex

plored patterning in the variability characterizing Fremont ceramics in light of hypotheses about mobility. They found a relationship among mobility, the degree of "investment" in ceramic technology, and the sources of ce

ramic raw materials used in the predominately plainware Fremont and Late Prehistoric ceramic industries.

Behaviorally patterned variability in Fremont ceramics suggests that the less well-made forms of pottery often identified as "Promontory" were

most likely produced by mobile foragers and that, with the disappearance of farming in the area, these foragers merely continued to operate in the same fashion and in largely the same ways that they had prior to 700 years ago. This does not discount the possibility of ethnic or linguistic variation in northwestern Utah. Immigrant foragers probably filtered into and around the area, and change in such ceramic features as rim form and vessel shape

may be due to the presence of these new foragers. Promontory pottery does suggest that a simple across-the-board replacement of one set of peo

ples by another was unlikely, however. There was indeed general change in ceramic morphology as Janetski (1994) proposes, because Fremont de nouement involved subsistence and settlement change as well as an absorp tion of new immigrant populations. By defining patterns which occur in a sea of variability only as bounded categories, however, it becomes impos sible to understand what the variability in Fremont ceramics means in terms of behavior both before and after the end of farming.

As farmers emigrated to farm elsewhere, as farmers became foragers, and as farmers lost out to the rising tide of foraging, Fremont denouement continued the demographic fluidity of the preceeding period. The extent of the impact can be seen in the spread of ceramic industries well beyond the boundaries of the farming Fremont. In the Great Basin, foragers con tinued to use ceramics into the historic period. Categorical metaphors ap plied to Great Basin forager ceramics again fail in the face of what researchers refer to as the gradational variation that characterizes the re

gion's ceramics (Dean, 1992; Griset, 1986; Lockett and Pippin, 1990; Ly neis, 1982, 1994b; Mack, 1990). Foragers likely adopted ceramics as early as 1500 B.P., based on finds at Alta Toquima in central Nevada (Grayson, 1993 p. 263), and by 1150 B.P. in south central Nevada (Rhode, 1994).

They appear more widely after A.D. 1000 (Rhode, 1994), paralleling the increased adaptive diversity accompanying Fremont growth.

Lyneis (1994a) suggests that what she calls Brown Ware pottery, "pre sumably produced by Southern Paiute and Utes," is easily separated from Fremont pottery south of the Utah Valley area. To the north, however, the ready distinctions between these pottery types disappear, and "the




relationship between the Fremont and Late Prehistoric traditions of pottery production seem to be different in this area than they are to the south"

(Lyneis, 1994a, pp. 9-1, 9-2). This suggests the possibility that postfarming Fremont foragers and immigrant foragers comingled to a greater extent in the marsh areas of the northwestern Great Basin than they did elsewhere in the Fremont area. This model not only accounts for the gradational na

ture of Great Basin ceramics in some areas, but supports proposals by Janetski (1994) and Simms and Stuart (1993) for some continuity in wet lands lifeways and material culture along the Wasatch Front through at

least 500 B.P. Janetski (1994) suggests that the material remains associated with historic groups, such as flat-bottomed "flower pot" vessels and twined

seed-beaters, occur no earlier than 300 years ago, and a distinct gap exists in the Bonneville Basin between these material remains with historic ana

logues and those associated with the post-Fremont foragers. This raises the possibility that these remains represent a relatively re

cent movement of people into the region, a possibility with which we con cur. What is lacking is an explanation for this sequence. We think that it

may lie in the introduction of European diseases between 350 and 450 B.P. into populations immediately south of the Fremont area (the Columbia Plateau is also a possibility but exhibits fewer links with Utah than the Southwest). Epidemics resulting from the transmission of these diseases northward would have their most likely impact on foraging populations liv

ing in relatively densely populated and relatively sedentary situations in the large marsh areas around Utah Lake and Great Salt Lake. The very areas

most able to support large populations would become sinks for the intru sion of foragers from surrounding areas, with survivors incorporated into these immigrant populations, probably under conditions of greatly reduced status. In this way, the archaeological contrast between the post-Fremont foraging pattern and the Numic pattern after 500 B.P. as seen by Janetski

(1994) combines with this upheaval to create a tragic and ironic picture of continuity and dynamism not typical of monolithic models of cultural

replacement. Whether the Fremont were genetically and, hence, socially related to

the historically known occupants of the eastern Great Basin and the South

west remains a largely unanswered question that is only beginning to be

addressed by molecular genetic analysis. The hypothesis of Aikens (1966) that the Fremont-Promontory were of Athabaskan origins and migrated to

the Plains in the face of the Numic influx receives little support from recent

molecular genetic analysis. Forty-seven individuals from the Great Salt

Lake wetlands, dating between 550 and 1600 B.P., were screened for four

mitochondrial DNA markers. They showed strong differences in two ge netic markers distinguishing them from Athabaskan populations (Parr et




aL, 1996). The Great Salt Lake series was also distinct from Anasazi skele tons from southeastern Utah (O'Rourke et aL, 1999; Parr et aL, 1996). It

would be dangerous, however, to extend the genetic profiles of the Great Salt Lake Fremont to the entire Fremont region. Molecular genetic analysis on Fremont skeletons from the northern Colorado Plateau, especially those from sites suspected of having Basketmaker II links, may indeed exhibit similarities with Anasazi populations. The Great Salt Lake skeletons are distinct from modern Paiute and Shoshoni samples from western Nevada

(Kaestle, 1997; Lorenz and Smith, 1994), a result consistent with the model of Numic spread. However, they are also different from late Archaic skele tons from western Nevada (O'Rourke et aL, 1999), suggesting that distance, rather than the lack of linguistic affiliation, may explain this contrast in

much the same manner as does that between the Great Salt Lake Fremont and the Anasazi samples. None of these studies is conclusive, but the

emerging picture is one of genetic heterogeneity in western North America

(Kaestle et aly 1999; O'Rourke et aL, 1999). The emerging picture of the Fremont complex is indeed one of de

nouement, rather than a monolithic and mysterious disappearance. The ar

chaeological evidence and the tantalizing evidence from molecular genetic analysis point to several different behavioral responses and to Fremont ge netic and linguistic/ethnic diversity. It dissolves the romance of a mysteri ously disappearing Fremont into an expectation that Fremont genetic material survives today, not in the Fremont people per se, but in the com

plex genetic variability found across the Great Basin (e.g., Kaestle, 1995, Kaestle et aL, 1999; O'Rourke et aL, 1999; Parr et aL, 1996; Smith et aL, 1995).

SUMMARY AND INTEGRATION

Archaeologists have had difficulty conceptualizing the Fremont com

plex since it was first recognized nearly 70 years ago. The affinity of Fre mont farmers to those of the American Southwest contrasts with their

presence in a region occupied by foragers. This has led to vacillation be tween defining the Fremont as the "northern periphery" of Southwestern

farming peoples or as an "in situ" development that "was evidently a quite flexible or adaptable lifeway showing local diversity within a general model" (Jennings, 1978, p. 155). Of course, the "general model" referred to by Jennings is farming, and while this characteristic remains important, much of the difficulty with understanding the Fremont arises from the inability to distinguish, in archaeological situations, the relationship between farming and a "flexible lifeway." An obsession with a definition of the Fremont has




continually hindered resolution of this dilemma, and the order that seems to come from taxonomic exercises has obscured the evidence for variety and fluidity among lifeways, individuals, and families as a central feature of Fremont history. The Fremont may be real in some abstract sense, but for analytical purposes, for education of the general public, and for rela tions with Native Americans, it should be no more difficult to portray them as "people" than as a category. It should be just as easy to pay attention to the reality of the archaeological record itself as to some abstract division of that record.

