Fremont Hunting and Resource Intensification in the Eastern Great Basin

Journal of Archaeological Science (1997) 24, 1075–1088

Fremont Hunting and Resource Intensification in the Eastern Great Basin Joel C. Janetski Department of Anthropology, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, U.S.A. (Received 1 March 1996, revised manuscript accepted 8 November 1996) Empirical tests of resource-intensification models argue for diminishing foraging efficiency among hunter–gatherers in California over the past 2000 years (Basgall, 1987, Research in Economic Anthropology 9, 21–52; Broughton, 1994a, Journal of Archaeological Science 21, 501–514; 1994b, Journal of Anthropological Anthropology 13, 371–401). The evidence for this long-term trajectory consists of decreases in the abundance of large, high-ranked prey in archaeofaunal assemblages. This paper presents faunal data from Fremont structural sites in the eastern Great Basin and Northern Colorado Plateau as an additional empirical test of resource intensification patterns and compares them to trends in California and the American Southwest. The measure of resource efficiency used is the artiodactyl index (following Broughton, 1994a, b), a tool derived from prey choice models of optimal foraging. Faunal data from Fremont structural sites argue that (1) foraging efficiency declined during the Fremont period, and (2) this decline was due to population growth. ? 1997 Academic Press Limited Keywords: RESOURCE INTENSIFICATION, EASTERN GREAT BASIN, AMERICAN SOUTHWEST, FREMONT, POPULATION GROWTH, LATE HOLOCENE.

Introduction

B

roughton (1994a, b) and Broughton & Grayson (1993) have put intriguing arguments for decreasing foraging efficiency in hunter–gatherer subsistence economies during the Late Holocene in western North America. Using faunal data collected from sites in California and the western Great Basin, they maintain that hunter–gatherers shifted emphasis from large, high-ranked game to smaller, lower-ranked animals. The pattern of faunal exploitation has been noted by others for the western Basin (Elston, 1986; Bettinger, 1991). This process has been described as resource intensification, defined by Boserup (1965, cited in Broughton 1994b: 372) as ‘‘a process by which the total productivity per areal unit of land is increased at the expense of overall decreases in foraging efficiency. In other words, more energy is harnessed from a given patch of land, but individuals must expend more energy, per unit time, in the process’’. The evidence for intensification ranges from the increasing use of smaller fish and fewer large mammals (Broughton 1994a, 1995) in California to a shift toward a greater use of marmots relative to mountain sheep at high altitude sites in the White Mountains (Bettinger, 1991; Grayson, 1991; Broughton & Grayson, 1993; see also Bettinger & Baumhoff, 1982; Madsen, 1986 for additional efficiency arguments to explain change in the Great Basin). Broughton’s (1994a, b, 1995) research on hunter– gatherers in California attributes the drop in larger

animals to resource depression due to central place foraging and human population growth. Resource depression describes the process of game depletion in the vicinity of villages (central places) as a consequence of local ecology modification due to gardening or as a result of hunting. Ethnographical studies have documented how hunters reduce the populations of large game animals near villages, forcing a choice between taking lower-ranked prey close at hand or moving farther afield in pursuit of larger animals (Hames & Vickers, 1982). Transport and travel costs increase with distance and play an important role in prey selection decisions (see Szuter & Bayham, 1989: 88; Metcalfe & Barlow, 1992 for discussion of transport costs). Prey choice decisions should be reflected in faunal assemblages in the relative abundance of large and small animals (see Broughton, 1995). In the American Southwest a contrasting pattern in faunal exploitation has been described by Bayham (1982), Speth & Scott (1989), and Szuter & Bayham (1989) for essentially the same period. They maintain that archaeofaunas here contain increasing rather than decreasing numbers of large game relative to small game through time. Speth & Scott (1989) cite empirical support of the trend from Anasazi contexts in New Mexico and Hohokam sites in southern Arizona. Szuter & Bayham (1989) report a steady expansion of artiodactyls in the Ventana Cave assemblages from 3000  to  1000, although they note that faunal data from Hohokam sites in the valleys and uplands

1075 0305–4403/97/121075+14 $25.00/as960187

? 1997 Academic Press Limited

1076 J. C. Janetski

are highly variable and need further investigation (see James, 1994; Szuter & Gillespie, 1994, for more on trends in Hohokam sites). Speth & Scott reject climate, technology, and absolute population growth as potential explanations for this trend. Rather, they suggest that the pattern is a by-product of the ‘‘socioeconomic responses which accompany the aggregation of populations into more residentially stable and more horticulturally based communities’’ (Speth & Scott, 1989: 78). After reviewing the faunal evidence from southcentral Arizona, Szuter & Bayham (1989) arrive at a similar conclusion: the increase in artiodactyls through time suggests changes in strategies as a consequence of increased sedentism and farming commitments. The shift in the faunal assemblages at Ventana Cave, for example, is described as evidence of a change in the way the cave was used, from a short-term base camp for mobile foragers to a short-term hunting camp used logistically by specialized groups from nearby sedentary villages. Like Broughton, Southwest researchers cite resource depression as a primary factor in determining the pattern they describe. In both the California and Southwest cases, the underlying cause was the same: central place foraging by predators (human hunters) depleted large game in the vicinity of villages requiring some adjustment in foraging decisions by the hunters. However, the circumstances in these two cases are quite different. The California case describes hunter–gatherers exploiting land and marine mammals as well as fresh-water and salt-water fishes. The Southwest examples, on the other hand, all involve farmers with investments in land modification and both residential and ritual architecture. This latter fact is especially critical as such investments influence decision-making regarding hunting strategies and residential mobility. Perhaps as a consequence, the response of Southwestern farmers to resource depression is more variable than that seen in California (see Discussion for more on this issue). The intent of this paper is to test the spatial extent and form of resource intensification in western North America using archaeofaunas gathered from Fremont occupations in the eastern Great Basin and Northern Colorado Plateau. The Fremont, often included as part of the greater Southwest (Cordell, 1984), would appear to be a particularly interesting test case as farming was an important aspect of the subsistence economy over much of the area, although hunting, fishing, and gathering contributed significantly to the diet (Madsen, 1989). The Fremont culture/strategy spread north of the Colorado and Virgin River drainages after about  400 and persisted for nearly a millennium. Ceramics reminiscent of Southwestern traditions, pithouse villages, adobe and masonry granaries, and a distinctive art style expressed in rock art and figurines are the material hallmarks of the Fremont period (see Marwitt, 1986). Scholars appear to agree that human populations expanded during this period of farming,

although temporal variation occurred (Talbot & Wilde, 1989; Janetski, 1994; Simms, 1994); however, few empirically driven discussions of Fremont demography exist (see Talbot, 1995, for an exception). Given that Fremont farmers were committed to a central place strategy and given increasing populations in the Fremont area, the resource-intensification model predicts that numbers of high-ranked prey available to villagers will be depressed through time. The archaeological consequences of the pattern are reductions in the quantities of bone from larger, higher-ranked animals during the Fremont period. This expectation is explored following a discussion of prey choice and resource-intensification models.

Prey Choice Models and Resource Intensification Measures of selective efficiency developed from prey choice models have been useful in assessing long-term patterns in resource use for the Southwest and areas of California cited earlier in this paper (Bayham, 1982; Szuter & Bayham, 1989; Broughton, 1994a, b). Prey choice models base predictions of prey selection on ranking in terms of return for effort. The underlying premises and theoretical bases for optimal foraging models have been presented often and well, and a repeat of those arguments in full seems unnecessary (Bayham, 1979; Stephens & Krebs, 1986; Simms, 1987; Broughton, 1994b, and references therein). Briefly, the ‘‘energetic value’’ of prey is based on the number or quantity of calories and/or nutrition obtained from the organism captured (Broughton, 1994b: 375). Prey ranking is based on the energetic value less pursuit, handling, and processing costs. The models predict that the highest ranking prey will be taken whenever they are encountered. The capture of lower-ranking prey, therefore, depends directly on the abundance or encounter rate of higher-ranking animals. As the populations of higher-ranked prey drop, lower-ranked animals will be added to the diet. As Broughton (1994b: 373) notes, the relative frequency of high- and low-ranked prey can be an index of foraging efficiency. The more high-ranked prey in the diet, the more efficient the forager. Other values (hide, fur, bones for tools, prestige) are also recognized as important and can and should be combined with economic values in determining ranking, however (see Jochim, 1976; Kent, 1989; Hawkes, 1990). Scholars investigating resource intensification through prey choice models have argued that prey ranking (profitability) closely follows prey size (Bayham, 1979; Simms, 1987; Szuter & Bayham, 1989; Broughton, 1994a, b). This statement is born out by studies of the Ache` of eastern Paraguay (Hawkes, Hill & O’Connell, 1982), Cree hunters in Canada (Winterhalder, 1981), and various Amazon farmers (Gross, 1975; Hames & Vickers, 1982; various in Kent,

