Late Holocene Research on Foragers and Farmers in the Desert West [1 ed.] 9781607814474, 9781607814467

Citation preview

Late Holocene Research on

Foragers andin theFarmers Desert West

Edited by

Barbara J. Roth and Maxine E. McBrinn

Late Holocene Research on Foragers and Farmers in the Desert West

This page intentionally left blank

Late Holocene Research on

Foragers and Farmers in the Desert West

Edited by Barbara J. Roth and Maxine E. McBrinn

The University of Utah Press Salt Lake City

Copyright © 2016 by The University of Utah Press. All rights reserved. The Defiance House Man colophon is a registered trademark of the University of Utah Press. It is based on a four-­foot-tall Ancient Puebloan pictograph (late PIII) near Glen Canyon, Utah. 20 19 18 17 16     1 2 3 4 5 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Roth, Barbara J., 1958– | McBrinn, Maxine. Title: Late Holocene research on foragers and farmers in the desert West / edited by Barbara J. Roth and Maxine E. McBrinn. Description: Salt Lake City : The University of Utah Press, 2015. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2015031833| ISBN 9781607814467 (cloth : alkaline paper) | ISBN 9781607814474 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Indians of North America — West (U.S.) — Antiquities. | Prehistoric peoples — West (U.S.) | Hunting and gathering societies —  West (U.S.) — History. | Agriculture, Prehistoric — West (U.S.) | Desert people — West (U.S.) — History. | Land settlement — West (U.S.) — History. | Environmental archaeology — West (U.S.) | Social archaeology — West (U.S.) | Southwest, New — Antiquities. | Great Basin — Antiquities. | BISAC: SOCIAL SCIENCE / Archaeology. Classification: LCC E78.W5 L375 2015 | DDC 979.004/97 — dc23 LC record available at http://lccn.loc.gov/2015031833 Printed and bound by Sheridan Books, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Contents

List of Figures   vii List of Tables   ix 1. Introduction: Foragers and Early Farmers in the Desert West   1

Maxine E. McBrinn and Barbara J. Roth 2. Early Farming and the Fate of Archaic Hunter-­Gatherers in the Albuquerque Basin   16

Jim A. Railey 3. Resistant Foragers: Foraging and Maize Cultivation in the Northern Rio Grande Valley   58

Bradley J. Vierra and Maxine E. McBrinn 4. Deconstructing the Early Agricultural Period in Southern Arizona   78

Stephanie M. Whittlesey 5. Were They Sedentary and Does It Matter? Early Farmers in the Tucson Basin   108

Barbara J. Roth 6. Farming, Foraging, and Remote Storage in Range Creek: Shifting

Strategies of Maize Cultivation, Residential Mobility, and Food Storage in Cliff Granaries among the Fremont of the Northern Colorado Plateau   136 K. Renee Barlow 7. Fremont Farming: The Nature of Cultivation in Northwestern Colorado, 2000–500 bp   188

A. Dudley Gardner and William R. Gardner

v

vi Contents

8. Farmers on the Go: A Forager-­Farmer Model for the Las Vegas Valley, Southern Nevada   214

Heidi Roberts and Richard V. N. Ahlstrom 9. Late Fremont Cultural Identities and Borderland Processes   234

Michael T. Searcy and Richard K. Talbot 10. Evolving Patterns of Villages in the Southwestern Mojave Desert, California   265

Mark Q. Sutton List of Contributors   285 Index   287

Figures

The Albuquerque Basin   18 Archaic radiocarbon dates from the Albuquerque Basin   25 The Northern Rio Grande region   60 Distribution of Colorado piñon pine in North America   70 Location of the Las Capas site in the Tucson Basin   80 Map of Las Capas   81 Locations of floodplain sites discussed in text   117 Map of the Range Creek Archaeological Project Area   137 Aerial view of the Green River from Range Creek, Utah   138 Emery Gray Fremont jar with appliqué decoration   139 Map of archaeological sites in the Range Creek Project Area  140 6.5. Fremont shield figures   144 6.6. Utility of stored food for foragers, farmers, and food ­hoarders   149 6.7. Recording cliff granaries in Range Creek   160 6.8. Aerial view of accretional CAM granaries on cliff ledge   161 6.9. Typical rectangular masonry and adobe granary   162 6.10. Location of the Fortress site   179 7.1. Major granary clusters in northwestern Colorado   192 7.2. Granary along Douglas Creek   201 7.3. Brown’s Park granary   202 8.1. Fields belonging to Southern Paiute residents at the Kiel Ranch  218 8.2. Typical rock ring feature   219 8.3. Thermal features and rock ring features in the Las Vegas ­Valley   220 8.4. Small roasting pit   221 2.1. 2.2. 3.1. 3.2. 4.1. 4.2. 5.1. 6.1. 6.2. 6.3. 6.4.