The Fremont complex is also germane to the general issue of the transition to food production throughout the world. It is a case where

farming spread from Mexico via the Southwest in circumstances that led to its adoption by some indigenous groups, but which may also have in cluded immigrants, at least in the eastern portion of the region. The sub

sequent interaction of these groups produced a complex archaeological record of Fremont farmers who sometimes acted as foragers, as well as

farmers and foragers operating in both cooperative and competitive sym biotic relationships. Farming was practiced in some areas as an adjunct to foraging, while in other areas, it followed at least part of the trajectory of intensification common to the general, worldwide evolution of farming. The Fremont is also a fascinating case of the food producing transition

because, after more than a millennium, farming was abandoned and re

placed by full-time foraging. When farmers shift to full-time foraging and back again episodically

over a period of a thousand years or more, as was the case in the Fremont

complex, the conceptual problems of definitions are exacerbated. Fremont

archaeologists, like anthropologists generally, have struggled with the con

cepts of "culture" and "ethnicity" due to the perceived need to categorize and organize the archaeological and ethnographic record for study. These

problems in understanding the Fremont complex are symptomatic of a

larger difference, within anthropology as a whole, between essentially de

scriptive culture history and ethnography and a behavioral approach. The latter is geared primarily toward trying to understand why people do what

they do and toward conveying the dynamism that we readily see in the

present, but which, through convention, we often choose to ignore in the

prehistoric record. The conflicts between these approaches cannot be re

solved by new archaeological methods, or better high-tech analyses, regard less of their benefits. Movement beyond concepts such as diffusion,

migration, independent invention, or vague references to influence among cultures requires change in how questions about the archaeological record are framed. Movement toward a richer, more realistic telling of the pre historic record requires the same change.




When employing the descriptive approach, the levels of integration and distinction archaeologists bring to the table largely determine how they understand the human groups that are under study. When archaeologists use this approach, the farmers and foragers of the Fremont complex are

not unlike the farmers and foragers of southern Africa. In southern Africa, San foragers and their farming neighbors can be viewed as separate eth

nically defined groups with different subsistence practices and ideologies (e.g., Lee and Guenther, 1993; Lewis-Williams, 1984) or as a larger and

more integrated economic and belief system (e.g., Jolly 1996; Wilmsen,

1989). In western North America, the Fremont can be viewed strictly as

settled farmers and separate foragers (e.g., Talbot 1996, 1997b) or as a

more broadly defined system of interacting farmers and foragers (e.g., Janetski, 1997). While neither view is fundamentally more correct than the

other, and they differ in the way groups of people are categorized and

organized, they engender a series of unresolvable arguments since it is im

possible to agree upon what levels of organization and integration are most

appropriate. Fortunately, the behavioral approach we advocate here reconstitutes

the questions and makes the "correctness" of one particular category or

another irrelevant. Rather than put the Fremont into pigeon holes with

features we must necessarily assume to be distinctive, we wish to under

stand how people within the Fremont complex were operating at any one

time, and how that behavior may have changed through the course of their

history. We view behavior as the product of the decisions of individuals operating under various constraints external to them. These include the constraints among individuals and among groups with contrasting interests and alliances. It includes the interrelated physical and social environments as a context of selection operating on individuals, organized into groups. Boundaries and traditions exist not only between cultures but within them.

Plasticity and change are also features of cultures, and of individuals and

groups within them. The need to categorize tends to treat cultures, variants, and the like as autonomous social units, thus making it difficult to explore interaction, fluidity, and dynamism in any other terms. The approach we

take here in exploring behavior highlights the contexts of selection to which

people were subjected but does not replace whatever ethnic, linguistic, or other boundaries may have been present among people. Rather, we pre sume many of these boundaries are archaeologically undetectable and sug gest that failure to come to grips with this is one reason why we have

struggled so unsuccessfully to define the Fremont people. It is also why we

tend to transform our archaeological categories into social fictions. We do think that farming "defines" the Fremont archaeological com

plex. It does so, however, only in the sense that farming changes the behavior




of everyone, farmers and foragers alike, who live within the matrix of farm

ing communities. While the behavior of nearby foragers feathers out into the behavior of foragers away from, and unaffected by, the behavior of peo

ple in those farming communities, and is thus unbounded, it is useful to

conceptualize the Fremont in terms of the farming which modifies the be

havior of the foragers around it. But that does not mean that there was

something we can call The Fremont. Rather, there were full-time sedentary farmers, full-time mobile foragers, sedentary foragers, seasonal farmer/fora

gers, and people who could have been all of these at one time or another in their lives. We much prefer the phrase "Fremont Complex" to convey the notion of this behavioral mix and to direct attention away from cultures as autonomous units.

About 2500 years ago farming gradually spread north and west of the Colorado River into areas of the northern Colorado Plateau and eastern

Great Basin. For some who adopted farming, the change was abrupt, re

quiring adjustments in scheduling, mobility, and storage. For some, perhaps most in the eastern Great Basin, farming was not adopted as early as else

where, may simply have been added to a foraging base and did not con

stitute a great behavioral change. Over the course of a thousand years or

more, farming and an array of other technological features and behaviors were differentially adopted by people living in very diverse environmental and social settings, and as they did so, the Fremont complex emerged. Since these settings differed so dramatically, so too did the evolutionary pressures

which structured the behavior of people living within them, and an array of ways to cope with these changes gradually developed.

During the florescence of the Fremont complex, limited social hier

archies developed in some of the larger and more permanent Fremont

farming villages. Foragers around these villages, and other smaller and

socially less complex villages, interacted symbiotically with these village people. They undoubtedly exchanged sons and daughters, as well as beans,

jackrabbits, arrow points, and symbolism, and formed genetic and behav

ioral continuums across space and time. At times farming villages were

seasonally abandoned and part-time foragers and their full-time foraging relatives were both on the move. At still other times farming was aban

doned completely. Even where foragers were not acting symbiotically, their behavior was modified substantially by changes in the sociophysicai envi

ronmental matrix in which they lived. The presence of permanent villages and the local depression of resources, together with the broad array of

technological, sociolinguistic, and ideological options created by mixing

farming and foraging together, served to alter their behaviors in a variety of ways.




After about 800 years ago farming began to be abandoned in the same differential fashion as it was adopted, and by 500 years ago, foraging strategies increased in frequency to the point where farming, if it was still practiced in isolated areas, was completely swamped in the archaeological record. This change has been attributed to environmental change, popu lation growth, social pressures and conflicts, immigration, and emigration.

However, the behavioral approach we advocate here is directed less at

finding the cause or causes in terms of some particular external or internal force and more toward recognition that all of these factors may always be relevant to cultural change but will be expressed differently as the con text of selection changes. In this way, competition between groups, adap tive diversity, population growth rates and density, frost-free days, the annual distribution of rainfall, and other circumstances all play a role that

produces different outcomes depending on whether they are operating during the earliest phases of the Fremont complex, at its peak, or at its denouement.

Since the farming which defines the Fremont is no longer detectable in the archaeological record after 500 B.P. (we hold out the possibility that

we are simply dealing with an extremely low frequency of this pattern rather than its absence), there was no longer a Fremont complex. People contin ued to live in areas where farming had been common, although there is also evidence for subcontinental-scale migrations at this time. These are best documented in the Great Basin as the Numic Spread (e.g., Madsen and Rhode, 1994), but there were shifts in the location of Puebloan lan

guages, and a movement of Athabaskan speakers into the Southwest as

well. Again, the context of selection changed, but this almost certainly did not lead to a "disappearance" of the people who made up the Fremont

complex when farming was around. Once again, these processes simply ad

justed population genetics, marriage patterns, trading relationships, and

language distributions in the region. Surely the Fremont have some affinity with the historically known inhabitants of the region, but suggesting that this demonstrates the persistence of "one people" is as unlikely a behavioral determination as it is an untenable political determination for contempo rary native people to make.

The Fremont, in sum, was a complex of farming and foraging behaviors that cannot be readily understood through efforts to categorize them. The

very act of doing so tends to obscure the nature of these behaviors and the way they were intertwined. We prefer to look at these behaviors directly to explore the ways that people react to the evolutionary forces around them. That farming was a critical element of this matrix of behaviors is

clear, but it is the plasticity of that matrix which is at the heart of the Fremont complex and which characterizes the people who lived within it.




ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We wish to thank those who provided useful comments on preliminary versions of this paper. While we did not always follow their advice, we

probably should have. These colleagues include Angela Close, Phil Geib, Donald Grayson, Joel Janetski, Kevin Jones, Mike Lowe, Duncan Metcalfe, and Evelyn Seelinger. Devin Howells, Mike Hylland, Kristen Jensen, and Monson Shaver, III, provided valuable editorial and graphics assistance.

Finally, we gratefully acknowledge all the many Fremont scholars who, for more than a century, have struggled with the problems we address here.

While our solutions have differed, the discourse has always proved to be an interesting and valuable one.

REFERENCES

Adovasio, J. M. (1977). Basketry Technology: A Guide to Identification and Analysis, AJdine, Chicago.

Adovasio, J. M. (1980). Fremont: An artifactual perspective. In Madsen, D. B. (ed.), Fremont

Perspectives. Antiquities Section Selected Papers 7, Salt Lake City, pp. 35-40.

Aikens, C. M. (1966). Fremont-Promontory-Plains Relationships in Northern Utah. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 82, Salt Lake City.

Aikens, C. M. (1967). Excavations at Snake Rock Village and the Bear River No. 2 Site.

University of Utah Anthropological Papers 87, Salt Lake City. Aikens, C. M. (1970). Hogup Cave. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 93, Salt Lake

City. Aikens, C. M. (1976). Cultural hiatus in the eastern Great Basin? American Antiquity 41:

543-550.

Aikens, C. M., Cole, D. L, and Stuckenrath, R. (1977). Excavations at Dirty Shame Rock

shelter, Southeastern Oregon. Tebiwa: Miscellaneous Papers of the Idaho State University Museum of Natural History 4, Pocatello.

Ambler, J. R. (1966a). Caldwell Village. University of Utah Anthropolo&cal Papers 84, Salt Lake City.

Ambler, J. R. (1966b). Caldwell Village and Fremont Prehistory, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Colorado, Boulder.

Ambler, J. R. (1970). Just what is Fremont? Paper presented at the Fremont Culture sym

posium, 35th annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Mexico City. Anderson, D. C. (1983). Models of Fremont culture history: An evaluation. Journal of Inter

mountain Archaeology 2: 1-27.

Arnold, D. E. (1985). Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process, Cambridge University Press, Lon

don.

Baker, S. G. (1993). Fremont and numic archaeology in Canyon Pintado National Historic District, Rio Blanco County, Colorado: Salient topics. Paper presented at the 1st annual

Rocky Mountain Anthropological Conference, Jackson.

Baker, S. G. (1997). Fremont archaeology on the Douglas Creek Arch, Rio Blanco County, Colorado: Granaries and Rock Art in Shavetail Basin (5RB3189,3286,3290, 3512). Chan dler Douglas Arch Report Series 82, Denver.

Barker, J. P. (1994). Sequential hierarchy and political evolution along the western Fremont

frontier. Paper presented at the 24th Great Basin Anthropological Conference, Elko.




Barlow, K. R. (1998). Foragers That Farm: A Behavioral Ecology Approach to the Economics

of Com Farming for the Fremont Case, Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

Barlow, K. R., and Metcalfe, D. (1996). Plant utility indices: Two Great Basin examples. Jour nal of Archaeological Science 23(3): 351-372.

Berry, M. S. (1972). The Evans Site. Special Report, Department of Anthropology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

Berry, M. S. (1974). The Evans Mound: Cultural Adaptation in Southwestern Utah, Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

Berry, M. S. (1982). Time, Space and Transition in Anasazi Prehistory, University of Utah Press. Salt Lake City.

Berry, M. S., and Berry, C. F. (1976). An archeological reconnaissance of the White River

area, northeastern Utah. Antiquities Section Selected Papers 2(4), Salt Lake City.

Biggs, R. W. (1970). Burnt House Village, 42Unll8. In Breternitz, D. A. (ed.), Archaeological Excavations in Dinosaur National Monument, Colorado-Utah, 1964-1965. University of Colorado Studies, Series in Anthropology 17, Boulder, pp. 55-73.

Black, K. D., and Metcalf, M. D. (1986). The Castle Valley Archaeological Project: An In ventory and Predictive Model of Selected Tracts. Utah Bureau of Land Management Cultural Resource Series 19, Salt Lake City.

Blurton-Jones, N. (1991). Book review of "Land Filled With Flies: A Political Economy of the Kalahari" by E. Wilmsen. Journal of Anthropological Research 47: 95-97.

Breternitz, D. A. (ed.) (1970). Archaeological Excavations in Dinosaur National Monument, Colorado-Utah, 1964-1965. University of Colorado Studies, Series in Anthropology 17, Boul der.

Brew, J. O. (1946). Archaeology of Alkali Ridge, Southeastern Utah, with a Review of the Prehistory of Mesa Verde Division of the San Juan and Some Observations on Archae

ological Systematics. Papers of the Peahody Museum of American Archaeology and Eth

nology 21, Cambridge. Broughton, J. M. (1994). Declines in foraging efficiency during the late Holocene: The ar

chaeological mammal evidence from San Francisco Bay, California. Journal of Anthropo logical Archaeology 13: 371-401.

Burgh, R. F., and Scoggin, C. R. (1948). The Archaeology of Castle Park, Dinosaur National Monument. University of Colorado Studies, Series in Anthropology 2, Boulder.

Butler, B. R. (1981). Late period cultural sequences in the northeastern Great Basin subarea and their implications for the Upper Snake and Salmon River country. Journal of Cali

fornia and Great Basin Anthropology 3: 245-256.

Butler, B. R. (1983). The Quest for the Historic Fremont and A Guide to the Prehistoric Pottery of Southern Idaho. Occasional Papers of the Idaho Museum of Natural History 33, Pocatello.

Butler, B. R. (1986). The pottery of eastern Idaho. In Griset, S. (ed.), Pottery of the Great Basin and Adjacent Areas. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 111, Salt Lake City, pp. 37-57.

Castleton, K. B., and Madsen, D. B. (1981). The distribution of rock art elements and styles in Utah. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 3: 163-175.

Coltrain, J. B. (1994a). The Steinaker Gap burials and their implications for farming along the basin/plateau rim: A stable carbon and radio-isotope study. In Talbot, R. K., and

Richens, L. D. (eds.), Steinaker Gap: An Early Fremont Agriculture Farmstead. Museum

of Peoples and Cultures Technical Series 94-18, Provo.

Coltrain, J. B. (1994b). The Great Salt Lake wetlands: Stable isotope analysis and prehistoric diet. Paper presented at the 24th Great Basin Anthropological Conference, Elko.

Coltrain, J. B. (1996). Stable carbon and radioisotope analysis. In Talbot, R. K., and Richens, L. D. (eds.), Steinaker Gap: An Early Fremont Farmstead. Museum of Peoples and Cul tures Occasional Papers 2, Provo, pp. 115-122.

Coltrain, J. B. (1997). Fremont Economic Diversity: A Stable Carbon Isotope Study of Formative Subsistence Practices in the Eastern Great Basin, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of

Anthropology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.




Coltrain, J. B., and Stafford, T. W., Jr. (1999). Stable carbon isotopes and Salt Lake wetlands diet: Towards an understanding of the Great Basin formative. In Hemphill, B. E, and Larsen, C. S. (eds.), Understanding Prehistoric Lifeways in the Great Basin Wetlands: Bioarchaeological Reconstruction and Interpretation, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City (in press).

Cordell, L. S. (l%4)Prehistory of the Southwest, Academic Press, New York. Creasman, S. D. (1981). Archaeological Investigations in the Canyon Pintado Historic District,

Rio Blanco County, Colorado, Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins.

Creasman, S. D., and Scott, L. J. (1987). Texas Creek Overlook: Evidence for late Fremont

(post A.D. 1200) occupation in Northwest Colorado. Southwestern Lore 53(4): 1-16. Currey, D. R. (1991). Hemiarid lake basins: Hydrographic and geomorphic patterns. University

of Utah Limnotectonics Laboratory Technical Report 91-2, Salt Lake City. Davis, W. (1996). Comments. In Jolley, P. (ed.), Symbiotic interaction between black farmers

and south-eastern San: Implications for southern African rock art studies, ethnographic analogy, and hunter-gatherer cultural identity. Current Anthropology 37: 288-289.