Fremont Hunting and Resource Intensification 1077

1989). Alvard (1995: 794) concluded, based on observations of the Piro, that ‘‘body size alone was found to predict much of the Piro optimal diet’’. Studies of African hunters (Hadza, Kung San), however, have shown that this prediction does not apply to very large animals such as cape buffalo and elephants (Lee, 1979; O’Connell, Hawkes & Blurton-Jones, 1992) simply because they are viewed as too dangerous. For the Great Basin of North America, however, where no food animals were so large as to pose a threat, the assumption seems valid given the various currencies mentioned above: nutritional values, utilitarian values, and prestige. More calories, fat, protein, etc. (nutritional values), hide and bone for tools (utilitarian values), and prestige (social values) will be obtained from larger animals. The most important consideration in prey ranking appears to be body size (Broughton, 1994b: 376; however, see discussion of mass capture under Technological Innovation below). The appeal of the above statement is that body size is inherent in bone size—the larger the bone the larger the animal. In addition, bones are abundant in archaeological collections and provide direct access to data on prey size, and access to level of foraging efficiency for the site’s occupants. As stated by Broughton (1994b: 376): ‘‘Other things being equal (e.g. the seasonality of site occupation, taphonomic histories, transport distance), archaeological faunas dominated by large mammals should represent a higher level of mammalian predation efficiency compared to faunas dominated by smaller sized mammals’’. Predation efficiency, therefore, should be measurable by a ratio of large-to-small animals in the faunal assemblages. Bayham (1982; cited in Szuter & Bayham, 1989) and others (Szuter & Bayham, 1989; Broughton, 1994a, b) have developed a series of efficiency indices that rely on such ratios. Szuter & Bayham’s (1989) research in the Southwest used the artiodactyl index calculated as the Gartiodactyls/G(artiodactyls+ lagomorphs). Broughton’s (see especially 1994a) research generated several indices that demonstrated shifts in the use of mammals compared to fish and the use of anadromous and fresh-water fishes over time. In all cases, the ratio is calculated to range from 0 to 1, with higher values suggesting greater dependence on large animals and higher foraging efficiency. The artiodactyl index was chosen to analyse Fremont faunal data since small artiodactyls (deer, mountain sheep, antelope) and lagomorphs (both hares and cottontails) are commonly recovered from Fremont sites. Taphonomic concerns are relaxed in the face of overwhelming ethnographical evidence for the importance of rabbits and hares in the diet of Great Basin hunter–gatherers (Steward, 1938; Stewart, 1942; Fowler, 1989) and Southwest horticulturalists (various in Ortiz, 1979; however, see concerns in Schmitt & Lupo, 1995). Lagomorphs recovered from open structural sites are assumed to represent prey collected by Fremont hunters.

Fremont Faunal Data Fremont faunal assemblages are highly variable depending on local environmental conditions (Madsen, 1980). In the north along the Great Salt Lake and Utah Lake margins, fish, waterfowl, muskrats, and occasionally bison are well represented. South of the Wasatch Front, lagomorphs (rabbits and hares) and small artiodactyls (deer, mountain sheep, antelope) dominate most assemblages. Several fundamental difficulties were encountered with the Fremont faunal data. First, the recovery techniques employed in the past vary from no screening to screening with one-quarter-in. sieves to one-eighth-in. sieves. In some cases screen sizes are not reported. More small bones would logically be recovered with smaller mesh screens, presumably making the collections incompatible for comparative purposes. A similar problem was present in the collections analysed by Broughton (1994a, b). However, he found that differing recovery methods were not influencing the temporal trends in large-to-small bone ratios. It is assumed here that differences in recovery techniques would not have a significant impact on the results of the analysis in part because numerous small animal bones are reported in the assemblages suggesting bones of all sizes were collected. In the Bear River sites, for example, no mention is made of screening, yet hundreds of bird and small mammal bones were recovered attesting to rather careful attention to collecting these remains during excavation. On the other hand, comparing quantities of fish bones collected from sites where fill was screened with one-eighth-in. mesh and sites that were not screened would clearly be inappropriate. Second, the sites discussed herein are found in diverse environments; consequently, changes in site archaeofaunas could be a simple reflection of ecological differences. The ideal test would be a single wellstratified residential site or a series of temporally unique occupations in a small region wherein environmental factors could be held relatively constant. Although residential sites with multiple occupations are reported for the Fremont area, few report faunal assemblages by structure and supply dating estimates for each structure. As a consequence, data sets being compared are usually site-wide collections from sites in various locations across the eastern Great Basin and Colorado Plateau. In an effort to control somewhat for this problem, I analysed assemblages from all Fremont sites and then only those from the eastern Basin where environments are more similar. Two additional concerns are functional differences and dating. Table 1 lists the sites used in the analysis along with physiographical province, elevation, and age estimate. To resolve the issue of anticipated differences in faunal assemblage due to functional variability, the analysis only included sites that reported the presence of residential structures (pit or surface houses). Age estimates are based on a combination of

1078 J. C. Janetski Table 1. Fremont residential sites used in the analysis Site Lott’s Farm Woodard Mound Icicle Bench (late) Pharo Village Wild Bill Knoll Five Finger Ridge Snake Rock Radford Roost Huntington Canyon Nawthis Village Evans Mound Round Spring Mukwitch Village Bear River 2 Nephi Mound Caldwell Village Median Village Backhoe Village Icicle Bench (early) Bear River 3

Location

Elevation (ft asl)

Age estimate

Reference

E. Basin E. Basin E. Basin E. Basin E. Basin E. Basin Col. Plat. E. Basin Col. Plat. E. Basin E. Basin Col. Plat. E. Basin E. Basin E. Basin Uintah Basin E. Basin E. Basin E. Basin E. Basin

5760 4505 5595 6000 6035 5950 6500 5799 6600 6625 5812 7400 5395 4210 5100 5500 5850 5395 5595 4210

 1290  1290  1290  1290  1240  1200  1175  1160  1150  1125  1100  1075  1050  1020  1000  1000  1000  900  850  640

Hawkins & Dobra, 1982 Richens, 1983 Talbot et al., 1994 Marwitt, 1968 Metcalfe, 1984 Talbot et al., 1995 Aikens, 1967 Talbot et al., 1994 Montgomery & Montgomery, 1993 Sharp, 1992 Berry, 1974; Dodd, 1982 Metcalf et al., 1993 Talbot & Richens, 1993 Aikens, 1967 Sharrock & Marwitt, 1967 Ambler, 1966 Marwitt, 1970 Madsen & Lindsay, 1977 Talbot et al., 1994 Shields & Dalley, 1978

Table 2. Artiodactyl and lagomorph NISP from Fremont residential sites Site Lott’s Farm Woodard Mound Icicle Bench (late) Radford Roost Five Finger Ridge Snake Rock Huntington Canyon Pharo Village Wild Bill Knoll Round Spring Nawthis Village Evans Mound Nephi Mound Mukwitch Village Caldwell Village Median Village Bear River 2 Icicle Bench (early) Backhoe Village Bear River 3

Artiodactyl Deer Sheep Antelope Elk Bison Leporidae 47 65 262 1042 10,509 — 75 — 51 4260 1156 — — 217 — — — 938 818 —

12 7 4 58 311 76 104 305 — 190 293 1963 636 3 25 2341 12 26 10 26

9 10 10 45 334 584 43 86 2 134 26 833 93 7 1 392 7 21 14 —

1 4 1 — — — 5 — — 8 63 926 — — 125 18 3 1 — 10

— — — — 5 1 2 — — 7 — — — — — — 9 — — —

— — — — 39 1 — 18 — — 9 — — — — 2 786 — — 670

radiocarbon dates and temporally diagnostic artefacts. Janetski et al. (1995) have recently re-examined all Fremont dates, calibrating those that had not been adjusted, and have provided an ‘‘index date’’ for each site or occupation level. In some cases index dates are mean dates; in others they are best guesses given all the temporal evidence including Fremont ceramic types, architectural styles, and Anasazi trade wares. This approach follows Broughton’s (1994a: 506) use of mean dates. The final consideration was the availability of quantified faunal data. Although analysis and reporting style clearly varied from site to site, the restriction of the analysis to artiodactyls and lagomorphs allowed almost all data sets to be used, since nearly all

