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. 255-336 Published by: Springer Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25801129 Accessed: 30-11-2015 18:11 UTC

REFERENCES Linked 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].

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

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Journalof 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/foragerswho seasonally switched modes of production, farmers who switched to full-time foraging and foragers who switchedto 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 use a tection in the archaeological record. Greater clarity resultsfrom of be havioral model which recognizes differing contexts of selection favoring one a case adaptive strategy over another. The Fremont is where the transition fromforaging to farming is followed by a millenniumof adaptivediversity 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.

Salt Lake Environmental Sciences, Utah Geological Survey, 1594 West North Temple, City, Utah 84114. of Social Work and Utah State department Sociology, Anthropology, University, Logan, Utah 84322. be 3To whom correspondence should addressed.

255

0892-7537/98/09(XW)255$15.00/0O 1998 Plenum PublishingCorporation This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 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 are marshes, numerous canyon streams, and dry pinyon/juniper forests 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 vegetationmeandering throughthe pinyon/juniperwoodlands. 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 m. are raphy with elevations ranging from 1500 to 4000 Temperatures 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 raphyof theGreat Basin engenderswhat Currey (1991) refers to as a "hemi-arid" environment. That is, the Great Basin is half wet (the moun tains)and halfdry (thevalleys), with most of thevalley 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 readilydefined nor easily encapsulatedwithin a singledescription. During the period when farming was part of the human repertoire in the region, some 500-2000 years ago, 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 floraand 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 of signs incipient stratification. In these locations, people experienced the intensification to process associated with farming the same degree as the Anasazi and other better-known farming cultures of the Southwest. In other areas, were only small, egalitarian, family groups found widely scattered across the were landscape,and not greatlyaffected by the feedback loops often associated with agricultural intensification.

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

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 258 Madsen and Simms

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 a in both critiquing and refining our construction of 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 effectsof the adoption of horticultureby foragersand its spread by colo nizinghorticulturalists isexemplified by theFremont. It is increasinglyclear 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 ismuch more than the spread of peoples a with 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

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The Fremont Complex 259

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 and where there is "an of decisions' . . . social," " interdependence [and] no trulyindependent variables (Winterhalderand 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 use we entity to which the label applies. We the term because 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, theymade or traded for pottery and they were not Anasazi (although there remains considerable debate

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 260 Madsen and Simms

about thisthird common thread).Study has also focusedon identifyingthe 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 a a this work and, thus, requires review of Fremont culture history and 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; Janetskiet 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 diversityamong thesegroups 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 productiveand closely spaced to small, highlymobile 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 andRichens, 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 are Basin domesticates absent during this early period

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The Fremont Complex 261

Fremont Radiocarbon Dates (?2 sigma)

?i????f??i???i? I 1 i CalibratedAge (A.D.)

Fig. 2. "Fremont" radiocarbon dates displayed as a histogram illustrating the florescence and demise of theFremont complex (adapted fromMassimino andMctcalfe, 1998).

and subsistence was based entirely on wild foods. Second, between about 2000 and 1500 years ago, many of theobjects associatedwith theuse of as domesticates, such 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 fromall) open sites changed fromsmall, thin-walledhabitation 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 relyingmore on farming than on collecting wild foods. By about 1200 B.P., foraging groups on the east and west sides of theWasatch 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

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 262 Madsen and Simms

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 tionof new items,coupled with thedemographic fluidity of local hunter gatherers, conditioned the adaptive circumstances of the indigenous people. Significantly,there are actuallyvery few thingsthat 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 distinguishingthe Fremont from other groups. Since pithouses had been used in the Great Basin and Colorado Plateau during the Ar or chaic, they do not necessarily identify either agriculture "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 are classification. Many artifact forms, such as projectile point styles, also are not unique to the Fremont and not helpful in separating the Fremont from their contemporaries. Indeed, the practice of ascribing a name to are a some projectile point styles simply because they found at "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 inAnasazi 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 limitedin distributionthat theyare not veryuseful traitsfor distin guishing the Fremont from other people. Some perishable artifacts, such a as one-rod-and-bundle basketry (Fig. 5) and unique kind of hobnailed moccasin made with thedewclaws froma 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 specificenough to distinguishthe Fremont as a group fromother

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The Fremont Complex 263

" some Fig. 3. Utah-type" metate characteristic of Fremont farming groups. Note the secondary grinding platform which distinguishes these metates. (Photo courtesy of the Utah Museum of Natural History.)

agriculturalists inwestern 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 inwhat 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 theAnasazi areas along the drainages of the Colorado River.

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 264 Madsen and Simms

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 ismost 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 an Colorado for 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

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The Fremont Complex 265

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

a Fig. 6. Construction schematic of Fremont "hobnail" moccasin. (Adapted from Aikens, 1970, p. 103.)

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 266 Madsen and Simms

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-notchedprojectile 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 thematter 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 iorand furthersupport the idea thatit is timefor a fundamentallydifferent 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 immigrantpopulations (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 a archaeology is 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 theAnasazi. Based on the early antiquarian collecting of Fremont materials byDon Maguire for the 1893Chicago World's Fair, HenryMontgomery

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The Fremont Complex 267

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) ScribbleRock 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 FingerRidge, Icicle Bench. (21) Elsinore Burial. (22) Backhoe Village. (23) Kanosh. (24) Pharo Village. (25) Nephi. (26) Ephraim. (27) NawthisVillage, Round Spring. (28) InnocentsRidge, Clyde's Cavern, Pint-Size Shelter. (29) Sudden Shelter, Aspen Shelter, Snake Rock, Poplar Knob, Old Woman, 1-70 sites. (30) FremontRiver area sites. (31) Alvey,Triangle Cave. (32) SunnyBeaches. (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 SkyHouse, 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.

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 268 Madsen and Simms

(1894,p. 234) described thepeople who produced thesepots 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 formalwork byNeil 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 as a firmly fixed 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 were country bumpkin cousins of theAnasazi, too backward to live inmul tistorymasonry 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 inmany 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), andTaylor (1954) continuedto be identifiedsepa 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 was sites thought to have a substantial foraging component, fully mobile,

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The Fremont Complex 269

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 "Northern was "were phrase Periphery" denigrating) " gathering huntingpeoples relyingonly secondarilyupon horticulture (Rudy, 1953, p. 169). Like Morss* "Fremont," the "Puebloids were a semisedentary peo ple who built houses and practiced limitedhorticulture, [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 latterview was strengthenedin 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, inWormington'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

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 270 Madsen and Simms

by theSociety forAmerican Archaeology. Members of theSouthwest sym posium jointlyrecommended that the many similaritiesof thePuebloid 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 twogeographical 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 theirjob to be primarilytwofold: to classifythe Fremont intohierarchical 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 largelyignored. That apparentunanimity rapidly changed in the 1960swhen attempts were made to reconcile the enigmatic "Promontory Culture" of Steward (1937)with therest of theFremont. Gunnerson (1960) initiatedthe 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 came where the Fremont from and what happened to them. Unfortunately, even few Plains specialists and fewer Fremont practitioners agreed with

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The FremontComplex 271 him, and the prevailingopinion on Fremontorigins 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 theHopi (Wormington,1955), others that theyreverted to a fully mobile foraging lifestyle and were eventually absorbed by Numic-speaking populations (e.g., Jennings,1960; Rudy, 1953),while stillothers 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 thatmany began to heed Aikens' (1966, p. 88) suggestionthat "the internalcharacteristics of theFremont culture require further study.Areal divergences within the Fremont culture inUtah have been recognized, and require more thorough explication. The or exploitive cycle schedule of Fremont horticulturists-hunters is yet unknown." This call for the study of Fremont variants was almost immediately on a answered by Ambler (1966b) and Marwitt (1970). Based 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 andMarwitt both expanded the number of Fremont "subcultures" (e.g., Aikens, 1966) from two to five (Fig. 8). Although thedefinitions of these "variants"differed only in detail, Marwitt's treatment received the most play, despite being largelyderivative, since his dissertationwas 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 on Rafael and the Uinta (also from south to north), were 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 an tra representing the extent of Fremont culture is considered here areal . . . dition taxonomically equivalent to Anasazi" (Marwitt, 1970, p. 136; was original italics). In a number of instances, Marwitt also able to define se temporal differences as well as spatial differences, and he identified 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