Day, K., and Dibble, D. S. (1963). Archeological Survey of the Flaming Gorge Reservoir, Utah-Wyoming. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 65, Salt Lake City.

Dean, P. A. (1987). Appendix A: Petrographic thin-section analysis of selected sherds from 26Lnl775. In Elston, R. G., and Juell, K. (eds.), Archaeological Investigations at Panaca

Summit. Nevada Bureau of Land Management Cultural Resource Series 10, Reno.

Dean, P. A. (1992). Prehistoric Pottery in the Northeastern Great Basin: Problems in the Clas

sification and Archaeological Interpretation of Undecorated Fremont and Shoshoni Wares, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon, Eugene.

Dean, P. A., and Heath, K. (1988). Form and function: Understanding gray pottery in the northeastern Great Basin. In Griset, S. (ed.), Pottery of the Great Basin and Adjacent Areas. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 111, Salt Lake City, pp. 19-28.

Dodd, W. A., Jr., (1982). Final Year Excavations at the Evans Mound Site. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 106, Salt Lake City.

Fawcctt, W. B., and Simms, S. R. (1993). Archaeological Test Excavations in the Great Salt Lake Wetlands and Associated Sites. Utah State University Contributions to Anthropology 14, Logan.

Flannery, K. V. (1968). Archaeological systems theory and early mesoamerica. In Meggars, B. J. (ed.), Anthropological Archaeology in the Americas, Anthropological Society of Wash

ington, Washington, DC, pp. 67-87.

Forsyth, D. W. (1986). Post-Formative ceramics in the eastern Great Basin: A reappraisal of the promontory problem. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 8: 180-203.

Fowler, D. D. (1963). 1961 Excavations, Harris Wash, Utah. Glen Canyon Series 19. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 64, Salt Lake City.

Fowler, D. D., Madsen, D. B., and Hattori, E. M. (1973). Prehistory of Southeastern Nevada. Desert Research Institute Publications in the Social Sciences 6, Reno and Las Vegas.

Fry, G. F., and Dalley, G. F. (1979). The Levee Site and the Knoll Site. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 100, Salt Lake City.

Gebauer, A. B., and Price, T. D. (eds.) (1992). Transitions to Agriculture in Prehistory. Mono

graphs in World Archaeology 9. Prehistory Press, Madison.

Geib, P. R. (1996). Glen Canyon Revisited. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 119, Salt Lake City.

Geib, P. R., and Bungart, P. W. (1989). Implications of early bow use in Glen Canyon. Utah Archaeology 1989: 32-47.

Geib, P. R., and Lyneis, M. M. (1993). Sources of igneous temper for Fremont ceramics of South-Central Utah. In Rowlands, P. G., van Riper, C, III, and Soggc, M. K. (eds.),

Proceedings of the First Biennial Conference on Research in Colorado Plateau National

Parks. Transactions and Proceedings Series NPS/NRNAU/NRTP-93/10, United States De

partment of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, DC, pp. 166-183.

Geib, P. R., and Lyneis, M. M. (1996). Sources of igneous temper for Fremont ceramics. In

Geib, P. R. (ed.), Glen Canyon Revisited. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 119, Salt Lake City, pp. 167-179.




Gillin, J. (1938). Archaeological Investigations in Nile Mile Canyon, Utah, During the Year of 1936. University of Utah Bulletin 28(11), Salt Lake City.

Gillin, J. (1941). Archeological Investigations in Central Utah. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology 17(2), Cambridge.

Graumlich, L A. (1993). A 1000-year record of temperature and precipitation in the Sierra Nevada. Quaternary Research 39: 249-255.

Grayson, D. K. (1993). The Deserts Past: A Natural Prehistory of the Great Basin, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

Gregg, S. A. (1988). Foragers and Farmers: Population Interaction and Agricultural Expansion in Prehistoric Europe, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Greubel, R. A. (1996). Archaeological Investigations of 11 Sites Along Interstate 70: Castle Valley to Rattlesnake Bench. Alpine Archaeological Consultants, Inc., Montrose, CO.

Griset, S. (ed.) (1986). Pottery of the Great Basin and Adjacent Areas. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 111, Salt Lake City.

Gunnerson, J. H. (1960). The Fremont culture: Internal dimensions and external relationships. American Antiquity 25(3): 373-380.

Gunnerson, J. H. (1969). The Fremont culture: A study in culture dynamics on the northern Anasazi frontier. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 59(2), Cam

bridge. Haas, J, and Wilcox, D. (1994). Competition and conflict in the prehistoric Southwest. In

Gumerman, G. (ed.), Themes in Southwest Prehistory, School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, pp. 211-238.

Hanes, R. C. (1988). Lithic Assemblages of Dirty Shame Rockshelter: Changing Traditions in the Northern Intermontane. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers 40, Eugene.

Hauck, F. R. (1993). Archaeological Excavation (1988-1992) in the Douglas Creek?Texas Mountain Locality of Rio Blanco County, Colorado. Archaeological-Environmental Re search Corporation Paper 59, Bountiful.

Hayden, B. (1990). Nimrods, piscators, pluckers, and planters: The origin of food production. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 9: 31-69.

Headland, T. N., and Reid, L A. (1989). Hunter-gatherers and their neighbors from prehistory to the present. Current Anthropology 30: 43-66.

Heizer, R. R., and Hester, T. R. (1978). Great Basin Projectile Points: Forms and Chronology. Ballena Press Publications in Archaeology, Ethnology, and History 10, Socorro.

Henry, D. O. (1995). Prehistoric Cultural Ecology and Evolution: Insights from Southern Jordan, Plenum Press, New York.

Hockett, B. (1998). The sociopolitical meaning of faunal remains from Baker Village. Ameri can Antiquity (in press).

Hodder, I. (1977). The distribution of material culture items in the Baringo District, West Kenya. Man 12: 239-269.

Hogan, P., and Sebastian, L. (1980). The variants of the Fremont: A methodological evalu ation. In Madsen, D. B. (ed.), Fremont Perspectives. Antiquities Section Selected Papers 7(16), Salt Lake City, pp. 13-16.

Holmer, R. N. (1980). Fremont versus Archaic subsistence: Is there a difference? Paper pre sented at the 17th Great Basin Anthropological Conference, Salt Lake City.

Holmer, R. N. (1986). Common projectile points of the intermountain West. In Condie, C.

J., and Fowler, D. D. (eds.), Anthropology of the Desert West: Essays in Honor of Jesse D. Jennings. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 110, Salt Lake City, pp. 89-115.

Holmer, R. N., and Ringe, B. L. (1986). Excavations at Wahmuza. In Holmer, R. N. (ed.), Shoshone-Bannock Culture History. Swanson-Crabtree Anthropological Research Labora

tory Reports of Investigations 85-16, Pocatello, pp. 39-203. Holmer, R. N., and Weder, D. G. (1980). Common post-Archaic projectile points of the Fre

mont area. In Madsen, D. B. (ed.), Fremont Perspectives. Antiquities Section Selected

Papers 7(16), Salt Lake City, pp. 55-68.

Home, J. C, Reed, A. D., and Chandler, S. M. (1994). Grand Resource Area Class I Cultural Resource Inventory, Utah Bureau of Land Management, Moab.




James, S. R. (1986). What mean these sherds? A functional approach to Fremont ceramics

in the western periphery. In Griset, S. (ed.), Pottery of the Great Basin and Adjacent Areas. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 111, Salt Lake City, pp. 107-188.

Janetski, J. C. (1993). The Archaic to Formative transition north of the Anasazi: A Basket

maker perspective. In Atkins, V. (ed.), Anasazi Basketmaker: Papers from the 1990 Weth

erill-Grand Gulch Symposium. Utah Bureau of Land Management Cultural Resource Series

24, Salt Lake City, pp. 223-241. Janetski, J. C. (1994). Recent transitions in the eastern Great Basin: The Archaeological Re

cord. In Madsen, D. B., and Rhode, D. (eds.), Across the West: Human Population Move meat and the Expansion of the Numa, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 157-178.