vii

viii Figures

Ephemeral pithouse   222 Excavated storage pit   223 Pollen taxa per site and period   226 Map of the Fremont cultural area   240 Common Late Fremont styles on ceramics, figurines, rock art, and in architecture   242 9.3. Southern Paiute tribes mentioned in text   244 9.4. Great Salt Lake Fremont chronology   249 10.1. Map of the southwestern Mojave Desert   267

8.5. 8.6. 8.7. 9.1. 9.2.

Tables

1.1. Topics of articles on the Great Basin and Southwest   3 2.1. Archaic structures in the Albuquerque Basin by location and time period  20 2.2. Archaic period maize and possible maize in the Albuquerque Basin  21 3.1. Animal resource return rates for the northern Rio Grande ­Valley   63 3.2. Plant resources and return rates for the northern Rio Grande ­Valley   64 3.3. Return rates for cultigens   66 4.1. Ubiquities of plant resource groups in flotation samples at Las ­Capas, Los Pozos, and Coffee Camp   85 4.2. Faunal attributes at Las Capas, Los Pozos, and Coffee Camp  87 4.3. Maize and agricultural weed ubiquity at selected sites in the ­Tucson Basin   89 6.1. Archaeological sites in Range Creek   141 6.2. Prehistoric tree-­ring, radiocarbon, and OSL dates from Range Creek, Utah   154 6.3. Range Creek granaries   164 7.1. Radiocarbon dates from Eagle Point (5RB4662)   196 7.2. Macrofloral samples and phytolith and starch summary from ­coprolites from the 2008 excavations at Eagle Point   198 7.3. Radiocarbon dates from charcoal at Kuck Shelter (5RB3157)  200 8.1. Southern Paiute gathering and farming schedule, Las Vegas ­Valley   217 8.2. Las Vegas Valley diet-­breadth analysis: Summary data   227 ix

x Tables

8.3. Las Vegas Valley diet-­breadth analysis: Botanical ­remains   228 8.4. Las Vegas Valley diet-­breadth analysis: Faunal data   229 8.5. Return rates for key ranked wild and cultivated plants   230 10.1. Traits of known villages in the southwestern Mojave ­Desert   270

CHAPTER 1

Introduction Foragers and Early Farmers in the Desert West

Maxine E. McBrinn and Barbara J. Roth

In contemporary archaeological practice, the Southwest and the Great Basin are distinct regions characterized by very different histories and diverse scholarly traditions. This segregation appeared early, aided in part by the fact that historic indigenous populations in each region differed in many aspects, including subsistence practices, architecture, and c­ eremonial traditions. The culture historical paradigm that prevailed for much of the early period of research in these two areas fostered a focus on prehistoric farmers in the Southwest and on hunters and gatherers in the Great Basin. Given that one of the interests a century ago was in tracing cultural traits back into prehistory, necessitating a solid grounding in historic lifeways, the split was almost inevitable. Archaeologists in the Southwest turned their research focus toward developing a chronology using ceramic and architectural seriation anchored by dendrochronology (e.g., Kidder 1927; Nelson 1916), while their colleagues to the north focused their efforts on understanding forager lifeways (e.g., Kelly 1995; Steward 1938). Despite these now long-­standing differences in archaeological investigations, the Southwest and Great Basin share many characteristics in terms of environmental challenges and cultural practices. This has been addressed in some studies of hunter-­gatherers in the two areas, but for the most part research has not usually incorporated these similarities. While there are significant exceptions (e.g., Adovasio 1986; Adovasio and Gunn 1986; Fowler 2000; Fowler and Fowler 2008; Parezo and Janetski 2014), 1