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 272 Madsen and Simms

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 tryingto define "Just What is Fremont," was "rather surprised [to find that] one of the

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The Fremont Complex 273

principaldifficulties in theuse of trait liststo 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 suggestedthat 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 inmaize pro duction with the exploitation of wild foods. He argued that "none of the was wild species exploited by the aboriginal populations 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

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 274 Madsen and Simms

areas part, contemporaneously practiced within the encompassed by the Parowan variant. The hunter-gatherer population aggregates were probably derivedfrom households thathad formerlypracticed agriculture"(Berry, 1972,p. 169). Madsen and Lindsay (1977) raised thepossibility that settled Fremont village life along the western margin of theWasatch 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 (sedentaryby virtue of maize) andMadsen and Lindsay (sedentaryin 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 rereadingof 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 itwas. 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 itwas 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 difficultyof bridgingthe

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The Fremont Complex 275

cultural ecology common toAmerican 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 itwas of poor or confusing data. By 1982 thisview began to crystallize.First, therewas the recognition that the Fremont were composed not merely of farmers who did a lot of foraging forwild 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, a to nomadic groups dependent on resources from variety of ecological zones," and recognized that "the presence of nomadic collectors/harvesters who made the same tools (includingpottery) and eithergrew 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 etal (1982) called fora shiftaway 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 consistenttheoretical perspective that identifiesthe principles underlying thesepatterns and provides the basis forpredicting the formsthey 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 adaptivediversity. This referredto behavioralplasticity during the lifehis tory of individuals, a plasticity which may be accompanied by residential a cycling between settled and nomadic populations. Similarly, in summary of the Fremont designed around this same behavioral perspective, Madsen

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 276 Madsen and Simms

(1989, pp. 27-28) emphasized thatFremont variability does not consistof 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 fewyears." All of theseare viewswhich exemplifythe 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 offeringthe pretense of originality,failed to lead to any new understanding. We have strongly advocated this point of view. In 1989/1990we pointed out that"it is our concept of culturewhich 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 itsvariants, 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," itwas 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 afterMorss (1931) had firstdefined theFremont, itwas 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

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The Fremont Complex 277

diversity of behaviors encompassed by the term "Fremont" is simply to limit thatdiversity 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 turallifeway while theywere young,but inmiddle age no longerdid (contra Madsen, 1989;Simms, 1986,1999). This viewdenies studyof the lifehistory of individualsby substitutingthe 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 itmasks 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 inwhat 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 itwill 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

com To provide a context organizing the variation and patterning that a prises the Fremont complex, we outline here behavioral model that de scribes the circumstances encountered by people during the Fremont same we to Fremont culture period. At the time, seek build upon previous history by avoiding another description cast in terms of cultures and their boundaries, with accompanying descriptions of "interactions" among these a conceptually closed entities. Our goal is 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

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 278 Madsen and Simms

of interest), not just between them. It must also incorporate the fact that identity,ideological belief, and languageexhibit 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 theAmerican 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 temporaldimension in the expressionof 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 agricultureby incorporatingcultigens into

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The Fremont Complex 279

their adaptive strategy, probably in places where mobility was either teth or ered 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 lifemay have migrated into the region, colonizing unoccupied areas, areas or areas occupied by low density foragers, 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 ifwe are to understand the spread of agriculture area. into the Fremont 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 a is not simply 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 theprehistory of regions in termsof themost archaeologicallyvisible 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. as Plog (1984) refers to the archaeological record of farmers "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).

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 280 Madsen and Simms

Finally, theFremont period is over 1200years long,and while change we has always been recognized, the model 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 ismore to this transition, however, than a unidirectional diffusion of cultigens and/or themigration 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 corn aging among the Fremont and concludes that "... 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

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The Fremont Complex 281

rates for farmingmaize 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 identifywhere 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 SteinakerGap innortheastern Utah by 1800B.P. (Coltrain,1996, p. 119), in associationwith atlatl and dart technology(Talbot and Richens, 1996, pp. 81-86). This illustratesthe multi-directionality of traitintroduction 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 war peoples versus colonization by immigrant farmers. Some caution is 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

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 282 Madsen and Simms

traitsacross tribalboundaries ineast Africa documentedby 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 theright traitsfrom the wrong ones.We consider theproblems 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 timesduring theFremont 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 synchronybetween Anasazi demographicsof 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 regionmay have been shaped inpart by demographicchange in the are Southwest. Perhaps more important, however, 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 theAnasazi 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 patternsmay help organize thehodgepodge of thevariable patterning characteristic of the Fremont region.

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The Fremont Complex 283

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 theseselective 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 chronologyof relativelylarge Fremont sites is consistentwith the propositionthat farming promoted a dynamicmosaic of intensifiedhuman 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 fluctuatingintensities of tradingpatterns (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 firstattempt to document theFremont 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

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 284 Madsen and Simms

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 thatdecreased 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 theother hand, thissort of spatialsegregation caused bymatrix 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 historyof individuals,a plasticitywhich may be accompaniedby 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 theproduction of cultigensand theavail 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 combineswith reducedmobility to stimulatepopulation 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 thatas 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 spreadof farmingis a disruptiveforce 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,

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The FremontComplex 285

and ethnicityby introducingnew behavioraloptions resultingfrom status differentiation, new alliances, intergroup marriages, and opportunities cre ated by multilingualism. The cultural trajectories created by these circumstances should vary was depending on whether the spread of farming via the adoption of farm ingby indigenousforagers or migrantcolonists 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 primaryprocess bywhich farmingspread in theFremont case. On the other hand, there is evidence thatmigrant colonists also play a role in the transition. In these cases, contrast among sites, isolated patterns, less regionalcontinuity at least initially,and patternsof stylisticblending 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 movementof food and people. Headland and Reid (1989) contend that where farmingand hunting/gatheringadaptations cooccur throughoutthe world, hunter-gatherers rarely operate in isolation. Rather, they tend to formsymbiotic relationships with local farminggroups 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 continuingrelationships be as tween foragers and farmers quite common, and fundamentally successful, are adaptive strategies that maximize the advantages of what 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

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 286 Madsen and Simms

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 toolsand even the rockart symbolsthey employare the same [e.g.,Upham, 1994; seeMazel (1989) and Parkington and Hall (1987) forexamples outside theSouthwest]. 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 temptingto search for the identificationof the farmersversus the foragers. In the event that clear contrast is shown, as may be the case in theGlen Canyon area, where Geib (1996) argues for ethnic delineation between Basketmaker II Southwestern populations and early Fremont a populations to the north, then symbiotic dyad may not be present. On theother hand,while theremay be significantdistinctions 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 withmarking an ethnicboundary (Holmer andWeder, 1980;Madsen, 1989; case Simms, 1990). We discuss this 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 thinkit likelythat symbiotic dyads were part of theFremont com are plex, if only because they 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 probablymakes very littledifference in the longrun. We agreewith Wilmsen and Denbow (1990) thatattempts to distinguish foragers and farmers categorically in regions where they in over teract continuously long periods of time is probably misplaced. Since marriage partners, along with nouns, stitching patterns, and rabbits are ex changedbetween farmersand foragersin a symbioticrelationship, 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 diversitywhich 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 groupsof both local and nonlocalorigin."