Janetski, J. C. (1997). Fremont hunting and resource intensification in the eastern Great Basin.

Journal of Archaeological Science 24: 1075-1088.

Janetski, J. C, and Talbot, R. K. (1997a). Project overview and context. In Janetski, J. C,

Talbot, R. K., Newman, D. E, Richens, L D., Wilde, J. D., Baker, S. B., and Billat, S. E. (eds.), Clear Creek Canyon Archaeological Project. Volume Five: Results and Syn thesis. Brigham Young University Museum of Peoples and Cultures Technical Series 95.9, Provo, pp. 3-9.

Janetski, J. C, and Talbot, R. K. (1997b). Social and community organization. In Janetski, J.

C, Talbot, R. K., Newman, D. E.,Richens, L D., Wilde, J. D., Baker, S. B., and Billat, S. E. (eds.), Clear Creek Canyon Archaeological Project. Volume Five: Results and Syn thesis. Brigham Young University Museum of Peoples and Cultures Technical Series 95.9,

Provo, pp. 309-328.

Janetski, J. C, Crosland, R., and Wilde, J. D. (1991). Preliminary report on Aspen Shelter:

An upland deer hunting camp on the Old Woman Plateau. Utah Archaeology 1991 4:

32-43.

Janetski, J. C, Talbot, R. K., Newman, D. E.,Richens, L D., Wilde, J. D., Baker, S. B., and

Billat, S. E. (1997). Clear Creek Canyon Archaeological Project. Volume Five: Results and Synthesis. Brigham Young University Museum of Peoples and Cultures Technical Series

95.9, Provo.

Jennings, J. D. (1956). The American Southwest: A problem in cultural isolation. In

Wauchope, R. (ed.), Seminars in Archaeology, 1955. Society for American Archaeology Memoirs 11, Washington, DC, pp. 59-127.

Jennings, J. D. (1957). Danger Cave. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 27, Salt Lake City.

Jennings, J. D. (1960). Early man in Utah. Utah Historical Quarterly 28(1): 3-27. Jennings, J. D. (1978). Prehistory of Utah and the Eastern Great Basin: A Review. University

of Utah Anthropological Papers 98, Salt Lake City. Jennings, J. D. (1980). Cowboy Cave. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 104, Salt Lake

City. Jennings, J. D., and Sammons-Lohse, D. (1981). Bull Creek. University of Utah Anthropological

Papers 105, Salt Lake City. Jennings, J. D., Schroedl, A. R., and Holmer, R. N. (1980). Sudden Shelter. University of Utah

Anthropological Papers 103, Salt Lake City. Jolly, P. (1996). Symbiotic interaction between black farmers and south-eastern San: Implica

tions for southern African rock art studies, ethnographic analogy, and hunter-gatherer cultural identity. Current Anthropology 37: 277-306.

Jones, K. T., and Madsen, D. B. (1989). Calculating the cost of resource transportation: A

Great Basin example. Current Anthropology 30: 529-534.

Judd, N. M. (1917). Evidence of circular kivas in western Utah ruins. American Anthropologist

19(1): 34-40. Judd, N. M. (1919). Archaeological Investigations at Paragonah, Utah. Smithsonian Institution

Miscellaneous Collections 70(3): 1-22, Washington, DC.

Judd, N. M. (1926). Archaeological Observations North of the Rio Colorado. Bureau of Ameri can Ethnology Bulletin 82, Washington, DC.




Kaestle, F. A. (1995). Mitochondrial DNA evidence for the identity of the descendants of the prehistoric Stiliwater Marsh population. In Larsen, C. S., and Kelly, R. L (eds.), Bioar

chaeology of the Stiliwater Marsh: Prehistoric Human Adaptation in the Western Great Basin. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 77, New York, pp. 73-80.

Kaestle, F. A. (1997). Molecular analysis of ancient native American DNA from western Nevada. Nevada Historical Quarterly 40(1): 85-96.

Kastle, F. S., Lorenz, J. G., and Smith, D. G. (1999). Molecular genetics and the Numic

expansion: A molecular investigation of the prehistoric inhabitants of Stiliwater Marsh. In Hemphill, B. E., and Larsen, C. S. (eds.), Understanding Prehistoric Lifeways in the

Great Basin Wetlands: Bioarchaeological Reconstruction and Interpretation, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Kelly, R. L. (1995). The Foraging Spectrum: Diversity in Hunter-Gatherer Lifeways, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

Kelly, R. L. (1997). Late Holocene Great Basin Prehistory. Journal of World Prehistory 11: 1-50.

Keyser, J. D. (1975). A Shoshonean origin for the Plains shield bearing warrior motif. Plains

Anthropologist 20: 207-215.

Kidder, A. V. (1924). An Introduction to the Study of Southwestern Archaeology with a Prelimi

nary Account of the Excavations at Pecos, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.

Kidder, A. V. (1927). Southwestern Archaeology Conference. Science 66: 489-491.

Kreutzer, L. A. (1994). The Pectol collection, Capitol Reef National Park, Utah. Utah Ar

chaeology 1994: 104-116. Lamb, S. (1958). Linguistic prehistory in the Great Basin. International Journal of American

Linguistics 24: 95-100.

Leach, L. L. (1966). The Archeology of Boundary Village, Miscellaneous Paper 13. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 83, Salt Lake City.

Leach, L. L. (1970). Archaeological Investigations at Deluge Shelter in Dinosaur National Monu ment. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Colorado, Boulder.

Lee, R. B., and Guenther, M. (1993). Problems in Kalahari historical ethnography and the tolerance of error. History of Africa 20: 185-235.

Lewis-Williams, J. D. (1984). Ideological continuities in prehistoric southern Africa. In Schrire, C. (ed.) Past and Present in Hunter-Gatherer Studies, Academic Press, Orlando, FL, pp. 225-252.

Liestman, T. L. (1985). Site 42Un 1103; A Rockshelter in Dinosaur National Monument, Utah. Midwest Archeological Center Occasional Studies in Anthropology 13, Lincoln.

Lindsay, L. W. (1981). Big Westwater ruin. Utah Bureau of Land Management Cultural Re source Series 9, Salt Lake City.

Lindsay, L. W. (1986). Fremont fragmentation. In Condie, C. J., and Fowler, D. D. (eds.), Anthropology of the Desert West: Essays in Honor of Jesse D. Jennings. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 110, Salt Lake City, pp. 229-251.

Lockett, C. L., and Pippin, L. C. (1990). Re-examining brownware ceramics in the central and southern Great Basin. In Mack, J. (ed.), Hunter-Gatherer Pottery from the Far West.

Nevada State Museum Anthropological Papers 23, Carson City, pp. 67-82.

Loendorf, L., and Conner, S. (1993). The Pectol shields and the shield-bearing warrior rock art motif. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 15: 216-224.

Lohse, E. (1980). Fremont settlement pattern and architectural variation. In Madsen, D. B.

(ed.), Fremont Perspectives. Antiquities Section Selected Papers 7(16), Salt Lake City, pp. 41-54.

Lorenz, J. G., and Smith, D. G. (1994). Distribution of the 9-bp mitochondrial DNA region V deletion among North American Indians. Human Biology 66: 777-788.

Lupo, K., and Schmitt, D. N. (1997). On late holocene variability in bison populations in the northeastern Great Basin. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 19: 50-69.

Lyneis, M. M. (1982). Prehistory in the southern Great Basin. In Madsen, D. B., and O'Con

nell, J. F. (eds.), Man and Environment in the Great Basin. Society for American Archae

ology Papers 2, Washington, DC, pp. 172-185.




Lyneis, M. M. (1994a). Ceramics recovered along the Utah portion of the Kern River gas transmission line. Ms. on file, Utah Division of State History, Salt Lake City.