— — — — — — 188 — — — — — 106 — — — — 1 — 9

Lepus Sylvilagus ÓNISP ÓNISP Artiodactyl spp spp Artiodactyl Leporidae index 5 57 3 86 1182 83 184 230 41 185 648 783 — 14 137 1341 141 15 39 9

45 79 86 389 4973 374 512 265 84 3152 1347 238 — 43 264 749 17 198 137 2

69 86 277 1145 11,198 662 229 409 53 4599 1547 3722 729 227 151 2753 817 986 842 706

50 136 89 475 6155 457 884 495 125 3337 1995 1021 106 57 401 2090 158 214 176 11

0·580 0·387 0·757 0·707 0·645 0·592 0·206 0·452 0·298 0·580 0·437 0·785 0·873 0·799 0·274 0·568 0·838 0·822 0·829 0·985

reported assemblages included rabbits, deer, antelope, and mountain sheep. Table 2 presents NISP values for Fremont sites from both the eastern Great Basin and the Northern Colorado Plateau. This analysis follows that of Szuter & Bayham (1989) and Broughton (1994b) who included bone identified only as artiodactyl in their analysis. The artiodactyl indices calculated here also include specimens identified as artiodactyl or large mammal, since that category is essentially a synonym for small artiodactyls in Fremont assemblages. On the other hand, the exclusion of small mammal bone, a good portion of which is probably leporid, clearly underrepresents rabbits and hares. Nonetheless, many

Nevada Utah

Fremont Hunting and Resource Intensification 1079

Bear River 1, 2, 3 Hogup Cave

Danger Cave

Caldwell Village Uinta Basin

Great Basin Woodard Mounds Nephi Mounds

Pharo Village

Five Finger Ridge Lott's Farm Radford Roost Icicle Bench

Huntington Canyon Wild Bill Knoll Snake Rock Nawthis Village Round Spring Mukwitch Village Backhoe Village Colorado Plateau

Evans Mound Median Village

Figure 1. Location of archaeological sites referred to in the text.

of the unidentifiable small mammal bones are from taxa other than leporids and may or may not have been food items. This taphonomic dilemma led Broughton (1994a) to exclude other small mammals (pocket gophers, ground squirrels) from his analysis, despite the fact that they were clearly important in the past (Janetski, 1979; see Lyman, 1992; and Schmitt & Lupo, 1995 for similar decisions). To counter this tendency to underrepresent rabbits and hares, all bones identified as Leporidae were included in the analysis. Leporid and lagomorph are used synonymously in this discussion.

To display temporal patterns in Fremont prey selection, the artiodactyl index was calculated for 20 residential Fremont sites with quantified faunal assemblages (Figure 1) (Tables 1 & 2). Figure 2 plots the artiodactyl index for these sites (or temporally separable assemblages) against time. A visual inspection of Figure 2 suggests a tendency for the artiodactyl index to decrease through time. This impression is borne out with Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r= "0·536, P=0·015, df=18 (all tests are two-tailed)), which demonstrates that there is a rather strong, inverse relationship between the artiodactyl

1080 J. C. Janetski

for artiodactyls and lagomorphs with the artiodactyl index. The resulting r-value (r=0·0234, P=0·921) is evidence that the index does not vary with the size of the assemblage.

1.0 0.9 Artiodactyl index

0.8 0.7 0.6

Discussion

0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 600

700

800

900

1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 Time AD

Figure 2. Scatterplot and linear fit of all Fremont sites by artiodactyl index and time (r=0·695, P=0·003, df=14).

1.0 0.9 Artiodactyl index

0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 600

700

800

900

1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 Time AD

Figure 3. Scatterplot and linear fit of eastern Great Basin Fremont sites by artiodactyl index and time (r=0·536, P=0·015, df=18).

index and time for all Fremont sites. In other words, the use of deer, mountain sheep, and antelope relative to lagomorphs decreases in the later Fremont period. As stated, the above calculations use data from all Fremont residential sites with faunal information available. Recognizing that environmental differences between the eastern Basin and the Colorado Plateau could make comparisons inappropriate, coefficients were recalculated for only eastern Basin Fremont structural sites. This recalculation considerably strengthened the relationship between the artiodactyl index and time (r= "0·695, P=0·003, df=14) (Figure 3). These analyses tend to support the conclusions of Broughton (1994b), who has noted that the relationship between time and the artiodactyl index is strengthened as the size of the region being considered is reduced. Certainly an additional concern with this analysis is whether the values might be varying according to sample size. To examine this possibility, I calculated Pearson’s correlation coefficient comparing GNISP

The empirical data presented suggest interesting trends in Fremont hunting success and strategies. Assuming that the pattern is real, what could account for the declining numbers of artiodactyls at Fremont residential sites? Speth & Scott (1989) and Broughton (1994a, b) consider climatic shifts, technological change, and resource depression. These are explored below along with butchering, transport, and taphonomic issues. Climate Climatic change such as increasing aridity could have a deleterious effect on large game populations. A detailed climatic reconstruction for the Holocene in the eastern Basin comes from archaeological data recovered at Hogup Cave (Aikens, 1970). Harper & Alder (1970) and Durrant (1970) view the variation in floral and faunal assemblages from Hogup Cave as a function of climatic change and track shifts in the occurrence of both plants and animals from 8000 years ago to the present. The most useful data are from rodent and bird remains. Harper & Alder (1970: 234) note that birds and rodents preferring more mesic environments gradually decrease in numbers during this period, while those preferring more zeric conditions increase. During the Fremont period (strata 12–14, c.  500–1200), however, evidence suggests that climates tend toward more mesic conditions. Waterfowl, for example, show a modest increase. Grayson (1993: 222) also characterizes the late Holocene as a time of increased moisture and somewhat cooler conditions relative to the middle Holocene (see also Currey & James, 1982; Lindsay, 1986; Murchison, 1989; Lyman, 1992). More detailed climatic scenarios compiled by Lindsay (1986) and Newman (1995) document more mesic and somewhat warmer conditions at about the time of Christ and again between  600 and 1200. Newman’s (1995) reconstruction of the climates in central Utah during the Fremont era argues for only minor changes throughout the period. These reconstructions are consistent with the more general schemes noted above. The question is, how would warmer and wetter conditions affect artiodactyl populations? Durrant (1952: 458) points to the importance of water for plant growth and access to winter range for the support of deer herds, both of which would have been more available during a warmer, more mesic climatic interval. These conclusions could reasonably be extended to antelope and mountain sheep as well: wetter, warmer climates should favour artiodactyls (see Szuter & Bayham, 1989: 87 for similar conclusions). These

Fremont Hunting and Resource Intensification 1081

data suggest that the climate between 2000 and 800 years ago was favourable for artiodactyls, and the decrease in artiodactyls at residential sites cannot be explained by environmental factors. Technological innovation Madsen (1986) has suggested that the adoption of the more efficient bow and arrow could have contributed to the decline of large game animals, especially deer and mountain sheep, since they were taken primarily by encounter hunting. Madsen (1986: 37) places the timing of the bow and arrow at about 500 , which is most probably too early. Several (Holmer, 1986; Geib & Bungart, 1989; Janetski, 1993) have reviewed the evidence for the arrival of bow and arrow technology in Utah north of the Anasazi and conclude its use was widespread no earlier than  200. The adoption of bow and arrow weaponry in Utah at about 1800 , however, seems about right for the issue under discussion. Traditional literature on the Fremont places the onset of that period at about 1600 years ago (Marwitt, 1986); therefore, since all dates for the Fremont assemblages presented here post-date the onset of bows and arrows, diminishing numbers of artiodactyls could be attributed to that technological innovation. Speth & Scott (1989) and Broughton (1994b), however, discount the impact of the bow and arrow. Broughton (1994b: 393) notes that the decline in artiodactyl numbers begins well in advance of the introduction of the bow, which occurred by  500 in California. Speth & Scott (1989: 73) put forward a similar argument for the Southwest. Unfortunately, few faunal assemblages are known from early Fremont structural sites. Exceptions are the very recently reported Steinaker Gap and Confluence sites in the Uintah Basin and east of the Wasatch Front on Muddy Creek respectively. Both sites were aceramic with shallow houses and bell-shaped pits and dating to the first few centuries after Christ (Talbot & Richens, 1994; Greubel, 1996). The faunal assemblages in both cases were depauperate; consequently, no statements can be made about change across this technological shift. It is now clear, however, that (as with the Southwest and California) shifts in subsistence strategies in the Fremont area began several centuries earlier than the date offered by Marwitt and prior to the arrival of the bow and arrow and other farming accoutrements such as pottery and deep pithouses. Corn and the use of bell-shaped storage pits, for example, were in place in central Utah by 150  (Wilde & Newman, 1989). This suggests that intensification was under way in advance of the arrival of the bow and arrow. Technological innovations could also include the development of mass capture techniques, such as drives, which, potentially, could have made small mammal procurement more productive than encounter hunting of artiodactyls. However, Speth & Scott (1989:

