I was reading through Carol Riley's "Becoming Aztlan" (2005) and found an interesting tidbit on the inclusion of the Fremont into the Anasazi Basketmaker tradition. It goes like this...
"The Basketmaker phase of Anasazi extended over much of the San Juan Basin, westward to the lower Virgin River of Southern Nevada, although there is not much evidence for Basketmaker occupation in some areas, for example the north rim of the Grand Canyon. If the enigmatic pithouse-dwelling Fremont tradition can be included, much of Utah and parts of Colorado belonged in the Basketmaker-Pueblo world."
If one of the main characteristics of the Basketmakers is pithouse use (and non-ceramic, of course) then couldn't the earlier Fremont be considered part of this group? What draws the line for exclusion? Is it the fact that they didn't evolve into what is considered a Pueblo tradition but continued using pithouse stuctures? Or is their material culture actually totally distinct/different? Can't we all just get along?
7 comments:
I failed to note that a few pages later in Riley's book, he mentions that "Basketmaker-Pueblo" is an alternate name for Anasazi. That may clarify what we have been discussing the past year.
Rich has long felt that the Fremont are pretty much Basketmakers that never made the Pithouse to Pueblo transition and followed a slightly different cultural trajectory.
The Steinaker Report is apparently full of his feelings on this, but alas, it is out of print and I have never seen a copy.
Maybe Dave would know better, but I'm pretty sure that the important material culture characteristics of the Basketmaker are pithouse architecture, maize agriculture, and bell-shaped pits.
I'm with Mike, let's get along. I need a hug!
I blame Steward and Jennings. In my opinion, it seems that in an effort to make names for themselves, Steward and Jennings divorced the Fremont from the SW.
The Fremont are like little kids from a broken home. They were torn from the loving arms of the SW and given to the cruel foster parents who "knew what was best for them."
Sorry, that analogy probably sucked.
That analogy was sweet. I have more to say but must run to meeting, will post tomorrow.
...sniff...poor little Fremont...all they wanted was to belong...sniff...
Sorry. But actually, I think there's a lot to be said for breaking down the barriers past archaeologists set up. There are melting/borderlands between almost every group on the continent, except where significant geographic formations create genuine boundaries. So why would the Anasazi and Fremont be studied by such different groups?
Aaron, you commented on the Symposium trip that some of y'all are looking at trying to get a conference or something started to address this, right? I seriously doubt the fancy-ceramic-loving SW'ers will be forth-coming with enthusiam for a welding of the two studies, but, honestly, it could open a wonderful unexplored avenue for a lot of future work.
Most of the researchers in the SW that I've met are interested in specific questions and fieldwork in specific areas. It's not that they're opposed to expanding their horizons a little, it's more a matter of them continuing their own research interests.
It sounds like we have very different ideas of what the Fremont were. To me, studying the Fremont from a ceramic-loving fancy pants perspective is not a welding of two studies at all, but is rather a sensible return to a more appropriate perspective. I devoted a chapter to this in my thesis, which is nearing completion. I'll be happy to provide the chapter to anyone who would like to read it immediately.
The behavioral guys (i.e., O'Connell et al. and not Jennings or Steward) have really warped what the Fremont actually were. I think that this was an intentional move initially, and now they just believe the hype.
Regarding social boundaries, the geographic divider hypothesis is probably an oversimplification. The Southwest itself if very patchy. The Hohokam, for example, sort of grade into the Puebloans across the Verde Valley and Flagstaff area. Whereas the Fremont and Virgin Anasazi maintained a clear social boundary (again, see my thesis when it's published). There are other factors driving the formation of social boundaries, we just don't understand what they are yet. Here at ASU, many of the faculty are working on computer models trying to address this issue. I'll keep us aware of their progress.
I agree with Chris' remark that researchers (regardless of location)"are interested in specific questions and fieldwork in specific areas"
I think that Cahokia is interesting, but I am not looking to go out and fully commit to doing fieldwork there. I think that this is the general sentiment in the SW. They are interested/intrigued by the Fremont, but I doubt that we will see an influx of SW researchers doing Fremont archaeology.
I would suggest that it is up to the up-and-coming generation to apply some SW theoretical perspectives to test previous theories about the Fremont/GB.
Application of SW perspecitives needs to be done in an effort to try and better understand the Fremont. Current theories have contributed some, but in my opinion, the Fremont remain a nebulously defined people.
Finally, I guess I am confused about theoretical figures in the GB. Didn't Jennings at least suggest a divorce from Southwestern perspectives?
Chris, this is why we need to make those trading cards.
Post a Comment