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The FremontComplex 287

These studiesdocumenting symbiosis in theSouthwest all benefitfrom 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 indeedpresent with full-timefarmers (Coltrain and Stafford,1999; Simms, 1999). This diversityis expressed regardlessof whether the sites at which these people were buried exhibit the trappingsof sedentismor 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 termsof populationgenetics (O'Rourke et al.y 1999).This may indicatesymbiosis and the residentialcycling characteristic of adaptive diversity were common behavior among the Great Salt Lake Fremont. Recognitionof adaptivediversity in theFremont isnot limitedto 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-knownstudy of Weissner (1983) showed thatamong San hunters, variation inprojectile points was lesswithin groups who shared risk,and these groups were much larger than bands. Stylistic variation in points was greatestat the levelof linguisticgroups. Weissner (1983, p. 269) observes, "For archaeologists, these stylistic differences could be used to delimit the no boundaries between language groups, but they give 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 bymen, while women exhibita tie to the land as is found in recentPueblo groups.Sinopoli (1991) studiedGreat Basin arrowsfrom the J.W. Powell collectionand found that arrowpoints do not signal group identitybut 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 findingsof Wobst (1977) of increasedstylistic variation in social contexts which select for group identification. In the case of the Fremont

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 288 Madsen and Simms

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 improveour abilityto identifyadaptive 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 interactionspheres and differentialmobility 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 groupsof Kenya andTanzania, 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 sufficientwealth 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 importantto theorigins of the food producing tran sition or to areas with marginal horticulture, such as the Fremont area,* because foragersexperimenting with farmingwould be expected to fall into and out of the strategy.The idea behind switchingin the Fremont case was firstproposed as part of the original definition of the Fremont (Morss, 1931) and laterexpanded by Rudy (1953). Itwas describedmore explicitly by Berry (1972, 1974) as a behavioraloption duringagricultural 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 ismore

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The FremontComplex 289

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 shouldhave been at leastas importantas expectedprehistoric corn yields in determiningprehistoric foraging and farmingstrategies in theFremont area" (Barlow, 1998,p. 181). One archaeologicalmanifestation of switchingis thevariability 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 briefexperiment with farmingat 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). re Switching may account for site-specific abandonment but does not 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 onlyby group fission thatsends small groupsof farmersto 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, case the ability of people tomanage risk decreases. Here, too, the Fremont is characteristic of the food producing transition in general, since switching behaviors should be expected inmany contexts in the world where people

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 290 Madsen and Simms

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 dentialbases and aremorphologically comparable, then some sortof unified symbioticsystem is indicated,probably accompanied by switching.If there is strong contrast in ceramic raw materials and in vessel morphology, espe et cially the degree of production investment (Simms aL, 1997), then sym biosis may still be operating, but less switching may be occurring. Switchingshould also be expected in theearly 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, theywould be unlikelyto switchto foragingin theirnew home.The peak frequencyof a switchingpattern likelyoccurred as the zenithof theFre 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 resultfrom switchingin 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

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The Fremont Complex 291

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 theFremont while at thesame timepointing 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 themargins 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 andRinge, 1986), and as far east as the northwestern Plains of Wyoming (e.g., Day and Dibble, 1963; Sharrock, 1966; Smith, 1992) and thewestern slope of theRocky Mountains (e.g., Baker, 1993, 1997; Creaseman, 1981; Creaseman and Scott, 1987;McKibbin, 1992).While some of thesemarginal 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 a any scale relevant to 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 ifwe 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).

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 292 Madsen and Simms

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

We thuswant 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 ifwe 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 a largely result of the northward spread of cultigens fromMexico 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).

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The Fremont Complex 293

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 storagepit which servedultimately as a burial pit (Wilde and Newman, 1989).Direct datingof the burial suggeststhe age of themaize may be slightlyyounger (Coltrain, 1994a). The sitewas disturbedby highwaycon struction and no evidence of associated habitation structures was found. Sites of roughlysimilar age immediatelynorth and southof theElsinore Burial do contain shallowpithouse 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 otherhand, pithousesmay identifyonly those foragersmost likelyto 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 a the adoption of cultigens, rather than always be 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 tributaryof theGreen River southof theUinta 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 theGreen River. These date to 1750-1600B.P., with occupation (and farming)beginning possibly as early as 2100 years ago (Talbot and Richens, 1996). Irrigationfeatures 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 to shaped pits but with no evidence of domesticates, also date 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

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 294 Madsen and Simms

Plains and feel that, like the Mandan and Hidatsa, these early Fremont farmers were seasonally switching to mobile foraging. Given the rarity and geographicallyspotty nature of these sites, it is likelythat this seasonal switchingmay oftenhave led to full-timeforaging as well. The most southerly occurrence of early farming attributable to the Fre mont transition comes from the nonstructural Alvey site in the Escalante occur River area. Ample quantities of maize and squash 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 theDirty Devil and theGreen rivers,dates to between 2000 and 1700B.P. (Geib, 1996; Jennings,1980), while maize fromClydes 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. (Martinet al9 1983).Unfortunately, the cobs were not directlydated, but the early dates of ?2200-2000 B.P. come from slab-lined cists very like those in the earliest levelof 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 includeSudden Shelter (Jenningset aL9 1980),Aspen Shelter (Janetski et al91991), Mantles Cave (Burghand Scoggin, 1948), andDeluge 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 tabulatedmore than a hundred radiocarbon dates fromsites in theUinta Basin and to the south in theBook 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

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The FremontComplex 295 of Jennings(1956, 1978) that theFremont complexwas a process of dif fusion of ideas onto an Archaic base. In some of these early cases, crop production formed a substantial partof the subsistencebase. At SteinakerGap, twoburials dating to about 1800 B.P. yielded stable carbon isotope values of 11.2 and 11.9, indicating thatover 60% of the calories came fromC4 resources (Coltrain, 1997). Even in this case, however, the settlement pattern featured seasonal mo bility(Talbot andRichens, 1996),much in themanner suggestedby Morss (1931) for the laterFremont. The initiationof farmingon 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 a to as "large-scale adaptive shift that swept the northern Colorado Plateau so that by about 300 A.D. corn was occurring inmost 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, theyare probablyvalid on a general levelgiven the impactthat the adoption of farminghas upon the schedulingof 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 farmingin 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 unlikelyto be black and white.The difficultyof in corporating farming into a forager strategy is apparent only ifone 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 highlymobile foragers.We suggestthat 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 theproblem is to acknowledgethat while theadoption 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 inArchaic adaptive strategies is considered together with caloric return rate data on the relative efficiency of farming and foraging, the

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 296 Madsen and Simms

adoptionof farmingby some smallgroups can indeedbe 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 impactfarming 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 a were not exploited in such 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, itwas not a bounded, categorical phenomenon. Whether or not these small groups of early farmers represent migrant Basketmaker II people settlingdown in themidst ofmobile Archaic fora gers (e.g., Talbot, 1995, 1996) cannot yet be ruled out (Spangler, 1999a), but Geib (1996, p. 74) shows there is sufficientevidence to suggest that the Colorado River formed a distinct boundary between recognizable groups to thenorth and the south.South of the riverwere the "WhiteDog Anasazi," characterized by sandals, two-rod-and-bundle bunched basketry, a burial attributes, and 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 theWasatch Mountains (Lindsay,1986). Itmay simplybe thatthe 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 cave from stratified and rockshelter sites such as Danger Cave (Jennings,