75, see also references therein) argue convincingly that communal hunting techniques are less efficient than encounter hunting and are practiced only when resources are depressed. They note that among farmer– hunters in the Amazon (admittedly a very different setting from the Great Basin) communal hunts are carried out primarily to obtain large quantities of meat for special occasions. This issue is complicated by the prey choice model, which assumes that prey are encountered and captured one at a time. Mass capture, therefore, could disrupt the logic of body size–equal prey rank*. Communal hunting for both large and small game is well documented for the ethnographical period in the Great Basin (Steward, 1941; Stewart, 1942). The importance of drives for black-tailed jack rabbits (Lepus californicus), for example, is well known. Nets woven from vegetable fibres played a critical role in drives for rabbits as well as in the mass capture of birds and fish. The construction of nets appears to have considerable time depth given the quantities of netting fragments recovered from the lower strata in Hogup Cave (Aikens, 1970: 120). In fact, if numbers of net fragments represent commitment to communal hunts (such as rabbit drives), such hunts were more prevalent during the Archaic than the Fremont period, a conclusion borne out by the strong correlation between numbers of net fragments and lagomorph bones (Aikens, 1970: 189). Communal hunting at Hogup Cave, therefore, appears to have declined through time. In the absence of clear indications of how faunas were captured in the past (encounter hunting or drives), however, the issue remains problematic. Resource depression Local resource depletion due to over-hunting characterizes central place foraging strategies. Speth & Scott (1989) and Szuter & Bayham (1989) both point to the shift in hunting strategies in the Southwest as a consequence (at least in part) of resource depletion or depression in the immediate vicinity of villages. Ethnographical data from South America reinforce these conclusions (Gross, 1975; Hames & Vickers, 1982; and references therein). Hames & Vickers (1982), for example, consider the effect of settlement age on the hunting patterns of the horticultural Siona-Secoya, Ye’kwana, and Yanomamo Indians of the Amazon Basin. They note the conventional wisdom that hunting is typically better around new villages and that game depletion is a significant factor in the relocation of villages. The choice of new sites is usually in previously uninhabited or ‘‘rested’’ areas (Hames & Vickers, 1982: 363). Game depletion is measured in *An example to the contrary may be fish. Raymond & Sobel (1990) have suggested that small tui chub captured with gill nets by Indians in the western Great Basin may have been more cost-efficient than larger fish when the greater costs of gutting and drying are considered.

1082 J. C. Janetski

Butchering and transport Two additional questions are of interest here: (1) how are Fremont faunal assemblages structured by diachronic changes in butchering and transport; and, closely related, (2) density-dependent preservation? Broughton (1995) has cautioned that transport costs are an important additional consideration when central place foragers (such as the Fremont) are the focus of analysis (see also Metcalfe & Barlow, 1992). Increased logistical hunting would tend to leave bones at butchering sites, thereby accounting for the diachronic pattern seen at residences (i.e. decreasing numbers of bones from larger game). Hunters travelling farther afield in search of large game may have stripped meat and left heavy, low-utility bones behind. At least two predictions follow from this complementary pattern: (1) relative numbers of artiodactyl remains at logistical or kill/butchering sites should increase throughout the Fremont period; and (2) faunal assemblages from residential sites should contain increasing numbers of high utility (in terms of food value) artiodactyl

16 14 12 Strata

terms of the availability of higher-ranked or larger animals found in the vicinity of the village. As the region around the village (0–4 km radius) is exploited, hunters focus on smaller animals in the areas near the village and move farther afield to capture larger game. Empirical support for this pattern of game depletion comes from Vickers (1989) whose longitudinal study of Siona-Secoya demonstrated an increase in smaller animals and a decrease in larger animals taken over time. Further, mean weight of game taken increases as a function of distance from the village (Hames & Vickers, 1982: 366). These findings suggest that hunters in distant zones (more than 9 km from a village) select larger animals over smaller prey. Day hunts averaged 20 km for Siona-Secoya following near zone depletion (Hames & Vickers, 1982: 364). Even longer trips, or ‘‘expedition hunting’’ (Vickers, 1989: 54), carry SionaSecoya hunters up to 75 km from the main village, although the composition of the hunting party often changes to include a hunter and his family. Groups can be gone for up to 4 weeks on such hunts. It is not clear from Vickers’s (1989: 55) data what is brought back to the village as a consequence of these longer expeditions, however. Broughton’s (1995) analysis of vertebrate faunas from the Emeryville Shellmound demonstrates the pattern of initial local resource depression and subsequent hunting of larger game at greater distances. Relative numbers of elk and deer as well as sturgeon (the largest fish present in the assemblage) decline in the earlier deposits; sturgeon and elk continue to decline, but deer increase in later levels. Importantly, this pattern can be further tested through body part representation, an expectation explored below.

10

Fremont Late Archaic

8 6

Archaic

4 2 0

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 Artiodactyl index

Figure 4. Artiodactyl index by stratum, Hogup Cave.

elements through time as a result of field butchering prior to transport back to residential bases (Binford, 1981). Testing these propositions is difficult. Chronological data from logistical sites, such as caves or rockshelters, are usually limited to a single date from the Fremont period; consequently, no trajectory of change in ratios over the Fremont period can be drawn. Additionally, few logistical sites in the Fremont area have been excavated and reported in detail. Only Hogup Cave (Aikens, 1970) has more than one date for the Fremont period. Significant quantities of Fremont ceramics first appear at Hogup in Stratum 12, dated to c.  540 and 780, and continue through to Stratum 14, dated to between  780 and 1360 (these are calibrated index dates from Janetski et al., 1995; based on Aikens’s (1970: 29) report). Interestingly, the artiodactyl index increases as expected for Strata 12–14 (Figure 4). Although the patterns at Hogup are intriguing and the data support the general patterns being discussed here, it is difficult to imagine Hogup Cave as a logistical outpost for a Fremont village given its remote location on the west side of the Great Salt Lake. The closest known Fremont structural site is in the Bear River marsh, which lies a minimum of 100 km to the east, depending on the route taken. The closest access would be to skirt the north end of the Great Salt Lake. It seems more reasonable to suggest that sites such as Hogup were used primarily by non-farmers who increased efforts at big game procurement in order to trade with horticulturalists for farm products (see Kelly, 1964 for description of such a pattern among Southern Paiute people). Finally, taphonomic issues cloud conclusions using faunal data from sites such as Hogup (for example see Hockett, 1994 for a discussion of the origins of Hogup Cave leporids). The second expectation, that numbers of high-utility elements should increase at later residential sites if logistical hunting were the primary means of procuring artiodactyls, has two parts: (1) determining ratios of high- to low-utility elements; and (2) demonstrating a temporal shift in those ratios. Broughton’s analysis (1995) of the stratified Emeryville Shellmound fauna, for example, found that, after a period of decline,

Fremont Hunting and Resource Intensification 1083 Table 3. %MAU for small artiodactyls from three Fremont sites and bone density for deer and domestic sheep (from Lyman, 1994) Element Sacrum Thoracic vert Cervical vert Lumbar vert Pfemur Dulna Atlas Axis Pelvis Ribs Phumerus Dfemur Ptibia Pmetarcarpal Pmetatarsal Dmetacarpal Pulna Phalanges Dradius Pradius Mandible Dhumerus Scapula Dmetatarsal Calcaneus Dtibia Astragalus

