What makes a Fremont - a thesis excerpt

In a sense, seeking a definition of the Fremont is a moot point. The dominant theoretical perspective claims it is impossible, and the dissident minority insists that doing so isn’t useful. What the two factions do seem to agree on is the need for a rough definition of the Fremont as an archaeological culture, a “constantly recurring assemblage of artefacts which are assumed to be representative of a particular set of activities carried out at a particular time and place” (Darvill 2002:109). Madsen (1989:67) proposes that the term “Fremont” should be applied as an “umbrella” to include a diversity of human behavior. Four relatively distinct artifact classes are identified as the material manifestations of this behavior: one-rod-and-bundle basketry, the “Fremont” hock-style moccasin, distinctive trapezoidal anthropomorphic figures in rock art and clay figurines, and distinctive grayware pottery. The umbrella concept is declared “useful” by Janetski and Talbot (2000a:7), particularly in its rejection of bounded models of regional variation. To Madsen’s list of common physical objects they add architecture and socio-economic emphases.

With a macroscalar approach, general material patterns among the Formative people north of the Colorado River can be delineated. The Fremont were fairly sedentary pithouse dwellers (Talbot 2000a, 2000b) for whom maize was a major food source, though an assortment of wild food resources were also exploited (for a summary of Fremont subsistence see Janetski and Newman 2000). A distinctive style of basketry, moccasin, pottery, and art distinguish the Fremont from their neighbors (Adavasio 1986; and Madsen 1989). These fairly egalitarian people, with four known exceptions, also buried their dead without preserved objects (Madsen and Lindsay 1977; Roberts 1991; Janetski and Talbot 2000a).

The people that shared these archaeologically observable characteristics may have recognized a variety of group affiliations among themselves. They may have shared a common language, but they just as likely could have spoken a variety of distinct languages or dialects. Some may have not even recognized an affiliation between their own kin group and other prehistoric farmers with the characteristics listed above. Regardless of how Fremont groups organized themselves socially and politically, the material culture traits shared across the Fremont area are meaningful, indicating some sort of commonality. The nature and meaning of this commonality are beyond the scope of this research, and I recognize that this is a difficult subject to address with archaeological evidence. I argue, however, that the subject is an important one that demands further investigation. Rather than seeing the Fremont material culture complex as some sort of indicator of a pan-Fremont identity, I interpret these shared characteristics as the material manifestation of participation in an agricultural-based regional system north of the Colorado River (Janetski and Talbot 2000a) that archaeologists have identified as “Fremont.”