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The Fremont Complex 297

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 now and Fremont populations in the area seems untenable, there does ap pear to be a pause in the creationof new sitesbetween 2500 and 1500 years ago (Madsen, 1982a, 1999). If this is a productof limitedpopulation growth or even of reduced population levels, itmay 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 themajor valley systemsalong thewestern 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 (Janetskiet aL, 1997; Sammons-Lohse,1981). Potteryand 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 occur a pithouse structures, but the use of stone begins to in variety of forms. Along the eastern margin of theWasatch Plateau, shallow pit struc tures start to be lined with basalt boulders at a variety of sites such as SnakeRock (Aikens,1967), Round Spring(Metcalf et aL, 1993),and Power are Pole Knoll (Madsen, 1975). In some cases, (e.g., Madsen, 1975) these 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 was els predict (e.g., Barlow, 1998), farming less important, despite the presence of the same architecture and material culture as at other Fremont at sites (Schmitt et aL, 1994). No evidence formaize has been found Bear RiverNumber 1 (Pendergast,1961), Bear RiverNumber 2 (Aikens,1967),

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 298 Madsen and Simms

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 northernWasatch 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 centralSan Rafael Swell (Schroedl and Hogan, 1975;Taylor, 1957), to theUinta 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 relativelyearly contextsat SteinakerGap (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 as served interim storage for crops from distant fields. Rather, it appears that theyrepresent an elaborationof the switchingpattern described by

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The Fremont Complex 299

Wilde andTalbot (1996) forearly Fremont farmer/foragers,with theaban 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 ismore 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 itmade 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, theymay have been abandoned in favorof a particularlyproductive set of wild resources. Talbot (1997a), in a thoroughreview of architectureat laterFremont farming sites [structures built and used by mobile Fremont foragers (e.g., Simms, 1986; Smith, 1992) are not discussed], suggests that in termsof 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 toWestern Anasazi and Kayenta forms and those on the Colorado Plateau toMesa 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,

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 300 Madsen and Simms

and SnakeValley gray).More detailed lithologicexamination 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 theUinta Basin, Geib and Lyneis (1996) recognize fourprimary 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 fourthin theEscalante River Basin. Spurr (1995) also documents igneous temper in the San Rafael Swell. A crushed limestone tempered variety oc curs in theUinta Basin (R. Madsen, 1977) and petrographicanalyses 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 typemay 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). to Again, local availability determines the variation in temper 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 yieldedboth 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 inmaking both Snake Valley and Seviergray 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

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The FremontComplex 301

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 theWasatch in the central Fremont area. a The earliest pottery ismade in only 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 a and/or logistic system regardless of whether the subsistence focus is for aging or farming(Simms et aL, 1997).At largervillage sites during the later Fremont periods, a diversity of forms, including bowls, cups, small to medium jars, and pitchers, was produced. use The 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) suggeststhat locallymade potteryimitative of thatat farmingsites (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, as such inGrass 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 inwestern 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 latterhalf of thisrange 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 beginningdate of 1650B.P offeredby Holmer andWeder (1980). In Browns Park, in extreme northeastern Utah, Rose Spring points occur at sitesyielding dates in the2000-1800 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 Springpoint (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 thatwhile the bow and arrow appears to be used in Fremont

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 302 Madsen and Simms

areas immediatelynorth of theColorado River in the firsttwo 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 thatbow 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, was based on the expectation that this technology adopted through local decision-making pressures as behavioral options increased during the Late Archaic-to-Fremont transition. case These tantalizing cases, however, contrast with the well-dated 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 compiledby Spangler (1995,Appendix B) confirms.While thereseems 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 indigenousforaging populations. In the less competitivesituation where indigenous foragers were adopting horticulture, the pressures to adopt were a the bow and arrow probably lower. This might help explain why 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 theArchaic-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 andWeder, 1980).On theColorado 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 studymay be able to find quantifiabledifferences (Geib, 1996, pp.

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The Fremont Complex 303

107-108;Holmer, 1986).Holmer andWeder (1980) suggestthat this simi laritymay be due tomatrilocality, and Simms (1990) broadened the topic to include all forms of male versus female mobility. The possibility that thesepatterns are theproduct of gender differenceshas not been widely explored, and there remains a tendency to employ normative differences inpoint typesfor thepurposes of identifyinggroup boundariesonly, with out consideration of the behavior associated with those boundaries. In theGreat Basin, the laterpoint stylesare primarilyBear 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 inWestern Anasazi sites to the south (Holmer, 1986). The boundary between the Fremont and the Anasazi in the south eastern Great Basin may, as inGlen 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 andWeder, 1980, p. 60). The names implygeo graphic association, with the Bear River points centered in the northeastern Great Basin and theUinta pointswith theUinta Basin.Within collections fromeither area, however,there is variability in theheight of side notching that is not distinguishedby the poorly specifiednotion 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 planationsfor thisarray of projectilepoint styles(Fig. 10), suggestingthat 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 a and that at sites occupied by Fremont foragers. As with vessel forms, variety of projectile points, drills, and large, thinned, hafted knives occurs at largervillage sites,but at temporarilyoccupied sites thekinds of chipped stone tools are much more limited.

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 304 Madsen and Simms

Fig. 10.Common projectilepoints of theFremont Complex (fromHomer andWeder, 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.

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The FremontComplex 305

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 greaterSouthwest in havinga small, secondarygrinding platform on one end. The function of this second grinding area is unknown. A sharedsymbolism, characterized by clayfigurines and rockart 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 ticularlyat foragingsites west of thewestern flankof the centralWasatch 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 inmuch the samemanner as that suggestedby 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 theend of thisperiod, variants of thebasic adaptive strategiesde 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

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 306 Madsen and Simms

temporarily abandoned and left unprotected. These mobile groups occu pied a varietyof temporaryprotected and open sites inmany of the same locationsused by earlier full-timeforagers. We think it likelythat fully mobile foragers continued to be scattered among these farmers, but where both cooccur, it is virtuallyimpossible to distinguishthe full-timehunter 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 inDinosaur National Monument, the lower Yampa River, and Browns Park, there is a continu ous occupation by foragers with access to maize and ceramics throughout thisperiod (e.g.,McKibben, 1992; Spangler, 1999b;Tucker, 1986). Thus far,ceramics offer the only opportunityto distinguishthe full time hunter-gatherers from seasonally mobile farmer/foragers, and even thishas itsproblems. Simms et al (1997) find some supportfor the hy pothesis thatshort-term camps and limitedactivity sites leftby farmerswho 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 demonstratedfor residential farming bases (Simmset 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 a at single forager site. Of course, when farming Fremont move away from theirvillage and constructceramics at theirtemporary camps, theytoo will adopt thecultural clothing of the full-timeforagers, making the two indis tinguishable. DemographicFluidity (1000-700 B.P.). Shortlybefore 1000B.P. a series of dramaticchanges involvingmarked demographicshifts 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

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The Fremont Complex 307

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 itstributaries in theUinta basin and along itssouthern margin, suggesting a dramaticshift in thedistribution of population throughtime (adapted fromSpan 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 thepossibility of humanpredation" (Spangler, 1999a). There is limitedevi 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 theColorado 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 theWasatch are Plateau, such as Snake Rock (Aikens, 1967), granaries built in a linked linear form common inAnasazi 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

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 308 Madsen and Simms

corrugationand painted designs using Southwesternmotifs (R. Madsen, 1977;Metcalf et al, 1993). Bull Creek projectile points (Holmer, 1986; Homer andWeder, 1980) are distributedin sites northand 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 utilityof culturalhistorical 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 differingadaptive strategies(together with differingcongeries 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 shiftfrom either theUinta Basin or theSan 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 resources the protection of people and the protection of stored (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 theGreen River drainages. Similar kinds of defensive architecture do not occur in the Great

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The FremontComplex 309

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 theTurner-Look site (Novak, 1998; Wormington,1955). Given the complexity and radical nature of these changes, this may have involvedthe movement of substantialnumbers of people, in addition to themovement of ideas and trade goods. The ceramics from the Tavaputs Plateau appear to be made of exoticbasalts found to the south in thevi cinityof the San Rafael Swell.While it is temptingto interpretthis 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 rialsas is thecase elsewhere inUtah (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 foragersites (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 expectationsthat justify the use ofmolecular 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 theywere part of differentgenetic 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 our graphic example of switching but illustrates argument for the relevance of a model in which the contexts of selection stimulate the nature of the research questions.