Five Finger Ridge %MAU*

Nawthis Village %MAU†

Round Spring %MAU‡

Deer bone density

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0·20 2·5 5 5 10 17·5 22·5 25 27 32·5 47·5 52·5 57·5 62·5 82·5 87·5 100 100

15·38 9·47 13·85 5·69 42·31 3·85 7·69 76·92 61·54 10·95 26·92 30·77 57·69 84·62 100 23·08 19·23 85·4 15·38 26·92 50 23·08 53·85 65·38 42·31 80·77 73·8

10·5 4·0 8·4 5·3 21·1 10·5 0 21·1 28·5 3·6 10·5 10·5 5·3 42·1 100 21·1 10·5 58·9 26·3 52·6 26·3 42·1 15·8 10·5 15·8 47·4 26·3

0·17 0·255 0·165 0·29 0·36 0·45 0·195 0·13 0·49 0·258 0·245 0·325 0·31 0·625 0·6 0·5 0·375 0·285 0·405 0·52 0·51 0·51 0·425 0·48 0·488 0·625 0·567

*Based on MNE of mountain sheep plus deer. †Based on MNE of small artiodactyls. ‡Based on MNE of body size III bovids (predominantly bighorn sheep and deer).

high-utility elements increased in later strata, a pattern that Broughton suggests is evidence for greater use of distant hunting patches, field butchering, and subsequent transport of selected elements back to the shellmound residence. Similar patterns of change in high-utility elements have apparently also been documented in the Southwest at both Chacoan (Akins, 1982; cited in Speth & Scott, 1989: 73) and Hohokam sites (Bayham & Hatch, 1984; cited in Speth & Scott, 1989: 73). Relative abundance of high- and low-utility body parts in Fremont faunal assemblages has been explored by several analysts. Sharp (1992), Rood & Butler (1993), and the author (Janetski, 1995) have recently described large faunal collections from Nawthis Village, Round Spring, and Five Finger Ridge respectively and reported on the distribution of artiodactyl elements. In each case the pattern of body part distribution was more characteristic of that expected at a kill site than at a residential site; that is, among other things, the assemblages were dominated by low- rather than high-utility elements. This pattern seems unacceptable for what are clearly residential sites. Explanations offered range from the process of drying meat (Todd, 1993: 384–385), to the selection of bone for tools (Sharp, 1992: 152), and density-mediated attrition due to carnivore gnawing (Sharp, 1992; Janetski,

1995: 137). My conclusions were based on a comparison of percentage minimal animal units (%MAU) for small artiodactyls from Nawthis Village, Five Finger Ridge, and Round Spring with deer bone density as presented by Lyman (1994: 246–247, table 7·6) (Table 3)*. In all cases there is a positive strong relationship between bone density and %MAU (rNawthis =0·4696, P=0·014; rFive Finger =0·6325, P=0·001; rRound Spring =0·5829, P=0·003). These values argue strongly that preservation, bone processing (Bunn, 1993), or carnivore gnawing are primary factors in shaping the assemblages from these sites. That reverse utility curves should describe the three Fremont faunal assemblages mentioned above is no surprise given the research by Lyman (1994) on this topic. He concludes that researchers should expect that archaeologically recovered assemblages of bones have been altered by density-mediated, post-depositional processes, particularly carnivore gnawing (Lyman, *Lyman (1994: 246–247) scanned multiple sites on bones resulting in several values for proximal or distal ends, for example. Since few analyses provide MNEs for other than proximal and distal ends, I averaged Lyman’s numbers to obtain a single density value for that portion of the bone. For example, density values for the proximal tibia were obtained by averaging scan sites T11 (0·30) and T12 (0·32) for deer to obtain a value of 0·31 (see Table 3). The pelvis value was the most worrisome as there are seven scan sites; all seven were averaged to obtain the single value of 0·49.

1084 J. C. Janetski Table 4. MNE for Round Spring long bones calculated by ends only and shafts plus ends compared to utility values (SFUI) MNE based on ends (proximal, distal, shafts)

Element Humerus Radius Metacarpal Femur Tibia Metatarsal

12 14 9 5 13 19

(2/12/6) (14/7/2) (9/0/6) (5/3/2) (1/13/3) (19/2/2)

1994: 261). The work of Rapson (1990), Marean & Spencer (1991), Marean et al. (1992), and others have provided additional ways of quantifying elements (calculating ratios of long bone shafts to long bone ends, for example) in order that patterns resulting from cultural behaviour can be differentiated from attrition due to carnivore activity. Marean et al. (1992: 117) conclude that this is best performed by combining evidences of hammer stone percussion and tooth marks as well as analysis of body parts that includes sorting of elements by shafts and ends. Todd’s (1993: 358–360) report of the Round Spring assemblage comes closest to covering all of the analytical bases suggested, although he does not differentiate between shaft ends and middle shafts. However, plotting the MNEs based on long bone ends only and MNEs calculated on both ends and shafts for the Round Spring long bones (following Lyman, 1994: 271–272) does not alter the pattern of reverse utility at Round Spring (Table 4, Figure 5). The slope of the best fit lines in Figure 5 is essentially the same for MNE for ends only and MNE for ends plus shafts: as utility increases, frequency decreases. Persistence of the reverse utility pattern is likely to be due to intense processing of bones by people, village dogs, and/or other scavengers; an explanation that may also apply to Nawthis Village, and Five Finger Ridge. The second part of the expectation regarding the occurrence of high-utility elements (that element ratios should shift toward increasing numbers of high-utility 25

MNE

20 15 10 5

0

20

60

40

80

100

SFUI Figure 5. Scatterplot and linear fit for utility (SFUI) and MNE frequencies for Round Spring long bone ends only and ends plus shafts. /, ——, ends only; 5, – – –, ends plus shafts.

MNE based on ends+shafts

SFUI (Metcalfe & Jones, 1988)

18 16 15 7 16 21

36·8 25·8 5·2 100 62·8 37

parts through time) is hindered by the scarcity of useful data from early sites. The three sites mentioned above, Round Spring, Nawthis Village, and Five Finger Ridge, are all late sites (post-1000 ) so tracking change through time is difficult. Further, the previous discussion questions whether transport behaviour can be derived from body part ratios, at least as currently calculated. Clearly, excavations of early Fremont sites and more sophisticated faunal analyses from all periods are areas that need attention in Fremont studies.

Summary Long-term trends in Fremont artiodactyl use may be best explained as a function of resource depression due to increasing populations. Unfortunately, discussions of Fremont population levels are few and most are synchronic in nature (see Meighan, 1958; Gunnerson, 1969; for some examples). Sammons-Lohse (1981) considered village size, but again her discussion was essentially synchronic. Talbot (1995) offers one of the few discussions of Fremont demographical trends. Following an exhaustive review of dated sites, he argues that significant population growth and site aggregation began after  900 and continued into the  1200s. Talbot & Wilde (1989: 11), relying on radiocarbon dates, have shown that site density in the middle Sevier River Valley was high during the period between  1050 and 1200, suggesting a population increase. Settlement data from the Richfield area and Clear Creek Canyon, a tributary to the Sevier River, demonstrate that early occupations were primarily on floodplains as evidenced by early dates at Backhoe Village (Madsen & Lindsay, 1977), Lott’s Farm, and Icicle Bench (Talbot et al., 1994). Later villages tended to be aggregated and were located increasingly on ridges (Five Finger Ridge is an example), although use of the floodplains or valley sites continued. This pattern is evidence that people were using more of the landscape through time and that absolute numbers were increasing. Under conditions of higher populations, the Fremont may have remained in one place for longer periods simply because there may have been fewer places to move. Or, if the village were moved, the new area may not have lain ‘‘fallow’’ or rested long enough