2

Maxine E. McBrinn and Barbara J. Roth

most c­ ontemporary archaeological work in the Southwest and Great Basin has focused on a single region. Those researchers who address issues of similarity or relationship are often studying the boundaries between the two regions (e.g., Geib 1996, Janetski 1993). The archaeological record within each region is now so extensive that it can take years to become a competent practitioner conversant with the development of material culture types and local chronologies, and this may encourage the focus on a single region. As Southwestern archaeologists whose research has largely centered on prehistoric hunter-­gatherers and the period when maize was first being integrated into the diet, it became apparent to us that Great Basin archaeologists often work within paradigms that are well-­suited to our research, yet these are rarely integrated into research domains in Southwestern archaeology. In turn, the kinds of questions examined by Southwestern researchers and the methods and theoretical frameworks used to address them are not commonly included in Great Basin research. We contend that these varying approaches could be beneficial to researchers in both areas. Because of this, we organized a symposium at the 2010 Society for American Archaeology meeting in Sacramento that included researchers from both regions. The period we selected to examine was the Late Holocene, with a focus on foragers and early farmers, as these are the topics where we see the most significant research overlap. The session was exhilarating and inspiring, and this volume is an outgrowth of that dialogue. We hope that it will serve as a platform to allow the further exchange of ideas and to spur the use of new theoretical approaches and methods in both regions. In this introduction, we take a historical approach to describe research traditions and topics of interest in both the Southwest and Great Basin, exploring how these evolved from the interests of early archaeologists. We then suggest that archaeology in both regions has much in common and would benefit from a shared discourse about the common themes developed in the chapters in this volume. Finally, we propose other ways that a community of mutual interest can be formed and fostered. Southwestern Archaeological Interests and Traditions The Southwest offers important advantages for archaeological research. The dry climate has often resulted in excellent preservation of archaeological remains, and in some portions of the Southwest, tree rings ­recovered from structures have allowed researchers to both date sites and reconstruct past

Introduction

3

Table 1.1. Topics of articles on the Great Basin and Southwest

Journal

Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology Utah Archaeology Kiva Totals

Papers About Hunters and Gatherers

Papers Focusing on Farmers

Papers About Ceramic Analysis Total

35 (90%)

2 (5%)

2 (5%)

39

22 (61%) 11 (7%) 68

9 (25%) 121 (77%) 132

5 (14%) 25 (16%) 32

36 157 232

Note: Data compiled from 10 years of the Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology (1996–2001; 2003–2007); 10 years of Utah Archaeology (2000–2007, 2009–2010); and articles on the Southwest from 10 years of Kiva (1998–2007). A small number of articles in Utah Archaeology address Pueblo occupations, but these have not been separated out. Articles that focused on Euro-American historic sites were not considered.

environmental variation. Most agricultural period sites in the Southwest have ceramics, so much of the early research focused on the temporal and geographic ranges of pottery types. Coupled with s­ tratigraphy and, where possible, dendrochronology, regional ceramic sequences have allowed other site occupations to be dated by ceramics alone. Not surprisingly, because of the architectural preservation and abundance of well-­dated ceramics, much of the early research in the Southwest (e.g., Kidder and Guernsey 1919; Nelson 1914; Nordenskiöld 1893; and many others) addressed farmers who are relatively “visible” on the landscape. This early research often examined relationships between prehistoric and historic groups, with attempts to link archaeological materials to the well-­documented ethnographic details of historic and contemporary Indians in the region. These research areas — ​pottery, architecture, and farming — ​remain key aspects of archaeological research in the Southwest. Table 1.1 presents an informal quantification of the topics of recent Southwest archaeology ­articles published in Kiva, a prominent regional journal. Articles on foragers from any period are far outnumbered by those on farmers. Ceramics are still a popular topic of study, but recent research has expanded to include questions of cultural identity, migration, and social responses to periodic droughts by farming peoples using diverse material classes and other data, including rock art, kiva murals, basketry, skeletal analysis, and oral traditions (e.g., Bernardini 2005; Eckert 2008; Ortman 2012). Archaic hunters and gatherers in the Southwest have not traditionally been a major research topic. It wasn’t until 1967 that Cynthia Irwin-­ Williams (1967, 1973, 1979) published the first of a series of papers that