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 310 Madsen and Simms

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 foraginglocalities such as Danger (Madsen and Rhode, 1990) and Hogup Caves (Aikens, 1970) continued to be used during thisperiod 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 towild resources is relatively easy. Around Utah Lake, the central Sevier River Valley, and the Parowan Valley, sites such as Five FingerRidge (Janetskiet al, 1997) and Paragonah (Judd, 1919;Meighan et al.9 1956) easilymeet thecriteria 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 a Lohse, 1980). An essential characteristic consists of 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, suggestinga higherdegree 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 theSnake Range (Hockett,1998) suggeststhe 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 itmay be at other Fremont sites, remains an open question,but the"big man" model ofHayden (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, a case only single of status differentiation was observed (associated with an interment of 4 to 11 individuals), and a range of social organization and its

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Hsr <* 3 o 3

,1n,i...'[ .hotatalso .

/U126/j _J","oo*yrij-"'" r~ 'om"*'? +::--f170n+;:;:.;.^jfv,-^r?-'^=^,7on^~^ -

8twuctohc>:lchos8TWFNCH LiOL-^a. : If.j.if}]^^zJ I_1 'hthoussr

//ffJ.j/5^^X*Y/If. cewnwt ^^*Xyawe*)prrHou?E/~vK

?,0N + + ~k (1 ?,e20e30e40e?0e^5cme +4t 4-70e m -h ?ion ^ oe<0c20e30e*0e506?0e. ^; 70e ? //N\^2;HTMOuse^-^^^^i^/y....v. .- Fig.12.PlanmapofarchitecturalfeaturesatBakershowingVillagepit housesdouble-binnedand granariesaround alargecentralstructure. ThearrangementistypicalofmanycomplexFremontinvillage sitestheGreatBasin (drawing courtesy ofBrighamYoungUniversityMuseum

^Xl!^^Sj7^Lr?t?uctoii?surface7rI^ I

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

PeoplesCulture).ofSand

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 312 Madsen and Simms

ideologicalreflection is apparent for theFremont 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 ismarkedly different from regular pit structures,there is littleto suggest a centralizedorganization of labor.Black andMetcalf (1986) suggestthat these largervillages with higherpopulations are simplya product of in creased maize production associated with climatic conditions better suited tohorticulture after ?1000 yearsago, while Lindsay (1986) similarlyascribes 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 inwhich people live,there are many ways inwhich climaticchange 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 inwhich 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 tomatrix 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 inwhich 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

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The FremontComplex 313

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 afterthis time between theAnasazi and theFremont (Geib, 1996,p. 115) and the architectural similarities between the two noted for Fremont resi dential farmingbases (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 our diffusion, and suggestions about the nature of demographic fluidity in clude theprediction that it should increaseduring the peak of theFremont period (also see Simms,1994, 1999;Upham 1994).We furtherpredict 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 nouementof theFremont lifewaythat had flourishedthroughout Utah for several centuries" (Janetski, 1994, p. 174), the underlying causes remain unclear. As a generalization, farming ended across much of the Fremont regionby 700-650 B.P. (Lindsay,1986; Talbot andWilde, 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 andMedian (Lindsay,1986) and in theGreat Salt Lake wetlands by 800 850 B.P. (Coltrain,1994b, 1997; Coltrain and Stafford,1999). In theUinta 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 a migration of Numic-speaking foragers can be traced to host of archaeolo gists in the 1920s and 1930s (Madsen, 1994, pp. 25-26). This archaeological

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 314 Madsen and Simms

interpretationwas later supportedby linguisticdata, beginningwith 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, a ar given the linguistic evidence for recent spread of Numic languages, 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 Janetskiuses these termsto 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 itsvalue as an explanatory prime mover. Migration occurred throughout the Fremont period: colonizing Basketmaker II farmers, adaptive diversity among symbioticdyads and switchingsubgroups of farmers,and thedemo graphicfluidity we describedfor theFremont zenith. The influxof 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 ismuch 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 apparentlybegins during the Fremont peak between 800 and 1000 B.P. During this time, farming is at itsmaximum 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 as as them possibly emigrating, well immigrating foragers. All of these were in competition with farmers. At first glance, one wonders how immigrant farmershold the competitiveedge 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 a Tavaputs Plateau provides graphic example to discuss farmer-forager

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The Fremont Complex 315

interactionsduring 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 was there 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 farminggroups moving north from the San Rafael Swell area. The perma nent residentsof theTavaputs Plateau would have a competitiveadvantage because theywould controlhunting and gatheringpatches (Spangler,1995, p. 618). This competitivesituation could existwith or without themigration 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 titiontypical of tribalsocieties. During this period, the number of behavioral options decrease as eco logicalniches fill and matrixmodification limitsopportunity. Instead of managing riskby exportingcolonizing 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 longbeen a widely accepted factorin the terminationof farmingin theFremont region.Competition during the Fremont period of demographicfluidity between 1000and 700 B.P. would heightenthe 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 a region, especially as 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 tentwith studies in surrounding regions indicating that this period featured frequentpositive temperaturespikes (Graumlich,1993) and lowersummer and precipitation (e.g., Peterson, 1988). Unfortunately, temperature pre

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 316 Madsen and Simms

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 farmerslikely abandoned farmingin theFremont regionand emigratedto places where theywould be accepted,probably using establishedkin 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 inmonolithic terms. The late expressions of farming in north west Colorado, and perhaps the Tavaputs Plateau case, may reflect immi gratingfarmers. Migration to the south by some familiesor kin-based groups is anotherpossibility. Wormington's (1955) hypothesisthat theFre mont ultimatelybecame theHopi reflectsthis 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 themodern 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 isworth noting that theHopi language is an earlyoff shootof theNumic languages,and linguisticevidence suggeststhat 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 increasingforager 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 simplyadd to the competitivemix. The relativelyprolonged 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) suggestsa merging process among veiy similargroups of hunter-gatherers. Metcalf et al (1993) raise the possibility thatmerged Fre mont/Shoshonean groups may have pursued increasing herds of large game onto the plains of theWyoming basin during more productive periods as sociatedwith theLittle IceAge. While thishypothesis is mostly speculative, itdoes gain some surprisingsupport from rock art studies.Keyser (1975; see also Wright, 1978) contends, for example, that the shield-bearing

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The FremontComplex 317

warriormotif (traditionaltrapezoidal figures with added shields) usually associated with the Fremont (Schaafsma, 1971; Wormington, 1955) is found well across the northern plains and ismost likely related to the spread of Numic-speakingpeoples. Dating of real "Fremont"shields from sites along the Fremont River drainage to ?400 B.P. (Kreutzer, 1994; Loendorf and Conner, 1993) suggeststhat this is a notionworth pursuing (but see Schle sier, 1994). Coalescing of indigenous and immigrant populations also appears to have been a possibilityin the northernportion of theBonneville 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 foraginghypothesized by JulianSteward (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-walledpottery, Desert side-notchedprojectile points foundwidely 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 formssince itwas firstproposed by Steward (see also Smith, 1939). Its greatest failing was thatmany of the features of the "Promontory" culture proved to overlap temporally those characteristics of Fremont farmers, sug gestingeither that two separate groups coexisted for a timeor 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 sentiallythe same,while Forsyth(1986), based primarilyon 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 ismuch more variation in Fremont ceramics than allowed for in studies that dis count variability in favor of defining normative types. Fawcett and Simms (1993) excavatedsuperimposed houses dating to950-800 B.P, clearlywithin