Fremont Hunting and Resource Intensification 1085

for large game populations to rebound from years of hunting by the last group to occupy the area. Archaeological evidence of this could be reoccupation of preferred locations such as that documented for Median Village (Marwitt, 1970) and the Evans Mound (Berry, 1974; Dodd, 1982) in Parowan Valley where superimposed houses were common. It is noteworthy that superpositioning seems more common at structural sites found in valley locations than at ridgetop sites (see also Simms, 1986). Somewhat puzzling is the contrast between Southwestern faunal assemblages, where artiodactyl elements apparently increase in village sites, and Fremont assemblages, where numbers of artiodactyls decrease. Why is that so? Recent, well-controlled faunal data may argue that the Southwestern pattern is not as widespread as Speth & Scott (1989) suggest. Szuter & Gillespie (1994), for example, point out that more rigorous screening techniques at Hohokam sites during the 1980s have produced evidence that smaller game, especially lagomorphs, were more important than previously thought. Also, James (1994) has summarized new data from the Roosevelt Dam area that are somewhat mixed but which appear to show an increase in lagomorph exploitation through time. No increase in large game is apparent at the several sites he discusses. More compelling are data from the Four Corners area where Munro (1994: 123–124) has documented the increasing importance of turkeys from Basketmaker to Pueblo III occupations. Likewise, Thompson (1990), who analysed faunal assemblages from early Pueblo II and late Pueblo III contexts at the Nancy Patterson site in south-eastern Utah, found that use of turkeys increased dramatically in Pueblo III times while artiodactyl use declined. Speth & Scott (1989: 78) predict variable responses to localized protein depletion. Options may have included greater dependence on turkey, as described for the Four Corners region, increased use of fish, or, as was the case on the eastern Puebloan borders, exchange with Plains hunters for bison meat. However, these options were pursued only when significant investments in agricultural facilities (irrigation canals, check dams, etc.) close to villages precluded settlement relocation. In contrast to Southwest farmers, Fremont investments in land modification for agricultural purposes were few (see Metcalfe & Larrabee, 1985; Talbot & Richens, 1994, for reviews). Likewise, residential architecture, although more elaborate than that seen for Great Basin or California aboriginal groups, was relatively modest and no ritual architecture (such as kivas) has been documented in the Fremont area. Consequently, the option to move was more attractive to the Fremont than to the Anasazi or Hohokam.

use the term ‘‘farmers’’ since the model is based on the assumption that those occupying structural sites were involved in farming. This does not assume that farming was the only strategy or that other strategies were not operating concurrently with the horticultural pattern (Madsen, 1982, 1989; Simms, 1986, 1990, 1994; Upham, 1994). The analysis of faunal data from Fremont residential or structural sites suggests a pattern generally reminiscent of that seen in the Southwest. As corn and gardening were included in the subsistence economy about 2000 years ago, people made a greater commitment to a central place strategy followed by a slow decline in hunting success between  500 and 1300 (see Lupo & Schmitt, 1995 for some corroboration of this trend for the northern portion of the region and Metcalf, 1993 for a different view). The Fremont who occupied village sites are best modelled as farmer–hunters who were concerned with both the productivity of their fields and the productivity of their hunting forays (see also Sharp, 1992). Abandonment of village locations to maintain maximum yields on both fronts may have occurred as often as every few years as a consequence of resource depression (see various examples of mobility of part-time agriculturalists in Kent, 1989). Declining yields of hunters who hunt big game, not only as an important way of provisioning their families (meat, buckskins for clothing, bone for tools, sinew for a multitude of purposes), but also as a source of prestige for the successful, may have spurred site abandonment (see Kent, 1989; Hawkes, 1990 for discussions of why meat is more valuable than plant foods).

Conclusions The aim of this paper has been to test resourceintensification models developed in California and the American Southwest. The test case was the Fremont, a group who practiced a mixed economy north of the better-known Southwestern farmers. Relying on prey choice logic and the artiodactyl index, the analysis concluded that a gradual reduction in foraging efficiency occurred in the eastern Great Basin and Northern Colorado Plateau during the Late Holocene. Faunal assemblages from archeological sites show a slow decline in the relative numbers of large game animals between  500 and 1300. This trend may have influenced the regular movement of villages and discouraged the construction of major agricultural facilities. The persistence of the pattern (artiodactyl hunting, regular residential moves) combined with population increase over several centuries resulted in a gradual reduction of small artiodactyl populations across the Fremont area.

A Model of Fremont Subsistence

Acknowledgements

These brief discussions suggest several possibilities for modelling subsistence practices of Fremont farmers. I

This paper was improved by thoughtful comments from Jack Broughton, John Clark, Dave Schmitt, and

1086 J. C. Janetski

Steve Simms. Dave Madsen and Bob Bettinger also offered useful insights. Three anonymous reviewers contributed excellent comments and suggestions that enhanced the clarity and focus of the arguments. The final form of the paper is my responsibility.

References Aikens, C. M. (1967). Excavations at Snake Rock Village and the Bear River No. 2 Site. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Anthropological Papers 87. Aikens, C. M. (1970). Hogup Cave. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Anthropological Papers 93. Alvard, M. (1995). Intraspecific prey choice by Amazonian hunters. Current Anthropology 36, 789–818. Ambler, J. R. (1966). Caldwell Village. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Anthropological Papers 84. Basgall, M. E. (1987). Resource intensification among hunter– gatherers: acorn economies in prehistoric California. Research in Economic Anthropology 9, 21–52. Bayham, F. E. (1979). Factors influencing the archaic pattern of animal utilization. Kiva 44, 219–235. Bayham, F. E. (1982). A Diachronic Analysis of Prehistoric Animal Exploitation at Ventana Cave. Ph.D. Thesis. Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, U.S.A. Berry, M. S. (1974). The Evans Mound: Cultural Adaptation in Southwestern Utah. Masters Thesis. University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, U.S.A. Bettinger, R. L. (1991). Aboriginal occupation at high altitude: alpine villages in the White Mountains of eastern California. American Anthropologist 93, 656–679. Bettinger, R. L. & Baumhoff, M. A. (1982). The Numic spread: Great Basin cultures in competition. American Antiquity 47, 485–503. Binford, L. R. (1981). Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths. New York: Academic Press. Broughton, J. M. (1994a). Late Holocene resource intensification in the Sacramento Valley, California: the vertebrate evidence. Journal of Archaeological Science 21, 501–514. Broughton, J. M. (1994b). Declines in mammalian foraging efficiency during the Late Holocene, San Francisco Bay, California. Journal of Anthropological Anthropology 13, 371–401. Broughton, J. M. (1995). Resource Depression and Intensification During the Late Holocene, San Francisco Bay: Evidence from the Emeryville Shellmound Vertebrate Fauna. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Washington, Seattle, WA, U.S.A. Broughton, J. M. & Grayson, D. K. (1993). Diet breadth, adaptive change, and the White Mountain faunas. Journal of Archaeological Science 20, 331–336. Bunn, H. T. (1993). Bone assemblages at base camps: a further consideration of carcass transport and bone destruction. In (J. Hudson, Ed.) From Bones to Behavior. Carbondale, IL: Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper 21, pp. 156–168. Cordell, L. S. (1984). Prehistory of the Southwest. New York: Academic Press. Currey, D. R. & James, A. R. (1982). Paleoenvironments of the northeastern Great Basin and northeastern Basin Rim region: a review of geological and biological evidence. In (D. B. Madsen & J. F. O’Connell, Eds) Man and Environment in the Great Basin. SAA Papers No. 2. Washington, DC: Society for American Archaeology, pp. 27–52. Dodd, W. A. Jr. (1982). Final Year of Excavations at the Evans Mound Site. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Anthropological Papers 106. Durrant, S. D. (1952). Mammals of Utah: Taxonomy and Distribution. Vol. 6. University of Kansas Publications, Lawrence, Kansas: Museum of Natural History.