4

Maxine E. McBrinn and Barbara J. Roth

synthesized the Archaic period archaeological record, a body of work that remains the most influential region-­wide treatment of the period. She saw Archaic populations as ancestral to the later farmers, defining four regional traditions that later developed into the Mogollon, Ancestral Pueblo, Hohokam, and other archaeological cultures. Later syntheses (Berry and Berry 1986; Huckell 1996) did not make the same supposition. In fact, several researchers — ​including Michael and Claudia Berry (1986), Bruce Huckell (1995), Steven LeBlanc (2008), and R. G. Matson (1991) — ​have suggested that farmers arrived with the first cultigens and largely replaced earlier Archaic hunter-­gatherer populations. Still others (e.g., Merrill et al. 2009) dispute this, arguing that indigenous Archaic groups adopted agriculture. The topic of how agriculture arrived in the Southwest is still vigorously debated, and many researchers are now attempting to examine the multiple cultural changes involved in the transition from foraging to farming (Diehl 2005; Roth 2014). The advent of cultural resource management (CRM) has dramatically expanded what we know about foragers and the earliest farmers in the Southwest. CRM research has pushed back the dates for the oldest maize to ca. 2000 bc (Huber 2005) and has identified 3,000–year-­old irrigation systems, some of them quite extensive, across the region (Damp et al. 2002; Mabry 2005, 2008). Contract archaeologists have also discovered pit structures in many diverse environments and have revealed sites dense with pithouses and storage pits, which some interpret as evidence for early sedentism. People at these sites were investing much more heavily in infrastructure and were undoubtedly less mobile than earlier foragers, but whether they were spending much of the year at one residential site is an on­going question (and one addressed by Roth and Whittlesey in this ­volume). Archaeologists acknowledge that the shift from foraging to farming in the Southwest occurred at different times and for different reasons across the region. In some areas it is clear that early farmers initially used maize as a supplementary food. Dense and diverse environments which supported a subsistence organization that resulted in relatively few residential moves and a greater dependence on logistical tasks may have enabled some groups to more easily integrate farming (Doleman 2005; Roth and Freeman 2008). Locations with less resource diversity and less density would have required

Introduction

5

high residential mobility to meet subsistence needs, making it more challenging for foragers trying to shift to farming (Gilman 1997). Given that corn, beans, and squash are a balanced and relatively nutritious suite of plant foods, it is interesting that from the start the Southwestern ethnobotanical focus has been, and continues to be, on maize. Squash and beans are often only mentioned in lists of other (non-­maize) plant remains found at sites, and far fewer radiocarbon dates have been run on them. Thus far it appears that maize entered the region about 4,000 years ago (2000 bc) (Huber 2005). Squash remains are rare in the ethnobotanical record; currently the earliest date to 1300–­1400 bc, postdating the first use of maize by several hundred years. Use of beans in the region occurred even later, just over 2,000 years ago (Smith 2001). This means that for the first two millennia of farming in the Southwest, people did not have a critical component of the historic diet; however, researchers have rarely examined this problem, instead focusing primarily on maize production in their assessment of early agricultural diets. This illustrates a fundamental difference between Southwestern and Great Basin research. In the Great Basin, central-­place foraging, the prey choice model, and other quantitative tools developed as part of human behavioral ecology (HBE) theory are commonly used, but they are rarely used in the Southwest (Allison 2008; Barlow 2008; McBrinn 2010). In general, Southwestern archaeologists whose research is focused on diet, such as faunal specialists and ethnobotanists, are more likely to consider c­ aloric return rates, transportation costs, and other factors when examining food choices. With some exceptions (e.g., Cannon 2003; Diehl and Waters 2006), the results of these studies are often buried in the appendices of site reports. As discussed below, this is markedly different from the situation in the Great Basin. One of the strengths of Southwestern research on foragers and early farmers has been a willingness to reach beyond subsistence and mobility to examine the social lives of these populations, with studies considering gender (e.g., Crown 2000; Hays-­Gilpin 2000; Roth 2006, 2010; Wills 2001), craft training (McBrinn 2005, 2008), social and economic networking and risk mitigation (McBrinn 2005, 2008), and ceremonial life (­Robins and Hays-­Gilpin 2000). Some of these studies incorporate aspects of practice theory (Bourdieu 1990), agency (Dobres and Robb 2000), and other