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 318 Madsen and Simms

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 hypothesesabout mobility. They found a relationshipamong 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 likelyproduced bymobile foragersand that,with thedisappearance 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 tionof new immigrantpopulations. By definingpatterns 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 demographicfluidity of the preceedingperiod. 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 use tinued to 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 centralNevada (Rhode, 1994). more They appear widely after A.D. 1000 (Rhode, 1994), paralleling the increased adaptive diversity accompanying Fremont growth. Lyneis (1994a) suggests thatwhat 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

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The FremontComplex 319

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 suggeststhe 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 continuityin 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 possibilitybut exhibitsfewer linkswith Utah than the Southwest). Epidemics resulting from the transmission of these diseases northward would have theirmost likely impact on foraging populations liv ingin relativelydensely populated and relativelysedentary 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 addressedby molecular geneticanalysis. The hypothesisof 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 et netic markers distinguishing them from Athabaskan populations (Parr

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 320 Madsen and Simms

aL, 1996). The Great Salt Lake series was also distinct from Anasazi skele tons fromsoutheastern 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 inwestern North America (Kaestle et aly 1999;O'Rourke et aL, 1999). The emerging picture of the Fremont complex is indeed one of de a nouement, rather than 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 was plex since it 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 as tween defining the Fremont the "northern periphery" of Southwestern as an farming peoples or "in situ" development that "was evidently a quite flexibleor adaptable lifewayshowing local diversity within a generalmodel" (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

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The Fremont Complex 321

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 farmersshift to full-timeforaging 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 a scriptive culture history and ethnography and 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 re prehistoric record. The conflicts between these approaches cannot be 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.

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 322 Madsen and Simms

When employingthe descriptiveapproach, the levels of integration and distinctionarchaeologists bring to the table largelydetermine how they understand the human groups that are under study. When archaeologists are use this approach, the farmers and foragers of the Fremont complex not unlike the farmers and foragers of southern Africa. In southern Africa, as San foragers and their farming neighbors can be viewed separate eth nicallydefined groupswith differentsubsistence practices and ideologies or as a (e.g., Lee and Guenther, 1993; Lewis-Williams, 1984) larger and more integrated economic and belief system (e.g., Jolly 1996; Wilmsen, can as 1989). In western North America, the Fremont be viewed strictly or as a settled farmers and separate foragers (e.g., Talbot 1996, 1997b) more broadly defined system of interacting farmers and foragers (e.g., more correct Janetski, 1997). While neither view is fundamentally 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 are possible to agree upon what levels of organization and integration most appropriate. we Fortunately, the behavioral approach advocate here reconstitutes one or the questions and makes the "correctness" of particular category another irrelevant. Rather than put the Fremont into pigeon holes with we features we must necessarily assume to be distinctive, wish to under were one stand how people within the Fremont complex operating at any time, and how that behavior may have changed through the course of their history.We view behavior as the productof 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 we interaction, fluidity, and dynamism in any other terms. The approach 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

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The FremontComplex 323

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 yearsago farminggradually 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 differentiallyadopted by people livingin 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, interactedsymbiotically 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 inwhich 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 a farming and foraging together, served to alter their behaviors in variety of ways.

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 324 Madsen and Simms

After about 800 years ago farmingbegan to be abandoned in the same differentialfashion as itwas adopted, and by 500 years ago, foraging strategiesincreased in frequencyto thepoint where farming,if itwas 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 thearchaeological record after 500 B.P. (we hold out thepossibility 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 historicallyknown inhabitantsof the region,but suggestingthat 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 theywere 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 plasticityof thatmatrix which is at the heart of the Fremont complexand which characterizesthe people who livedwithin it.

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The Fremont Complex 325

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We wish to thank those who provided useful comments on preliminary versionsof thispaper. While we did not always follow theiradvice, 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). BasketryTechnology: A Guide to Identificationand 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 UtahAnthropological Papers 82, Salt Lake City. Aikens, C. M. (1967). Excavations at Snake Rock Village and the Bear River No. 2 Site. Universityof UtahAnthropological Papers 87, Salt Lake City. Aikens, C. M. (1970). Hogup Cave. Universityof Utah AnthropologicalPapers 93, Salt Lake City. Aikens, C. M. (1976). Cultural hiatus in the easternGreat Basin? AmericanAntiquity 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 theIdaho StateUniversity Museum of Natural History 4, Pocatello. Ambler, J.R. (1966a). Caldwell Village. Universityof Utah Anthropolo&calPapers 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 annualmeeting of theSociety forAmerican 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 inCanyon 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 andRock Art inShavetail 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.

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 326 Madsen and Simms

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, Universityof Utah, Salt Lake City. Barlow, K. R., and Metcalfe, D. (1996). Plant utility indices: Two Great Basin examples. Jour nal ofArchaeological Science 23(3): 351-372. Berry,M. S. (1972). The Evans Site. Special Report,Department of Anthropology, University ofUtah, Salt Lake City. Berry,M. S. (1974). The Evans Mound: CulturalAdaptation in SouthwesternUtah, Master's thesis,Department ofAnthropology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City. Berry,M. S. (1982). Time,Space and Transitionin 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). BurntHouse 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., andMetcalf, 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 reviewof "Land FilledWith 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 inAnthropology 17, Boul der. Brew, J.O. (1946). Archaeologyof Alkali Ridge, SoutheasternUtah, 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 nology21, Cambridge. Broughton,J. M. (1994). Declines in foragingefficiency during the lateHolocene: The ar chaeological mammal evidence from San Francisco Bay, California. Journal of Anthropo logicalArchaeology 13: 371-401. Burgh,R. F., and Scoggin,C. R. (1948). The Archaeologyof Castle Park,Dinosaur National Monument. University of Colorado Studies, Series inAnthropology 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 theHistoric Fremont and A Guide to the Prehistoric Potteryof Southern Idaho.Occasional Papers of theIdaho Museum ofNatural History 33, Pocatello. Butler, B. R. (1986). The potteryof eastern Idaho. InGriset, S. (ed.), Potteryof theGreat Basin andAdjacent Areas. Universityof UtahAnthropological Papers 111, Salt Lake City, pp. 37-57. Castleton, K. B., and Madsen, D. B. (1981). The distribution of rock art elements and styles inUtah. Journalof Californiaand Great Basin Anthropology3: 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 presentedat the 24thGreat Basin AnthropologicalConference, Elko. B. Coltrain, J. (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. B. Coltrain, J. (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.

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The FremontComplex 327

Coltrain,J. B., and Stafford,T. W., Jr.(1999). Stable carbon isotopesand Salt Lake wetlandsdiet: 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)Prehistoryof theSouthwest, 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 (postA.D. 1200) occupation inNorthwest Colorado. SouthwesternLore 53(4): 1-16. Currey,D. R. (1991).Hemiarid lakebasins: Hydrographic and geomorphicpatterns. 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 Surveyof theFlaming Gorge Reservoir, Utah-Wyoming.University of Utah AnthropologicalPapers 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. Universityof UtahAnthropological Papers 111,Salt Lake City, pp. 19-28. Dodd, W. A., Jr.,(1982). Final Year Excavationsat theEvans Mound Site. Universityof Utah AnthropologicalPapers 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 theAmericas, 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 UtahAnthropological 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 theKnoll Site. Universityof Utah AnthropologicalPapers 100, Salt Lake City. to Gebauer, A. B., and Price, T. D. (eds.) (1992). Transitions Agriculture in Prehistory. Mono graphs in World Archaeology 9. Prehistory Press, Madison. Geib, P. R. (1996).Glen CanyonRevisited. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 119,Salt Lake City. Geib, P. R., and Bungart,P. W. (1989). Implicationsof earlybow use inGlen 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.