Durrant, S. D. (1970). Faunal remains as indicators of neothermal climates at Hogup Cave. In (C. M. Aikens, Ed.) Hogup Cave. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Anthropological Papers 93, pp. 241–146. Elston, R. (1986). Prehistory of the western area. In (W. L. d’Azevedo, Ed.) Great Basin. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 11, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, pp. 135–148. Fowler, C. S. (1989). Willard Z. Park’s Ethnographic Notes on the Northern Paiute of Western Nevada, 1933–1944. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Anthropological Papers 114. Geib, P. R. & Bungart, P. W. (1989). Implications of early bow use in Glen Canyon. Utah Archaeology 1989 2, 32–47. Grayson, D. K. (1991). Alpine faunas from the White Mountains, California: adaptive change in the Late Prehistoric Great Basin? Journal of Archaeological Science 18, 483–506. Grayson, D. K. (1993). The Desert’s Past, a Natural Prehistory of the Great Basin. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Greubel, R. A. (1996). Archaeological investigations of 11 sites along Interstate 70: Castle Valley to Rattlesnake Bench. Ms prepared for Utah Department of Transportation, Salt Lake City, UT. Contract No. 93-8185. Alpine Archaeological consultants, Inc. Gross, D. R. (1975). Protein capture and cultural development in the Amazon. American Anthropologist 77, 526–549. Gunnerson, J. H. (1969). The Fremont culture: a study in culture dynamics on the northern Anasazi frontier. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnololgy Vol. 59, No. 2. Cambridge: Harvard University. Hames, R. B. & Vickers, W. T. (1982). Optimal diet breadth theory as a model to explain variability in Amazonian hunting. American Ethnologist 9, 358–378. Harper, K. T. & Alder, G. M. (1970). The macroscopic plant remains of the deposits of Hogup Cave, Utah, and their paleoclimatic implications. In (C. M. Aikens, Ed.) Hogup Cave. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Anthropological Papers 93, pp. 215–240. Hawkes, K. (1990). Why do men hunt? Benefits for risky choices. In (E. Cashden, Ed.) Risk and Uncertainty in Tribal and Peasant Economies. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, pp. 145–155. Hawkes, K., Hill, K., O’Connell, J. F. (1982) Why hunters gather: optimal foraging and the Ache` of Eastern Paraguay. American Ethnologist 9, 379–398. Hawkins, B. & Dobra, L. (1982). Archaeological excavations at the Lott’s Farm Site. Ms. on file. Salt Lake City: Antiquities Section, Utah Division of State History. Hockett, B. C. (1994). A descriptive analysis of the leporid bones from Hogup Cave. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 16, 106–117. Holmer, R. N. (1986). Common projectile points of the Intermountain West. In (C. J. Condie & D. D. Fowler, Eds) Anthropology of the Desert West: Essays in Honor of Jesse D. Jennings. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Anthropological Papers 110, 89–115. James, S. R. (1994). Hunting and fishing patterns at prehistoric sites along the Salt River: the archaeofaunal analysis. In Paleobotanical and Osteological Analyses. The Roosevelt Community Development Study, vol. 3. Tucson, AZ: Center for Desert Archaeology Anthropological Papers 14, pp. 85–168. Janetski, J. C. (1979). The implications of snare bundles in the Great Basin and Southwest. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 1, 306–321. Janetski, J. C. (1993). The archaic to formative transition north of the Anasazi: a basketmaker perspective. In (V. Atkins, Ed.) Anasazi Basketmaker: Papers from the 1990 Wetherill-Grand Gulch Symposium. Salt Lake City, UT: Bureau of Land Management Cultural Resource Series 24, 223–241. Janetski, J. C. (1994). Recent transitions in the eastern Great Basin: the archaeological record. In (D. B. Madsen & D. Rhode, Eds) Across the West: Human Population Movement and the Expansion of the Numa. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press, pp. 157–178. Janetski, J. C. (1995). Research applications: faunal remains. In (J. C. Janetski, R. K. Talbot, D. E. Newman, L. D. Richens &

Fremont Hunting and Resource Intensification 1087 J. D. Wilde, Eds) Clear Creek Canyon Archaeological Project, Volume Five: Result and Synthesis (final draft), Brigham Young University, Provo, UT: Museum of Peoples and Cultures Technical Series No. 95-99, pp. 133–150. Janetski, J. C., Talbot, R. K., Newman, D. E., Richens, L. D. & Wilde, J. D. (1995). Clear Creek Canyon Archaeological Project, Volume Five: Result and Synthesis (final draft), Brigham Young University, Provo, UT: Museum of Peoples and Cultures Technical Series No. 95-9. Jochim, M. (1976). Hunter-Gatherer Subsistence and Settlement: a Predictive Model. New York: Academic Press. Kelly, I. T. (1964). Southern Paiute Ethnography. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Anthropological Papers 69. Kent, S. (1989). Cross cultural perceptions of farmers as hunters and the value of meat. In (S. Kent, Ed.) Farmers as Hunters: the Implications of Sedentism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–17. Lee, R. B. (1979). The !Kung San: Men, Women, and Work in a Foraging Society. Cambridge: Cambridge Press. Lindsay, L. W. (1986). Fremont fragmentation. In (C. J. Condie & D. D. Fowler, Eds) Anthropology of the Desert West: Essays in Honor of Jesse D. Jennings. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Anthropological Papers 110, pp. 229–251. Lupo, K. & Schmitt, D. (1995). Late Holocene variability in bison and human subsistence strategies in the northeastern Great Basin. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology (in press). Lyman, R. L. (1992). Influences of Mid-Holocene altithermal climates on mammalian faunas and human subsistence in eastern Washington. Journal of Ethnobiology 12, 37–62. Lyman, R. L. (1994). Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Madsen, D. B. (1980). Fremont/Sevier subsistence. In (D. B. Madsen, Ed.) Fremont Perspectives. Salt Lake City, UT: Antiquities Section Selected Papers 16, 25–34. Madsen, D. B. (1982). Get it where the gettin’s good: a variable model of Great Basin subsistence and settlement based on data from the eastern Great Basin. In (D. B. Madsen & J. F. O’Connell, Eds) Man and Environment in the Great Basin. Washington, DC: Society for American Archaeology, SAA Papers 2, 207–226. Madsen, D. B. (1986). Great Basin nuts: a short treatise on the distribution, productivity, and prehistoric use of pinyon. In (C. J. Condie & D. D. Fowler, Eds) Anthropology of the Desert West: Essays in Honor of Jesse D. Jennings. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Anthropological Papers 110, 21–42. Madsen, D. B. (1989). Exploring the Fremont. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah, Museum of Natural History Occasional Publications 8. Madsen, D. B. & Lindsay, L. W. (1977). Backhoe Village. Salt Lake City, UT: Utah State Historical Society, Antiquities Section Selected Papers Vol. 4, No. 12. Marean, C. W. & Spencer, L. M. (1991). Impact of carnivore ravaging on zooarchaeological measures of element abundance. American Antiquity 56, 645–658. Marean, C. W., Spencer, L. M., Blumenschine, R. J. & Capaldo, S. D. (1992). Captive hyena bone choice and destruction, the schlepp effect and Olduvai archaeofaunas. Journal of Archaeological Science 19, 101–121. Marwitt, J. P. (1968). Pharo Village. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Anthropological Papers 91. Marwitt, J. P. (1970). Median Village and Fremont Culture Regional Variation. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Anthropological Papers 95. Marwitt, J. P. (1986). Fremont cultures. In (W. L. d’Azevedo, Ed.) Great Basin. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 11, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, pp. 161–172. Meighan, C. W. (1958). Archaeology of Paragonah. Unpublished manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles, U.S.A. Metcalf, M. D. (1993). Research contributions. In (M. D. Metcalf, K. J. Pool, K. McDonald & A. McKibbin, Eds) The Round Spring Site, 42SV23, vol. III. Hogan Pass: final report on archaeological