6

Maxine E. McBrinn and Barbara J. Roth

­ ostprocessual concepts. This research fits seamlessly into ­Southwestern arp chaeologists’ concern with social and adaptive changes through all p ­ eriods, but should be more widely attempted for those periods during which people were not (or not yet) committed farmers. Archaeological Research in the Great Basin While Southwestern research has focused primarily on farming adaptations, archaeologists in the Great Basin have instead directed much of their attention toward hunters and gatherers from all periods, as aptly illustrated by a chapter in Steven Simms’s (2008) overview of the Great Basin titled “Eons of Foragers.” There is often a strong environmental focus in their research, a tradition that started with Steward’s (1938) landmark study of the historic Shoshone. The emphasis on human adaptation to the environment is easy to understand. At first and even second glance, the region is not hospitable. Basins with little or no vegetation are flanked by small mountain ranges, and water is generally scarce. But archaeological research shows that people have thrived in the region for thousands of years through a deep understanding of available resources and the development of social adaptations that allowed them to maximize those resources. To understand the past, archaeologists must also have a thorough knowledge of these resources and how prehistoric peoples used or even changed them. Ethnographic analogy has played an important role in archaeological research in both the Southwest and Great Basin, but the uses of ethnographic data have varied. While Southwestern archaeologists often focus on linkages with historic groups, those in the Great Basin tend to apply general ethnographic insights about forager adaptations to the archaeological record (Kelly 1995). As a result, Great Basin ethnographies have sometimes served as testing grounds for their application to archaeological data (Thomas 1973). Steward’s ethnographic research led to the development of the field of cultural ecology, which focuses on behavior that allows people to exploit their environment and the interaction between culture change and the environment (Steward 1955). This paradigm is a general acknowledgment that humans interacted with the environment and adapted to environmental conditions, and that they, in turn, may have managed or even influenced environmental change. In general, cultural ecology addresses group adaptation and does not examine individual fitness or identify specific mech-

Introduction

7

anisms of adaptation or change (Barlow 2008:​43). A major shortcoming of this theoretical perspective is that its methods and tools are generally conceptual, not quantitative, making it difficult to evaluate competing interpretations. A more explicit way of looking at human-­environmental interaction is available through human behavioral ecology (HBE), a division of evolutionary ecology. This theoretical paradigm assumes that the best behavioral fit for a particular environment will lead to better reproductive success (Winterhalder and Kennett 2006:​11–17). The focus is thus on individual rather than group fitness, and this has allowed researchers to use quanti­ tative models developed for studies of other animals to evaluate human behavioral choices. Optimal foraging theory (OFT), which addresses rules for maximizing foraging productivity, is most often applied to prehistoric foragers. Within OFT, the diet breadth model has been used by many Great Basin researchers to examine the distribution of, costs of searching for, and costs to process a particular resource compared to the caloric and nutritional benefits that it provides. These data are used to rank resources in terms of caloric and nutritional benefits, and then compare prehistoric resource choices with the optimal diet choice model. Because of this focus on HBE by many Great Basin researchers, other research topics that are current in Southwestern studies — ​such as social relations, gender, and identity — ​have not been readily incorporated, yet these ideas could substantially contribute to interpretations of past forager behavior. The importance of living in cooperative groups and the way that these social connections contribute to the culturally mitigated interaction between humans and the environment have been known for millennia (Barlow 2008). Ethnographic studies of groups in the Great Basin have revealed the somewhat complex social circumstances that existed among their members and between groups, and incorporating these studies in archaeological research could aid in the study of similar circumstances in the past. Optimal foraging models dramatically simplify behavioral choices and assume perfectly informed human behavior (Allison 2008:​61), so the expansion of research agendas to incorporate social networks and social interaction has the potential to lead researchers into important new investi­gative realms. While research on foragers in the Southwest has been somewhat limited, the same can be said of studies of farmers in the Great Basin. Agriculture was possible only in the southern and eastern parts of the region,

8

Maxine E. McBrinn and Barbara J. Roth

and only during some periods, in prehistory. The Fremont are perhaps the most-­studied farming group in the Great Basin. Many Fremont groups farmed, but just as Southwestern farmers did, they varied in their dependence on cultivation and the incorporation of wild foods into their diet. Some Fremont groups remained foragers, some were committed farmers, and others may have shifted between subsistence strategies, perhaps even on an annual basis (but see Allison 2008:​76 for a dissenting view). This flexibility in adaptation contrasts with the notion that pottery, maize, and architecture are directly associated with a dependence on farming, a common theme in early Southwestern research. Research Themes Despite the diverse histories of research in the Southwest and Great Basin, as well as the divergent theoretical paradigms, the two regions are linked by several characteristics. The goal of this volume is to document some of these similarities by presenting research conducted in each area that has implications for researchers in both areas. To this end, the volume is organized around certain themes of archaeological studies in both areas that we see as important arenas for future dialogue and interaction. Environment

