The Much Anticipated Chapter 1

Chapter 1: Introduction

The Fremont, a formative Great Basin/Colorado Plateau culture, are perceived as simple, tribal people who settled in sparse outposts consisting of handfuls of pithouses, presumably the residences of related nuclear families (Sammons-Lohse 1981). This pattern of settlement does not apply in the well-watered valleys of the Wasatch Front (Janetski and Talbot 2000b), where early European settlers observed the remains of sprawling Fremont communities (Janetski 1997). The Fremont, particularly those living in large sedentary populations along the Wasatch Front, probably enjoyed a degree of social and economic complexity that was higher than that currently granted them by researchers without offices in Brigham Young University’s Allen Hall. Fremont studies over the last 30 years have been principally focused on subsistence – what people ate and how they obtained it. With a few notable exceptions (Janetski 2002; Janetski and Talbot 2000b; Wilde and Soper 1999; Hockett 1998; Sammons-Lohse 1981; Gunnerson 1969), questions of social organization and exchange have been largely ignored.

I propose an analysis of Fremont ceramic production and exchange. Lyneis (1994) has suggested that the Parowan Valley (Figure 1) was a production center for Snake Valley ceramics, which are arguably the finest produced in the Fremont area (Madsen 1977). I will focus this research on one of these types, Snake Valley Black-on-gray. Possible raw material sources and sherd samples from the Parowan Valley and sherds from three other large Fremont settlements (Baker Village, Mukwitch Village, and South Temple) will be analyzed to determine whether the Parowan Valley was one of a few or perhaps the sole production center for Snake Valley Black-on-gray pottery. The results of this analysis will then be used first to determine the manner in which the pottery was produced and second, to where and with whom it was exchanged. I anticipate that the Parowan Valley will prove to be the production center for Snake Valley Black-on-gray, and that production was organized generally on the level of van der Leeuw’s (1984) Household Industry (as suggested by Schuster 1996) or more particularly as Costin’s (1991) Community Specialization. In addition, I will examine and comment on the distribution of this ceramic type.


My research asks how Fremont ceramic production and exchange were organized during Late Formative (ca. A.D. 900-1350, for a discussion of Fremont chronology see Janetski et al. 2000). Prior to any useful discussion of intergroup trade, Brown et al. (1990:251) identify three aspects of exchange that require systematic research, “First, the raw materials of traded objects need to be accurately sourced to develop a pattern of exchange relations (Plog 1977). Second, the relative value of objects has to be identified, and third, the objects have to be distinguished by context of manufacture, use, and consumption.” I have formulated specific research questions within this framework, which follow a summary of Fremont culture history and a discussion of past research.

Fremont Culture History

The Fremont horticultural strategy gradually evolved from Archaic roots at “a differential rate depending on localized environmental and cultural factors” (Talbot et al. 1998:34). In a review of data from central Utah, Janetski (1993) describes this pattern of gradual trait accumulation by the indigenous population, identifying increasing permanence and formality in residential architecture and storage features as well as the arrival of corn (DATE), bow and arrows (DATE), and ceramics (DATE). Talbot et al. (1998) designate this period of transition from 2000-1450 B.P. as the Early Fremont, noting that few sites have thus far been successfully dated to the period. Many questions about this early pattern, including settlement patterns, remain unanswered for want of data.

During the Middle Fremont (1450-900 B.P.), Talbot et al. (1998) note a uniformity of residential architecture (shallow, circular pithouses) and the development of the “typical” suite of Fremont artifact types. These include physiographically bounded ceramics, the Utah-type metate, and distinct beads, awls, needles, figurines, and stone balls. Carryovers from previous periods include Rose Spring, Eastgate, and Elko series projectile points, moccasins, and one-rod-and-bundle basketry. The typical settlement pattern consisted of nuclear household inhabitation of “rancherias” (Jennings 1978), where diverse resources were exploited. Increased dependence on horticulture probably also characterized portions of the Fremont during this period. This is particularly evident along the Wasatch Front, where population increases and aggregation begins about 1050 B.P. Additional important Middle Fremont changes include the population of the Uinta Basin and increasing Anasazi influence.

The Late Fremont period (900-600 B.P) “represents the culmination of Fremont development” (Talbot et al 1998:35). Populations continued to rise, particularly in the “central core area” (Talbot and Wilde 1989), defined as the Great Basin-Colorado Plateau transition zone from Willard Mound (Judd 1926; Steward 1933) in the north to Summit, UT in the south. Major Fremont settlements are also founded in the west from Upper Meadow Valley to the northern end of the Snake Valley, and in the east from Paradox Valley to Yampa Canyon. Architectural changes included increasingly deep and quadrilateral pithouses, on-site rectangular adobe storage structures, and large jacal adobe buildings. Corrugated pottery was developed, and painted pottery becomes increasingly more common. Projectile points types also diversified. The Formative period began to decline between 800-750 B.P. when the settlement (and probably subsistence) strategy rapidly shifted resulting in the abandonment of some areas and, with the exception of the Bull Creek area (Jennings and Sammons-Lohse 1981), population reduction in the others. By 600 B.P. all Fremont sites had been permanently abandoned.