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 328 Madsen and Simms

Gillin, J. (1938).Archaeological Investigations in Nile Mile Canyon,Utah, During theYear of 1936. Universityof Utah Bulletin28(11), Salt Lake City. Gillin, J. (1941).Archeological Investigationsin Central Utah. Papers of thePeabody Museum ofAmerican Archaeology and Ethnology17(2), Cambridge. Graumlich,L A. (1993).A 1000-yearrecord of temperatureand precipitationin 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 inPrehistoric Europe, Universityof Chicago Press,Chicago. Greubel, R. A. (1996). Archaeological Investigationsof 11 SitesAlong Interstate70: Castle Valley to Rattlesnake Bench. Alpine Archaeological Consultants, Inc., Montrose, CO. Griset, S. (ed.) (1986). Potteryof theGreat Basin and Adjacent Areas. Universityof Utah AnthropologicalPapers 111, Salt Lake City. Gunnerson, J.H. (1960). The Fremont culture: Internal dimensions and external relationships. AmericanAntiquity 25(3): 373-380. Gunnerson, J.H. (1969). The Fremont culture:A studyin culturedynamics on the northern Anasazi frontier. Papers of thePeabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 59(2), Cam bridge. Haas, J, andWilcox, D. (1994). Competition and conflict in the prehistoricSouthwest. In Gumerman, G. (ed.), Themes in Southwest Prehistory, School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, pp. 211-238. Hanes, R. C. (1988). LithicAssemblages 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. Journalof 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 inArchaeology, Ethnology, and History 10, Socorro. Henry,D. O. (1995).Prehistoric Cultural Ecology and Evolution: Insightsfrom SouthernJordan, Plenum Press, New York. Hockett, B. (1998). The sociopolitical meaning of faunal remains from Baker Village. Ameri canAntiquity (in press). Hodder, I. (1977). The distributionof material culture items in theBaringo 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. N. versus a Holmer, R. (1980). Fremont Archaic subsistence: Is there 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 toryReports of Investigations85-16, 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.

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The FremontComplex 329

to James, S. R. (1986). What mean these sherds? A functional approach Fremont ceramics in the western periphery. In Griset, S. (ed.), Pottery of the Great Basin and Adjacent Areas. Universityof UtahAnthropological 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 theWest: Human Population Move meat and the Expansion of the Numa, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 157-178. eastern Janetski, J. C. (1997). Fremont hunting and resource intensification in the 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 CanyonArchaeological 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 CanyonArchaeological 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. Universityof UtahAnthropological Papers 27, Salt Lake City. Jennings,J. D. (1960). Early man inUtah. UtahHistorical Quarterly 28(1): 3-27. Jennings, J. D. (1978). Prehistory of Utah and the Eastern Great Basin: A Review. University of UtahAnthropological Papers 98, Salt Lake City. Salt Lake Jennings, J. D. (1980). Cowboy Cave. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 104, 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 AnthropologicalPapers 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. resource A Jones, K. T., and Madsen, D. B. (1989). Calculating the cost of transportation: 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. Utah. Judd, N. M. (1919). Archaeological Investigations at Paragonah, 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.

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 330 Madsen and Simms

Kaestle, F. A. (1995).Mitochondrial DNA evidence for the identityof thedescendants of the prehistoric Stiliwater Marsh population. In Larsen, C. S., and Kelly, R. L (eds.), Bioar chaeologyof theStiliwater Marsh: PrehistoricHuman Adaptation in theWestern Great Basin. Anthropological Papers of theAmerican 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 ForagingSpectrum: Diversity in Hunter-Gatherer Lifeways, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. Kelly, R. L. (1997). Late Holocene Great Basin Prehistory.Journal of World Prehistory11: 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 chaeology1994: 104-116. Lamb, S. (1958). Linguisticprehistory in theGreat Basin. InternationalJournal of American Linguistics 24: 95-100. Leach, L. L. (1966). The Archeology of Boundary Village, Miscellaneous Paper 13. University of Utah AnthropologicalPapers 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 inKalahari historicalethnography 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 UtahAnthropological 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. and On late Lupo, K., Schmitt, D. N. (1997). 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 J. F. nell, (eds.), Man and Environment in the Great Basin. Society for American Archae ologyPapers 2,Washington, DC, pp. 172-185.

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The FremontComplex 331

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 archaeologicalexamination 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 theNuma, Universityof 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 UtahAnthropological Papers 95, Salt Lake City, pp. 54 75. Madsen, D. B. (1975). Three Fremont Sites in Emery County, Utah. Antiquities Section Se lectedPapers 1(1), Salt Lake City. Madsen, D. B. (1979). The Fremont and the Sevier: Defining prehistoric agriculturalists north of theAnasazi. AmericanAntiquity 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 itwhere the gettin'sgood: A variablemodel 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 Investigationsin 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 use prehistoric of pinyon. In Condie, C. J., and Fowler, D. D. (eds.), Anthropology of theDesert West: Essays inHonor of JesseD. 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 theWest: Human Population Movement and theExpansion of theNuma, University ofUtah 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 (Pinusmonophylla) 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 theExpansion of theNuma, Universityof 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 a Siding Shelter: The Archaeological Excavation of 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 UtahAnthropological Papers 95, Salt Lake City.

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 332 Madsen and Simms

Massimino, J., and Metcalfe, D. (1998). Peaks and valleys: Fremont chronology revisited. Utah Archaeology1998 (in press). Mazel, A. (1989). People making history:The last ten thousandyears of hunter-gatherercom 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 theNorthern Colorado Plateau. Ph.D. dissertation, Department ofAnthropology, 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 QuestarNorth-South Pipeline: Final Reporton 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 UtahAnthropological Papers 25, Salt Lake City. Metcalf, M. D., Pool, K. J.,McDonald, FC, and McKibbin, A. (1993). 77xe Round Spring Site, on Vol. III. Hogan Pass: Final Report 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 theHeartbreak Hotel. AmericanAntiquity 55: 781-796. Metcalfe, D., and Larrabee, L. (1985). Fremont irrigation: Evidence from Goosebery Valley, centralUtah. Journalof California and Great Basin Anthropology7: 244-253. Montgomery,H. (1894). Prehistoricman inUtah. TheArchaeologist 8: 228-234; 10: 298-306; 11: 335-342. Morss, N. (1931). The Ancient Culture of theFremont River inUtah. Papers of thePeabody Museum ofAmerican Archaeology and Ethnology12(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.), InvisibleNo More, Universityof 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 Environmentin theGreat Basin. Societyfor 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 Archaeology7(2). Peterson, K. L. (1988). Climate and the Dolores River Anasazi. University of Utah Anthropo logicalPapers 113, Salt Lake City. Pl?g, F. (1984). Exchange, tribes, and alliances: The northern southwest. American Archaeology 4: 217-223.