Lyneis, M. M. (1994b). East and onto the Plateaus? An archaeological examination of the Numic expansion in southern Nevada, northern Arizona, and southern Utah. In Madsen, D. B., and Rhode, D. (eds.), Across the West: Human Population Movement and the Ex

pansion of the Numa, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 141-149. Mack, J. M. (ed.) (1990). Hunter-Gatherer Pottery from the Far West. Nevada State Museum

Anthropological Papers 23, Carson City. Madsen, D. B. (1970). Ceramics. In Marwitt, J. P. (ed.), Median Village and Fremont Culture

Regional Variation. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 95, Salt Lake City, pp. 54 75.

Madsen, D. B. (1975). Three Fremont Sites in Emery County, Utah. Antiquities Section Se lected Papers 1(1), Salt Lake City.

Madsen, D. B. (1979). The Fremont and the Sevier: Defining prehistoric agriculturalists north of the Anasazi. American Antiquity 44: 711-722.

Madsen, D. B. (1980). Fremont/Sevier subsistence. In Madsen, D. B. (ed.), Fremont Perspec tives. Antiquities Section Selected Papers 7(16), Salt Lake City, pp. 25-34.

Madsen, D. B. (1982a). Get it where the gettin's good: A variable model of Great Basin subsistence and settlement based on data from the eastern Great Basin. In Madsen, D.

B., and O'Conncll, J. F. (eds.), Man and Environment in the Great Basin. Society for American Archaeology Papers 2, Washington, DC, pp. 207-226.

Madsen, D. B. (1982b). Salvage excavations at Ticaboo Town ruin (42Ga2295). In Madsen, D. B., and Fike, R. E. (eds.), Archaeological Investigations in Utah at Fish Springs, Clay Basin, Northern San Rafael Swell, Southern Henry Mountains. Utah Bureau of Land Man

agement Cultural Resources Series 12, Salt Lake City. Madsen, D. B. (1986). Great Basin nuts: A short treatise on the distribution, productivity and

prehistoric use of pinyon. In Condie, C. J., and Fowler, D. D. (eds.), Anthropology of

the Desert West: Essays in Honor of Jesse D. Jennings. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 110, Salt Lake City, pp. 21-42.

Madsen, D. B. (1989). Exploring the Fremont, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Madsen, D. B. (1994). Mesa Verde and Sleeping Ute Mountain: The geographical and chrono

logical dimensions of the Numic expansion. In Madsen, D. B., and Rhode, D. (eds.), Across the West: Human Population Movement and the Expansion of the Numa, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 24-31.

Madsen, D. B. (1999). Great Basin peoples and late Quaternary aquatic history. In Hershler, R., Currey, D. R., and Madsen, D. B. (eds.), Great Basin Aquatic Systems History, Smith sonian Institution Press, Washington, DC (in press).

Madsen, D. B., and Berry, M. S. (1975). A reassessment of northeastern Great Basin prehis tory. American Antiquity 40(4): 391-405.

Madsen, D. B., and Lindsay, L. W. (1977). Backhoe Village. Antiquities Section Selected Papers 4(12), Salt Lake City.

Madsen, D. B., and Rhode, D. (1990). Early Holocene pinyon (Pinus monophylla) in the northeastern Great Basin. Quaternary Research 33: 94-101.

Madsen, D. B., and Rhode, D. (eds.) (1994). Across the West: Human Population Movement

and the Expansion of the Numa, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Madsen, R. E. (1977). Prehistoric Ceramics of the Fremont. Museum of Northern Arizona

Ceramic Series 6, Flagstaff. Martin, C. W., Armstrong, H. J., Crum, S. M., Kutz, B. J., and Wheeler, L. A. (1983). Cedar

Siding Shelter: The Archaeological Excavation of a Multi-aspect Overhang in Emery

County, Utah. Utah Bureau of Land Management Cultural Resource Series 15, Salt Lake

City. Marwitt, J. P. (1968). Pharo Village. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 91, Salt Lake

City. Marwitt, J. P. (1970). Median Village and Fremont Culture Regional Variation. University of

Utah Anthropological Papers 95, Salt Lake City.




Massimino, J., and Metcalfe, D. (1998). Peaks and valleys: Fremont chronology revisited. Utah

Archaeology 1998 (in press). Mazel, A. (1989). People making history: The last ten thousand years of hunter-gatherer com

munities in the Thukel Basin. Natal Museum Journal of Humanities 1: 1-168.

McDonald, E. K. (1994). Spatial and Temporal Examinations of Prehistoric Interaction in the

Eastern Great Basin and on the Northern Colorado Plateau. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Colorado, Boulder.

McFarlin, S. A., and Zancanella, J. K. (1997). "Connections" and "meaning" of the Swallow Fremont Site (eastern Nevada) artifact assemblage. Nevada Archaeologist 15: 31-45.

McKibbin, A. (ed.) (1992). The Questar North-South Pipeline: Final Report on Archaeological Investigations, Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Eagle, CO.

Meighan, C. W., Coles, N. E., Davis, F. D., Greenwood, G. M., Harrison, W. M., and

MacBain, E. H. (1956). Archeological Excavations in Iron County, Utah. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 25, Salt Lake City.

Metcalf, M. D., Pool, K. J., McDonald, FC, and McKibbin, A. (1993). 77xe Round Spring Site, Vol. III. Hogan Pass: Final Report on Archaeological Investigations Along Forest Highway 10 (State Highway 72), Sevier County, Utah. Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Eagle, CO.

Metcalfe, D., and Barlow, K. R. (1992). A model for exploring the optimal tradeoff between

field processing and transport. American Anthropologist 94: 340-356.

Metcalfe, D., and Heath, K. (1990). Microrefuse and site structure: The hearths and floors

of the Heartbreak Hotel. American Antiquity 55: 781-796. Metcalfe, D., and Larrabee, L. (1985). Fremont irrigation: Evidence from Goosebery Valley,

central Utah. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 7: 244-253. Montgomery, H. (1894). Prehistoric man in Utah. The Archaeologist 8: 228-234; 10: 298-306;

11: 335-342.

Morss, N. (1931). The Ancient Culture of the Fremont River in Utah. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology 12(2), Cambridge.

Newman, D. (1997). Paleoenvironment. In Janetski, J. C, Talbot, R. K., Newman, D. E.,

Richens, L D., Wilde, J. D., Baker, S. B., and Billat, S. E. (eds.), Clear Creek Canyon

Archaeological Project. Volume Five: Results and Synthesis. Brigham Young University Museum of Peoples and Cultures Technical Series 95.9, Provo, pp. 301-308.

Novak, S. (1995). A view to the west: Violence in the Fremont culture area. Paper delivered at the 53rd annual Plains Anthropology Conference, Laramie.

Novak, S. (1998). Patterns of violence in the Fremont culture area. In Lupo, K., and Leach, M. (eds.), Invisible No More, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City (in press).

O'Connell, J. F., Jones, K. T., and Simms, S. R. (1982). Some thoughts on prehistoric ar

chaeology in the Great Basin. In Madsen, D. B., and O'Connell, J. F. (eds.), Man and Environment in the Great Basin. Society for American Archaeology Papers 2, Washington, DC, pp. 227-240.

O'Rourke, D. H., Parr, R. L, and Carlyle, S. W. (1999). Molecular genetic variation in pre historic inhabitants of the eastern Great Basin. In Hemphill, B. E., and Larsen, C. S.

(eds.), Understanding Prehistoric Lifeways in the Great Basin Wetlands: Bioarchaeological Reconstruction and Interpretation, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Parkington, J., and Hall, M. (1987). Patterning in recent radiocarbon dates from southern Africa as a reflection of prehistoric settlement and interaction. Journal of African History 28: 1-25.

Parr, R. L., Carlyle, S. W., and O'Rourke, D. H. (1996). Ancient DNA analysis of Fremont Amerindians of the Great Salt Lake wetlands. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 99: 507-518.