A Brief History of Fremont Research

Janetski and Talbot (2000a) have provided an excellent summary of the last 100 years of work in the Fremont area, portions of which I highlight here (see also Janetski 1997). Antiquarians and the earliest generations of archaeologists observed similarities between material remains now called Fremont and the Puebloans of the greater Southwest. Edward Palmer (1876, cited in Fowler and Matley 1868:23) was the first to go on record with this observation, noting the Puebloan characteristics of the pottery he discovered near present-day Payson, UT. Neil Judd (1926) confirmed a Southwestern affiliation, which was accepted by Kidder (1924a, 1924b), then Don of American archaeology, and corroborated by Steward (1933, 1936). Kidder coined the term “Northern Peripheral Area” to describe the prehistoric farmers of the Utah area. The Northern Periphery soon became divided into two regions – Morss (1931) designating the Colorado Plateau farmers of the east Fremont after his work along the Fremont River and Judd (1926) labeling the western Great Basin farmers Puebloan.

In the 1950s, Jack Rudy (1953) initiated the backlash against the Northern Periphery designation, arguing that such a label marginalized Utah cultures and obscured their unique characteristics. Despite Steward’s (1955) defense of the Northern Periphery, Jesse D. Jennings and other major players in Utah Archaeology supported Rudy, arguing for the abandonment of the term Puebloan and the adoption of “Sevier Fremont” for western farmers and the preservation of Fremont for the eastern manifestation (Jennings et al. 1956:103). Though Jennings acknowledged some Southwestern influence on the Fremont/Sevier Fremont, he continued to maintain that these were merely diffused traits and that the archaeology of the region should adopt a geographic perspective.

Under the guidance and/or influence of Jennings, the next generation of archaeologists matured and began to pursue a more refined definition of the Fremont including questions of regional patterning of material culture. Marwitt (1970) and Ambler (1966a, 1966b) revisited Steward’s (1933) observations of diversity positing models of Fremont regional variation. This focus on geographic variability was relatively short lived, quickly fading in the 1970s as subsistence studies rose with the work of David Madsen. Based on the University of Utah’s work in the Parowan Valley, Michael Berry (1972b, 1974) first proposed a subsistence model characterizing the Fremont as settled farmers practicing a lifeway similar to the Anasazi. Armed with data primarily from Backhoe Village in the Sevier Valley, Madsen (1979, 1980, 1982; Madsen and Lindsay 1979) responded vigorously arguing that the sedentism observed in the Fremont area could have been based on wild resource exploitation.

As processualism came into full bloom, Madsen (1982) developed a series of continuum models of Fremont subsistence with maize eating settled farmers at one extreme, and highly mobile foragers at the other. Material culture was without variation along the continuum, and the determining factor was available resources. Simms (1986, 1990) continued the paradigm of Fremont variability with his concept of adaptive diversity, arguing against attempts to set boundaries on behavior in favor of studies on the level of individual decision-makers. Janetski and Talbot (2000a:6) conclude their discussion of Fremont research with this summary and state of current Fremont research; “Notions of Fremont variation have evolved significantly over the past 75 years. From bounded area models based on artifact lists, the scenario has moved to accommodating complex strategy mosaics within regions. Not only does ‘Fremont’ remain undefined, to make definitions a goal is counter productive.”

Three Turning Points

Three events have had particular influence on the shape of current Fremont studies. The first was Jennings’ rejection of a Southwestern paradigm for Fremont studies. While Rudy (1953) was the first to appear in print refuting the Northern Periphery, it was Jennings who would hold the ear of future generations of archaeologists. Many a graduate student has been significantly molded by a faculty member, but Jennings seems to have been particularly close to the scholars in his charge. Longtime friend, former student, and colleague C. Melvin Aikens (1994:xii) notes that all Jennings students were engendered with “that certain blend of striving, nervous anticipation (for some verging on fear) and, ultimately, respectful affection for their mentor.” Though he was sometimes (and still is) referred to with some trepidation as “The Dark Lord” (of J.R.R. Tolkien fame), Aikens (1997) also notes Jennings unremitting availability to his students,

Unlike the latter-day professor who typically schedules but a few office hours each week for student conversation and consultation, Jennings was always there, and his door was always open. A student could depend on finding him interested and ready to act directly on the concern of the moment.

Given the great degree of this influence, is it not surprising that almost none of Jennings students ever questioned his Southwest pronouncement (for an exception see Berry 1972a, 1972b, and 1974).