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The FremontComplex 333

Price, T. D., Johnson, C. M., Ezzo, A., Ericson, J., and Burton, J. H. (1994). Residential mobility in theprehistoric southwest United States:A preliminarystudy 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 prehistoricand protohistoricperiods. InMadsen, D. B., andRhode, D. (eds.),Across the West:Human PopulationMovement and theExpansion of theNuma, Universityof Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 188-199. Rhode, D. (1994). Direct datingof brownware ceramicsusing thermoluminescenceand 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 ofPeoples and Cultures Technical Series 95.9, Provo, pp. 67-88. Rudy, J.R. (1953).Archeological Survey of Western Utah. Universityof 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. Universityof Utah AnthropologicalPapers 105, Salt Lake City, pp. 111-135. Schaafsma,P. (1971). The Rock Art of Utah. Papers of thePeabody Museum ofArchaeology and Ethnology65, 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 inHunter-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. AntiquitiesSection Selected Papers 1(2), Salt Lake City. Sharrock, F. W. (1966). Prehistoric Occupation Patterns in Southwest Wyoming and Cultural Relationshipswith theGreat Basin and Plains CultureAreas. Universityof UtahAnthro pologicalPapers 77, Salt Lake City. Sharrock,F. W., andMarwitt, J. P. (1967). Excavationsat Nephi,Utah, 1965-1966.University of UtahAnthropological Papers 88, Salt Lake City. 15. Uni Shields, W. F. (1967). 1966 Excavations: Uinta Basin, Miscellaneous Collected Papers versityof UtahAnthropological Papers 89, Salt Lake City. on of An Shields, W. F. (n.d.). The Grantsvillc Site: 1967 Excavations. Ms. file, Department 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. Universityof UtahAnthropological Papers 99, Salt Lake City. Journal and Simms, S. R. (1986). New evidence for Fremont adaptive diversity. of CaUfomia Great Basin Anthropology 8: 204-216. 1-19. Simms, S. R. (1990). Fremont transitions. Utah Archaeology 1990: the eastern Basin. Simms, S. R. (1994). Farmers and foragers in late Holocene Great Paper Elko. presented at the 24th Great Basin Anthropological Conference, Wetlands Simms, S. R. (1999). Farmers, foragers, and adaptive diversity: The Great Salt Lake C. S. Prehistoric Project. In Hemphill, B. E., and Larsen, (eds.), Understanding Lifeways in the Great Basin Wetlands: Bioarchaeological Reconstruction and Interpretation, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 334 Madsen and Simms

Simms,S. R., and Stuart,M. E. (1993). Prehistoryand past environmentsof theGreat 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 tributionsto 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 toAnthropology 6, Logan. Simms,S. R., Ugan, A., and Bright,J. (1997). Plain-wareceramics and residentialmobility: A case studyfrom theGreat Basin. Journalof Archaeological Science 24: 779-792. Sinopoli,C. M. (1991). Style inarrows: A studyof an ethnographiccollection from thewestern 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 inAnthropology 10, Ann Arbor, pp. 63-76. Smith,C. S. (1992). The Fremont:A view fromSouthwest Wyoming. Utah Archaeology 1992: 55-75. Smith, D. G., Bettinger, R. L., and Rolfs, B. K. (1995). Serum albumin phenotypes at Still water: Implicationsfor population history in theGreat Basin. In Larsen,C. S., and Kelly, R. L. (eds.), Bioarchaeology of the Stiliwater Marsh: Prehistoric Human Adaptation in theWestern Great Basin. Anthropological Papers of theAmerican Museum of Natural His tory77, New York, pp. 68-72. Smith,E. A., andWinterhalder, B. (1992).Evolutionary Ecology andHuman Behavior,Aldine de Gruyter, New York. Smith,E. R. (1939). Report on Accomplishmentsof Universityof Utah Museum ofAnthro pologyArchaeological Expedition for summerof 1939. Special Report to President George Thomas, Universityof Utah Archives,Salt Lake City. Smith,E. R. (1941). The Archaeology of Deadman Cave, Utah. Universityof Utah Bulletin 32(4), Salt Lake City,pp. 1-43. or Solway, J. S., and Lee, R. B. (1990). Foragers, genuine spurious? Current Anthropology 31: 109-146. Spangler, J. D. (1993). Site Distribution and Settlement Patterns in Lower Nine Mile Canyon: The BrighamYoung UniversitySurveys 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 temporalorder in theUintah Basin. InMadsen, 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" foragingsocieties. 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 logicalArchaeology 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). Compositionalanalysis of temperin Emery Gray ceramicsfrom centralUtah. van In 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 StatesDepartment of theInterior, National Park Service,Washington, DC, pp. 137-169.

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The FremontComplex 335

Steward,J. H. (1933a). Early Inhabitantsof Western Utah. Universityof Utah Bulletin23(7), Salt Lake City. Steward,J. H. (1933b).Archaeological Problems of theNorthern Periphery of theSouthwest. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin 5, Flagstaff. Steward,J. H. (1937).Ancient Caves of theGreat Salt Lake Region. Bureau ofAmerican EthnologyBulletin 116,Washington, DC. Steward,J. H. (1940). Native culturesof the intermontane(Great Basin) area. In Essays in HistoricalAnthropology of NorthAmerica, Published inHonor of JohnR. Swanton. SmithsonianMiscellaneous 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 Implicationsof 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). ReformulatingFremont thought:New perspectiveson old ideas.Paper at presented 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 CanyonArchaeological Project. Volume Five: Results and Synthesis.Brigham Young UniversityMuseum of Peoples and Cultures Technical Series 95.9, Provo, pp. 257-288. at Talbot, R. K., and Richens, L D. (1993). Archaeological Investigations 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 CanyonArchaeological Project. Volume Five, Part 1: IcicleBench; 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 CanyonArchaeological Project. Volume Four, Part 3: Five FingerRidge. Brigham Young University Museum of Peoples and Cultures Technical Series 95.8, Provo. Talbot, R. K., andWilde, J.D. (1989). Giving form to theFormative: 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 versityof UtahAnthropological 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 theAmerican Museum of Natural History 59(1), New York, pp. 246-278. Tucker, G. C, Jr. (1986). Results of Archaeological Investigations Along Chevrons CO2/PO4 Mon Pipelines inNortheastern Utah and Northwestern Colorado, Nickens and Associates, trose, CO.

This content downloaded from 129.123.24.42 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:11:26 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 336Madsen and Simms

Tuohy,D. R., and Rendall, D. L (1979). The Archaeologyof SmithCreek Canyon, Eastern Nevada. Nevada State Museum Anthropological Papers 17, Carson City. Upham, S. (1984). Adaptive diversityand Southwesternabandonment. 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 thedesert west: A shiftingcontinuum in prehistory. Journal of World Prehistory8 (2): 113-167. Weissner, P. (1983). Style and social informationin Kalahari San projectilepoints. American Antiquity 48: 253-276. Whalen, M. E. (1994). Turquoise Ridge and Late PrehistoricResidential Mobility in theDe sertMogollon Region. Universityof UtahAnthropological Papers 118, Salt Lake City. Wilde, J.D., and Newman, D. E. (1989). Late Archaic corn in the eastern Great Basin. Ameri canAnthropologist 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 CulturesOccasional Papers 2, Provo, pp. 11-22 Wills,W. H. (1988).Early PrehistoricAgriculture in theAmerican Southwest,School ofAmeri can Research Press, Santa Fe. Wilmsen, E. N. (1989). L*nd Filled withFlies: A PoliticalEconomy of theKalahari, 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. AmericanAntiquity 41(4): 421-429. at Winter, J. C, and Wylie, H. G. (1974). Paleoecology and diet Clyde's Cavern. American Antiquity39(2): 304-315. Winterhalder,B., and Smith,E. A. (1992). Evolutionaryecology 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). Stylisticbehavior and informationexchange. In Cleland, C. (ed.), For theDirector Essays inHonor of JamesB. Griffin.University of Michigan Museum of AnthropologyAnthropological Papers 61, Ann Arbor, pp. 317-342. or Wobst, H. M. (1978). Archaeo-ethnology of hunter-gatherers 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 theDenver Museum of Natural History 1, Denver. Wright, G. A. (1978). The Shoshonean migration problem. Plains Anthropologist 23(80): 113 37.

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