Pendergast, D. M. (1961). Excavations at the Bear River Site, Box Elder County, Utah. Utah

Archaeology 7(2). Peterson, K. L. (1988). Climate and the Dolores River Anasazi. University of Utah Anthropo

logical Papers 113, Salt Lake City. Pl?g, F. (1984). Exchange, tribes, and alliances: The northern southwest. American Archaeology

4: 217-223.




Price, T. D., Johnson, C. M., Ezzo, A., Ericson, J., and Burton, J. H. (1994). Residential

mobility in the prehistoric southwest United States: A preliminary study using strontium isotope analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science 21: 315-330.

Reed, A. (1990). Evidence of arrow points from Basketmaker II sites in southwestern Colo

rado. Utah Archaeology 1990 139: 1-40. Reed, A. (1994). The Numic occupation of western Colorado and eastern Utah during the

prehistoric and protohistoric periods. In Madsen, D. B., and Rhode, D. (eds.), Across the West: Human Population Movement and the Expansion of the Numa, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 188-199.

Rhode, D. (1994). Direct dating of brown ware ceramics using thermoluminescence and its relation to the Numic spread. In Madsen, D. B., and Rhode, D. (eds.), Across the West:

Human Population Movement and the Expansion of the Numa, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 124-132.

Richens, L. (1997). Ceramics. In Janetski, J. C, Talbot, R. K., Newman, D. E., Richens, L.

D., Wilde, J. D., Baker, S. B., and Billat, S. E. (eds.), Clear Creek Canyon Archaeological Project. Volume Five: Results and Synthesis. Brigham Young University Museum of Peoples and Cultures Technical Series 95.9, Provo, pp. 67-88.

Rudy, J. R. (1953). Archeological Survey of Western Utah. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 12, Salt Lake City.

Rushforth, S., and Upham, S. (1992). A Hopi Social History: Anthropological Perspectives on Sociocultural Persistence and Change. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Sammons-Lohse, D. (1981). Households and communities. In Jennings, J. D., and Sammons

Lohse, D. (eds.), Bull Creek. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 105, Salt Lake City, pp. 111-135.

Schaafsma, P. (1971). The Rock Art of Utah. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 65, Cambridge (2nd printing).

Schlesier, K. H. (1994). Commentary: A history of ethnic groups in the Great Plains, A.D.

150-1550. In Schlesier, K. H. (ed.), Plains Indians A.D. 500-1500: The Archaeological Past

of Historic Groups, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, pp. 308-386.

Schrire, C. (1984). Past and Present in Hunter-Gatherer Studies, Academic Press, Orlando, FL

Schmitt, D. N., Simms, S. R., and Woodbury, G. P. (1994). Archaeological salvage investiga tions at a Fremont site in the Jordan River delta. Utah Archaeology 1994: 96-79.

Schroedl, A. R., and Coulam, N. J. (1994). Cowboy Cave revisited. Utah Archaeology 1994:

1-34.

Schroedl, A. R., and Hogan, P. F. (1975). Innocents Ridge and the San Rafael Fremont.

Antiquities Section Selected Papers 1(2), Salt Lake City. Sharrock, F. W. (1966). Prehistoric Occupation Patterns in Southwest Wyoming and Cultural

Relationships with the Great Basin and Plains Culture Areas. University of Utah Anthro pological Papers 77, Salt Lake City.

Sharrock, F. W., and Marwitt, J. P. (1967). Excavations at Nephi, Utah, 1965-1966. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 88, Salt Lake City.

Shields, W. F. (1967). 1966 Excavations: Uinta Basin, Miscellaneous Collected Papers 15. Uni

versity of Utah Anthropological Papers 89, Salt Lake City. Shields, W. F. (n.d.). The Grantsvillc Site: 1967 Excavations. Ms. on file, Department of An

thropology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City. Shields, W. F., and Dallcy, G. F. (1978). The Bear River No. 3 Site, Miscellaneous Collected

Papers 22. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 99, Salt Lake City. Simms, S. R. (1986). New evidence for Fremont adaptive diversity. Journal of CaUfomia and

Great Basin Anthropology 8: 204-216.

Simms, S. R. (1990). Fremont transitions. Utah Archaeology 1990: 1-19.

Simms, S. R. (1994). Farmers and foragers in the late Holocene eastern Great Basin. Paper

presented at the 24th Great Basin Anthropological Conference, Elko.

Simms, S. R. (1999). Farmers, foragers, and adaptive diversity: The Great Salt Lake Wetlands

Project. In Hemphill, B. E., and Larsen, C. S. (eds.), Understanding Prehistoric Lifeways in the Great Basin Wetlands: Bioarchaeological Reconstruction and Interpretation, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.




Simms, S. R., and Stuart, M. E. (1993). Prehistory and past environments of the Great Salt Lake wetlands. In Fawcett, W. B., and Simms, S. R. (eds.), Archaeological Test Excava tions in the Great Salt Lake Wetlands and Associated Sites. Utah State University Con tributions to Anthropology 14, Logan, pp. 5-30.

Simms, S. R., Loveland, C. J., and Stuart, M. E. (1991). Prehistoric Human Skeletal Remains and the Prehistory of the Great Salt Lake Wetlands. Utah State University Contributions to Anthropology 6, Logan.

Simms, S. R., Ugan, A., and Bright, J. (1997). Plain-ware ceramics and residential mobility: A case study from the Great Basin. Journal of Archaeological Science 24: 779-792.

Sinopoli, C. M. (1991). Style in arrows: A study of an ethnographic collection from the western United States. In Miracle, P. T., Fisher, L E., and Brown, J. (eds.), Foragers in Context:

Long-Term, Regional, and Historical Perspectives in Hunter-Gatherer Studies. Michigan Discussions in Anthropology 10, Ann Arbor, pp. 63-76.

Smith, C. S. (1992). The Fremont: A view from Southwest Wyoming. Utah Archaeology 1992: 55-75.

Smith, D. G., Bettinger, R. L., and Rolfs, B. K. (1995). Serum albumin phenotypes at Still water: Implications for population history in the Great Basin. In Larsen, C. S., and Kelly, R. L. (eds.), Bioarchaeology of the Stiliwater Marsh: Prehistoric Human Adaptation in

the Western Great Basin. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural His

tory 77, New York, pp. 68-72. Smith, E. A., and Winterhalder, B. (1992). Evolutionary Ecology and Human Behavior, Aldine

de Gruyter, New York.

Smith, E. R. (1939). Report on Accomplishments of University of Utah Museum of Anthro pology Archaeological Expedition for summer of 1939. Special Report to President George Thomas, University of Utah Archives, Salt Lake City.

Smith, E. R. (1941). The Archaeology of Deadman Cave, Utah. University of Utah Bulletin 32(4), Salt Lake City, pp. 1-43.

Solway, J. S., and Lee, R. B. (1990). Foragers, genuine or spurious? Current Anthropology 31: 109-146.

Spangler, J. D. (1993). Site Distribution and Settlement Patterns in Lower Nine Mile Canyon: The Brigham Young University Surveys of 1989-91, MA. thesis, Department of Anthro pology, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT.

Spangler, J. D. (1995). Paradigms and Perspectives: A Class I Overview of Cultural Resources in the Uinta Basin and Tavaputs Plateau. Uinta Research, Salt Lake City.

Spangler, J. D. (1999a). One-pot pithouses and Fremont paradoxes. In Madsen, D. B., and

Metcalfe, M. D. (eds.), Intermountain Archaeology, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake

City (in press). Spangler, J. D. (1999b). Old paradigms and new perspectives: Radiocarbon dates, acquired

wisdom and the search for temporal order in the Uintah Basin. In Madsen, D. B., and Metcalfe, M. D. (eds.), Intermountain Archaeology, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake

City (in press). Speth, J. D. (1990). Seasonality, resource stress, and food sharing in so-called "egalitarian"

foraging societies. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 9: 148-188. Speth, J. D. (1991). Some unexplored aspects of mutualistic Plains-Pueblo food exchange. In

Spielmann, K. A. (ed.), Farmers, Hunters and Colonists: Interaction Between the Southwest and Southern Plains, University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 18-35.