After Jesse D. Jennings, the next most prominent figure in Fremont archaeology is probably David B. Madsen. Madsen had entered the University of Utah? graduate program in YEAR? armed with an undergraduate degree in BOTANY?. After graduation, Madsen quickly ascended to the position of Utah State Archaeologist beginning a substantial research program from what Janetski and Talbot (2000) call an “economic perspective.” I disagree with this designation as Madsen was fixated on subsistence, only one of many facets of economics. The weight Madsen placed on subsistence is perhaps best typified in his first major foray into the subject, the Backhoe Village report (Madsen and Lindsay 1977). At Backhoe (Figure ?), Madsen discovered evidence of abundant wild resource exploitation by the Fremont. Though Jennings had rejected the Northern Periphery 20 years earlier, the Fremont were still generally thought of as sedentary farmers largely dependent on maize agriculture. Madsen’s newly gathered pollen and macrobotanical data from Backhoe and other sites flew in the face of this long held construction of the Fremont, leading Madsen (1979) to define the Fremont as maize dependent agriculturalists on the Colorado Plateau, and the remaining groups in the eastern Great Basin as the more wild resource dependent Sevier.

It is curious that Madsen became such an influential character in Fremont archaeology. Jennings directly molded several generations of archaeologists in his academic position at the University of Utah. As state archaeologist, Madsen had little direction interaction with students. Like Jennings, he did initiate an intensive research program and published prolifically. Madsen’s influence came with these publications, and as a strong State Archaeologist he set the tone for archaeological research in Utah. Madsen was also helped by the blossoming of the New Archaeology during the 1980s, which cultivated fertile ground for his sowing of concepts which were processual slightly before their time.

In concert with Madsen’s subsistence emphasis, the University of Utah Department of Anthropology began to develop a potent post-Jennings research paradigm of their own, the origin of which can probably be traced back to the arrival of James F. O’Connell in 1978. Jennings certainly continued to wield considerable influence in the Department until his retirement in 1986, and it was after this time Utah became increasingly concerned with hunter-gatherer archaeology, a trend mirrored by contemporary processual developments in American archaeology. Under O’Connell and others, the University of Utah Department of Anthropology (2005) became a program specializing in “genetics, behavioral ecology, demography, hunter-gatherers, and evolutionary approaches to human behavior.” The formation of this emphasis is the third turning point in Fremont Archaeology. After the departure of Jennings, the major university studying the Fremont began to be staffed by researchers trained in the larger Great Basin hunter-gather tradition who were primarily concerned with the biological perspective of human behavioral ecology (Hawkes et al. 1997; Broughton and O’Connell 1999).

The current state of Fremont archaeology was largely shaped by the preceding three events – Jennings’ rejection of the Northern Periphery, Madsen’s emphasis on subsistence, and the University of Utah emphasizing hunter gatherers and behavioral ecology following Jennings’ retirement. By and large today, the Fremont are studied as part of the Great Basin, with primary emphasis on subsistence, by researchers trained as or by hunter-gatherer archaeologists. In stark contrast to the majority of contemporary Fremont studies are the Clear Creek Archaeological Project (Talbot et al 1998, 1999, 2000; Baker and Billat 1999; Janetski et al. 2000) and other research by Brigham Young University (BYU) personnel (most notably Talbot 1996; Janetski 2002; Wilde and Soper 1999; and Baker et al. 2004).
The Clear Creek Archaeological Project

For those of us who have resisted the University of Utah’s hunter-gatherer hegemony in favor of a Fremont affiliation with the Southwest, the Clear Creek Archaeological Project has been more than a turning point, and is more akin to a revolution. Other researchers have largely ignored the work in Clear Creek. BYU’s involvement in the project began in the early 1980s with the awarding of a contract to the Office of Public Archaeology (OPA) to assist in mitigating the construction of Interstate 70 through Clear Creek Canyon. What began as a simple excavation of a small, open habitation site soon grew into the full-scale mitigation of large portions of the canyon, including the near complete excavation of Five Finger Ridge, one of the largest Fremont sites ever studied in detail.

The Clear Creek Archaeological Project sought to “recast the Fremont tradition as an aspect of the larger Southwestern farming pattern that bulged northward crossing the Colorado and Virgin Rivers, endured for several centuries and then pulled back” (Janetski and Talbot 2000a:7). They did so not by abandoning the work of Madsen and others, but by expanding on it. Subsistence is an important, nay essential question in any archaeological analysis, but a myriad of other questions deserves equal consideration. In approaching the Fremont from a Southwestern perspective, the writers of the Clear Creek reports didn’t seek to ignore the diversity in the Fremont known since Steward’s (1955) time, but instead argued for multiple scales of analysis, asking questions about individual variation and large-scale patterning.

I share this bias in my research. By cutting Fremont studies off from the Southwest, researchers have alienated themselves from one of the richest bodies of theory in archaeology. I approach the problem of Fremont pottery production and exchange with a preconceived notion that the Fremont are a part of the Southwest culture area, and have attempted to utilize a range of applicable theory developed in the Southwest and elsewhere.