investigations along Forest Highway 10 (State Highway 72), Sevier County, Utah. 3 vols. Prepared for Interagency Archaeological Services, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Lakewood, Colorado. Contract No. CX-1200-6-B052. Eagle, CO: Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, pp. 387–403. Metcalf, M. D., Pool, K. J., McDonald, K. & McKibbin, A. (Eds) (1993). The Round Spring Site, vol. III. Hogan Pass: final report on archaeological investigations along Forest Highway 10 (State Highway 72), Sevier County, Utah. 3 vols. Report prepared for Interagency Archaeological Services, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Lakewood, Colorado, USDUNPS Contract No. CX-1200-6-BO52. Eagle, CO: Metcalf Archaeological Consultants. Metcalfe, D. (1984). Gooseberry Archaeological Project: 1983. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Reports of Investigations 83-1. Metcalfe, D. & Barlow, K. R. (1992). A model for exploring the optimal trade-off between field processing and transport. American Anthropologist 94, 340–356. Metcalfe, D. & Jones, K. (1988). A reconsideration of animal body part utility indices. American Antiquity 53, 486–504. Metcalfe, D. & Larrabee, L. (1985). Fremont irrigation: evidence from Gooseberry Valley, central Utah. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 7, 244–253. Montgomery, K. R. & Montgomery, J. A. (1993). Huntington Canyon project: archaeological excavations at sites 42Em2109 and 42Em2095, Emery County, Utah. 2 vols. Utah State Department of Transportation State Road 31. UDOT Project No. RS-0282(4). Report prepared by Abajo Archaeology, Bluff, Utah. Munro, N. D. (1994). An Investigation of Anasazi Turkey Production in Southwestern Colorado. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada. Murchison, S. B. (1989). Fluctuation History of Great Salt Lake, Utah, During the Last 13,000 Years. Final Report, Part II, NASA Contract NAS5-28753. Limnotechnics Laboratory Report 89-2. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Department of Geography. Newman, D. E. (1995). Paleoenvironments. In (J. C. Janetski, R. K. Talbot, D. E. Newman, L. D. Richens & J. D. Wilde, Eds) Clear Creek Canyon Archaeological Project Volume Five: Results and Synthesis (final draft). Brigham Young University, Provo, UT: Museum of Peoples and Cultures Technical Series No. 95-99, 345–352. O’Connell, J. F., Hawkes, K. & Blurton-Jones, N. G. (1992). Patterns in the distribution, site structure and assemblage composition of Hadza kill-butchering sites. Journal of Archaeological Science 19, 319–345. Ortiz, A. (Ed.) (1979). Southwest. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 9, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. Rapson, D. J. (1990). Pattern and Process in Intra-Site Spatial Analysis: Site Structural and Faunal Research at the Bugas-Holding Site. Ph.D. Thesis. University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International. Raymond, A. W. & Sobel, E. (1990). The use of Tui Chub as food by the Indians of the western Great Basin. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 12, 2–18. Richens, L. D. (1983). Woodard Mound: Excavations at a Fremont Site in Goshen Valley, Utah County, Utah 1980–1981. Masters Thesis. Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, U.S.A. Rood, R. J. & Butler, V. (1993). Round Springs faunal remains. In (M. D. Metcalf, K. J. Pool, K. McDonald & A. McKibbin, Eds) The Round Spring Site, 42SV23, vol. III. Hogan Pass: final report on archaeological investigations along Forest Highway 10 (State Highway 72), Sevier County, Utah. 3 vols. Prepared for Interagency Archaeological Services, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Lakewood, Colorado. Contract No. CX1200-6-B052. Eagle, CO: Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, pp. 165–192. Sammons-Lohse, D. (1981). Households and communities. In (J. D. Jennings and D. Sammons-Lohse, Eds) Bull Creek. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Anthropological Papers 105, 111–135.

1088 J. C. Janetski Schmitt, D. & Lupo, K. (1995). On mammalian taphonomy, taxonomic diversity, and measuring subsistence data in zooarchaeology. American Antiquity 60, 496–514. Sharp, N. (1992). Fremont Farmers and Hunters: Faunal Resource Exploitation at Nawthis Village, Central Utah. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Washington, Seattle, WA, U.S.A. Sharrock, F. W. & Marwitt, J. P. (1967). Excavations at Nephi, Utah, 1965–1966. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Anthropological Papers 88. Shields, W. F. & Dalley, G. F. (1978). The Bear River No. 3 Site. In (C. M. Aikens, D. D. Fowler, J. F. Matley, W. F. Shields, G. F. Dalley, G. F. Fry & J. S. Dean, Eds) Miscellaneous Collected Papers 19–24 (Paper No. 22). Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Anthropological Papers 99, 55–104. Simms, S. R. (1986). New evidence for Fremont adaptive diversity. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 8, 204–216. Simms, S. R. (1987). Behavioral Ecology and Hunter-Gatherer Foraging: an Example from the Great Basin. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, BAR International Series 381. Simms, S. R. (1990). Fremont transitions. Utah Archaeology 1990 3, 1–18. Simms, S. R. (1994). Farmers and foragers in the Late Holocene eastern Great Basin. Paper presented at the 24th Great Basin Anthropological Conference, Elko, NV. Speth, J. D. & Scott, S. L. (1989). Horticulture and large-mammal hunting: the role of resource depletion and the constraints of time and labor. In (S. Kent, Ed.) Farmers as Hunters: the Implications of Sedentism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 71–79. Stephens, D. W. & Krebs, J. R. (1986). Foraging Theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Steward, J. H. (1938). Basin-Plateau Sociopolitical Groups. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 120. Steward, J. H. (1941). Cultural Element Distributions XII: Nevada Shoshoni. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press, Anthropological Records Vol. 4, No. 2. Stewart, O. C. (1942). Culture element distributions XVIII: UteSouthern Paiute. University of California Anthropological Records 6, 231–356. Szuter, C. R. & Bayham, F. E. (1989). Sedentism and prehistoric animal procurement among desert horticulturalists of the North American Southwest. In (S. Kent, Ed.) Farmers as Hunters: the Implications of Sedentism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 80–95. Szuter, C. R. & Gillespie, W. B. (1994). Interpreting use of animal resources at prehistoric American Southwest communities. In (W. H. Wills & R. D. Leonard, Eds) The Ancient Southwest Community: Models and Methods for the Study of Prehistoric Social Organization. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press, pp. 67–78. Talbot, R. K. (1995). Settlement patterns and demography. In (J. C. Janetski, R. K. Talbot, D. E. Newman, L. D. Richens & J. D.

Wilde, Eds) Clear Creek Canyon Archaeological Project, Volume Five: Result and Synthesis (final draft), Brigham Young University, Provo, UT: Museum of Peoples and Cultures Technical Series No. 95-9, pp. 301–305. Talbot, R. K. & Richens, L. D. (1993). Archaeological Investigations at Richfield and Vicinity. Brigham Young University, Provo, UT: Museum of Peoples and Cultures Technical Series No. 93–15. Talbot, R. K. & Richens, L. D. (1994). Steinaker Gap: an Early Fremont Agriculture Farmstead. Brigham Young University, Provo, UT: Museum of Peoples and Cultures Technical Series No. 94-18. Talbot, R. K. & Wilde, J. D. (1989). Giving form to the formative: shifting settlement patterns in the eastern Great Basin and northern Colorado Plateau. Utah Archaeology 1989 1, 3–18. Talbot, R. K., Richens, L. D., Wilde, J. D., Janetski, J. C. & Newman, D. E. (1994). Clear Creek Canyon Archaeological Project Volume Four, Part 1: Icicle Bench; Part 2: Radford Roost and Lott’s Farm. Brigham Young University, Provo, UT: Museum of Peoples and Cultures Technical Series No. 94-25. Talbot, R. K., Richens, L. D., Wilde, J. D., Janetski, J. C. & Newman, D. E. (1995). Clear Creek Canyon Archaeological Project Volume Four, Part 3: Five Finger Ridge. Brigham Young University, Provo, UT: Museum of Peoples and Cultures Technical Series No. 95-8. Thompson, C. (1990). Anasazi Social Boundaries and Resource Access: the Faunal Evidence From Nancy Patterson Village, Utah. Masters Thesis. Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, U.S.A. Todd, L. C. (1993). Body parts, butchery, and postdepositional processes at Round Spring: formational analysis of body size III (brain) bovids. In (M. D. Metcalf, K. J. Pool, K. McDonald & A. McKibbin, Eds) The Round Spring Site, 42SV23, vol. III. Hogan Pass: final report on archaeological investigations along Forest Highway 10 (State Highway 72), Sevier County, Utah. 3 vols. Prepared for Interagency Archaeological Services, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Lakewood, Colorado. Contract No. CX-1200-6-B052. Eagle, CO: Metcalf Archaeological, pp. 341–385. Upham, S. (1994). Nomads of the desert west: a shifting continuum in prehistory. Journal of World Prehistory 8, 113–167. Vickers, W. T. (1989). Patterns of foraging and gardening in a semi-sedentary Amazonian community. In (S. Kent, Ed.) Farmers as Hunters: Enclosure the Implications of Sedentism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 46–59. Wilde, J. D. & Newman, D. E. (1989). Late Archaic corn in the eastern Great Basin. American Anthropologist 91, 712–720. Winterhalder, B. P. (1981). Foraging strategies in the boreal forest: an analysis of Cree hunting and gathering. In (B. P. Winterhalder & E. A. Smith, Eds) Hunter-Gatherer Foraging Strategies: Ethnographic and Archaeological Analyses. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 66–98.