Spielmann, K. A. (1986). Interdependence among egalitarian societies. Journal of Anthropo logical Archaeology 5: 297-312.

Spielmann, K. A. (ed.) (1991). Farmers, Hunters and Colonists: Interaction Between the South west and Southern Plains, University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Spun, K. (1995). Compositional analysis of temper in Emery Gray ceramics from central Utah. In van Riper III, C. (ed.), Proceedings of the Second Biennial Conference on Research in

Colorado Plateau National Parks. Transactions and Proceedings Series NPS/NRNA U/NRTP 95/11. United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, DC, pp. 137-169.




Steward, J. H. (1933a). Early Inhabitants of Western Utah. University of Utah Bulletin 23(7), Salt Lake City.

Steward, J. H. (1933b). Archaeological Problems of the Northern Periphery of the Southwest. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin 5, Flagstaff.

Steward, J. H. (1937). Ancient Caves of the Great Salt Lake Region. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 116, Washington, DC.

Steward, J. H. (1940). Native cultures of the intermontane (Great Basin) area. In Essays in Historical Anthropology of North America, Published in Honor of John R. Swanton. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 100, Washington, DC, pp. 445-502.

Szuter, C. R., and Bayham, F. E. (1989). Sedentism and prehistoric animal procurement among desert horticulturalists of the North American Southwest. In Kent, S. (ed.), Farm ers as Hunters: The Implications of Sedentism, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 80-95.

Tainter, J. A., and Plog, F. (1994). Strong and weak patterning in Southwestern prehistory: The formation of puebloan archaeology. In Gumerman, G. J. (ed.), Themes in Southwest

Prehistory, School of American Research, Santa Fe, pp. 165-181.

Talbot, R. K. (1995). Steinaker Gap: Basketmaker farmsteading on the northern Colorado Plateau. Paper presented at the 2nd Rocky Mountain Anthropological Conference, Steamboat Springs, CO.

Talbot, R. K. (1996). Reformulating Fremont thought: New perspectives on old ideas. Paper presented at the 1996 Southwest Symposium, Arizona State University, Tempe.

Talbot, R. K. (1997a). Fremont architecture. In Janetski, J. C, Talbot, R. K., Newman, D.

E., Richens, L. D., Wilde, J. D., Baker, S. B., and Billat, S. E. (eds.), Clear Creek Canyon Archaeological Project. Volume Five: Results and Synthesis. Brigham Young University Museum of Peoples and Cultures Technical Series 95.9, Provo, pp. 177-238.

Talbot, R. K (1997b). Fremont settlement patterns and demography. In Janetski, J. C, Talbot, R. K, Newman, D. E., Richens, L D., Wilde, J. D., Baker, S. B., and Billat, S. E (eds.), Clear Creek Canyon Archaeological Project. Volume Five: Results and Synthesis. Brigham Young University Museum of Peoples and Cultures Technical Series 95.9, Provo, pp. 257-288.

Talbot, R. K., and Richens, L D. (1993). Archaeological Investigations at Richfield and Vi

cinity. Brigham Young University Museum of Peoples and Cultures Technical Series 93.15, Provo.

Talbot, R. K., and Richens, L. D. (1996). Steinaker Gap: An Early Fremont Farmstead.

Brigham Young University Museum of Peoples and Cultures Occasional Papers 2, Provo.

Talbot, R. K., Richens, L D., Wilde, J. D., Janetski, J. G, and Newman, D. E. (1997a). Clear Creek Canyon Archaeological Project. Volume Five, Part 1: Icicle Bench; Part 2: Radford Roost and Lott's Farm. Brigham Young University Museum of Peoples and Cultures Tech nical Series 94.25, Provo.

Talbot, R. K., Richens, L. D., Wilde, J. D., Janetski, J. C, and Newman, D. E. (1997b). Clear Creek Canyon Archaeological Project. Volume Four, Part 3: Five Finger Ridge. Brigham Young University Museum of Peoples and Cultures Technical Series 95.8, Provo.

Talbot, R. K., and Wilde, J. D. (1989). Giving form to the Formative: Shifting settlement patterns in the eastern Great Basin and northern Colorado Plateau, Utah Archaeology 1989: 3-18.

Taylor, D. C. (1954). The Garrison Site. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 16, Salt Lake City.

Taylor, D. C. (1957). Two Fremont Sites and Their Position in Southwestern Prehistory. Uni

versity of Utah Anthropological Papers 29, Salt Lake City. Thomas, D. H. (1981). How to classify the projectile points from Monitor Valley, Nevada.

Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 3: 7-43.

Thomas, T. (1983). Material culture of Gatecliff Shelter: Incised stones. In Thomas, D. H.

(ed.), The Archaeology of Monitor Valley: 2. Gatecliff Shelter. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 59(1), New York, pp. 246-278.

Tucker, G. C, Jr. (1986). Results of Archaeological Investigations Along Chevrons CO2/PO4

Pipelines in Northeastern Utah and Northwestern Colorado, Nickens and Associates, Mon

trose, CO.




Tuohy, D. R., and Rendall, D. L (1979). The Archaeology of Smith Creek Canyon, Eastern Nevada. Nevada State Museum Anthropological Papers 17, Carson City.

Upham, S. (1984). Adaptive diversity and Southwestern abandonment. Journal of Anthropo logical Research 40: 235-256.

Upham, S. (1988). Archaeological visibility and the underclass of Southwestern prehistory. American Antiquity 53: 245-261.

Upham, S. (1994). Nomads of the desert west: A shifting continuum in prehistory. Journal of World Prehistory 8 (2): 113-167.

Weissner, P. (1983). Style and social information in Kalahari San projectile points. American Antiquity 48: 253-276.

Whalen, M. E. (1994). Turquoise Ridge and Late Prehistoric Residential Mobility in the De sert Mogollon Region. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 118, Salt Lake City.

Wilde, J. D., and Newman, D. E. (1989). Late Archaic corn in the eastern Great Basin. Ameri can Anthropologist 91(3): 712-720.

Wilde, J. D., and Talbot, R. K. (1996). Research context. In Talbot, R. K., and Richens, L. D. (eds.), Steinaker Gap: An Early Fremont Farmstead. Brigham Young University Mu seum of Peoples and Cultures Occasional Papers 2, Provo, pp. 11-22

Wills, W. H. (1988). Early Prehistoric Agriculture in the American Southwest, School of Ameri can Research Press, Santa Fe.

Wilmsen, E. N. (1989). L*nd Filled with Flies: A Political Economy of the Kalahari, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Wilmsen, E. N., and Denbow, J. R. (1990). Paradigmatic history of San-speaking peoples and current attempts at revision. Current Anthropology 31: 489-524.

Winter, J. C. (1973). The distribution and development of Fremont maize agriculture: Some

preliminary interpretations. American Antiquity 38: 439-451.

Winter, J. C. (1976). The processes of farming diffusion in the Southwest and Great Basin. American Antiquity 41(4): 421-429.

Winter, J. C, and Wylie, H. G. (1974). Paleoecology and diet at Clyde's Cavern. American

Antiquity 39(2): 304-315. Winterhalder, B., and Smith, E. A. (1992). Evolutionary ecology and the social sciences. In

Smith, E. A., and Winterhalder, B. (eds.), Evolutionary Ecology and Human Behavior, Aldine de Gruyter, New York, pp. 3-24.

Wobst, H. M. (1977). Stylistic behavior and information exchange. In Cleland, C. (ed.), For the Director Essays in Honor of James B. Griffin. University of Michigan Museum of

Anthropology Anthropological Papers 61, Ann Arbor, pp. 317-342. Wobst, H. M. (1978). Archaeo-ethnology of hunter-gatherers or the tyranny of the ethno

graphic record in archaeology. American Antiquity 43: 303-309.

Wormington, H. M. (1955). A Reappraisal of the Fremont Culture. Proceedings of the Denver Museum of Natural History 1, Denver.

Wright, G. A. (1978). The Shoshonean migration problem. Plains Anthropologist 23(80): 113 37.



Fremont Complex 1998

Documents

Transcript of Fremont Complex 1998