Both the Southwest and Great Basin are arid to semiarid, with precipitation scarce and geographically and temporally unpredictable. Both areas also have great topographic variability, including changes in elevation of hundreds of meters over short horizontal distances. This variation results in diverse ecosystems, which may have mitigated generally low resource densities in many locations. The dry climate has preserved surprising numbers of perishable artifacts at rockshelters and caves, broadening the material classes available for research. Hiroshi Daifuku (1952), Jesse Jennings (1964), and Steadman Upham (1994), among others, recognized these similarities when they proposed considering the Great Basin and the Southwest as two parts of the same region. The influence of the environment on past adaptations in these two areas, including posing similar challenges for foragers and early farmers, is clearly apparent in the volume chapters: all of the authors examine how the environment influenced foraging, farming, sedentism, and even cultural identity. While none of the chapters focus on environmental impacts as a sole reason for cultural adaptation or change,

Introduction

9

each considers the important role of the environment in shaping cultural responses. Flexibility in Foraging and Farming Adaptations

Both the Southwest and Great Basin were occupied by hunters and gatherers over most of their history, and each supported farmers who relied on cultivation to varying degrees over time. Foragers and farmers in both regions faced similar challenges and developed similar strategies to surmount them. Hunters and gatherers used mobility, broad-­spectrum subsistence strategies, and seasonal sedentism when possible. They also developed social and economic networks that allowed them access to other territories during difficult periods. Farmers supplemented their diets with a wide range of wild plants and animals, maintained residential and logistical mobility at different scales, and developed social mechanisms to mitigate the risk of harvest failures. These flexible responses by foragers and early farmers to their physical and social environments are addressed in most of the chapters in this volume. Railey, Vierra and McBrinn, Whittlesey, and Roth discuss the varying adaptations exhibited by foragers, early farmers, and forager-­farmers in different parts of the Southwest. Barlow, Gardner and Gardner, Roberts and Ahlstom, and Sutton examine the same kinds of flexible adaptations of Fremont farmers in the Great Basin, forager-­farmers in the Las Vegas Valley, and foragers in the Mojave Desert. What becomes clear in these chapters is the similar behaviors of these groups, whether intensifying production and storage or mitigating stress via mobility. The traditional model of sedentary farmers practicing intensive agriculture clearly does not “fit” these groups, and the similar responses to the incorporation of cultigens by foragers across the two regions can be a significant lesson for those examining similar groups elsewhere. Variation in Early Villages

Southwestern researchers have often used the “village” as the central focus of research, studying architecture and ceramics within the context of their site locations to reconstruct the kin groups who occupied them and their social interactions. Villages are rare in the Great Basin and are ­primarily defined as seasonal aggregation sites in prime resource areas such as wetlands, in areas with dense seasonal resources such as piñon, or after a­ griculture was introduced in portions of the southern and eastern Great Basin. Just

10

Maxine E. McBrinn and Barbara J. Roth

as flexibility in foraging and farming adaptations are docu­mented in this volume, variability in village life is addressed for portions of both the Southwest and Great Basin. The chapters by Searcy and Talbot and by Sutton discuss the varying nature of villages in the Great Basin and Mojave Desert, while those by Roth, Whittlesey, and Roberts and Ahlstrom illustrate how restricting the concept of sedentism can be in reconstructing past settlement systems. These chapters show that prehistoric people in the Southwest and Great Basin had similar responses to changing social configurations, although they differed depending on the environmental setting and relationships with surrounding groups. These chapters illustrate that village life was not a unilinear sequential phenomenon but, like foraging and farming adaptations, exhibited fits and starts — ​and sometimes did not last. These chapters also discuss the importance of social boundaries and show that the flexibility of these boundaries was central to both foragers and farmers. Conclusions Archaeologists working in the Great Basin and Southwest have much to learn from their colleagues in the other region. We need to broaden how we approach our research and the questions we ask. We will never truly understand the past if we use only a few of the many theoretical approaches that are available and applied across the world. Each theoretical paradigm targets particular kinds of questions. Using a diverse set of tools and models will produce a richer and more complete view of the societies we study. We hope that the chapters in this volume are a first step toward doing this kind of integrative research. Perhaps by broadening the questions we ask and considering the use of a more diverse set of tools to better understand the past, we will be able to move beyond simplifying past lifeways and appreciate them in all their richness and complexity. References Adovasio, J. M. 1986 Artifacts and Ethnicity: Basketry as an Indicator of Territoriality and Population Movements in the Prehistoric Great Basin. In Anthropology of the Desert West: Essays in Honor of Jesse D. Jennings, edited by Carol J. Condie and Don D. Fowler, pp. 44–84. University of Utah Anthropological Papers, Number 110. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Introduction

11

Adovasio, J. M., and J. D. Gunn 1986 The Antelope House Basketry Industry. In Archaeological Investigations at Antelope House, edited by Don P. Morris, pp. 306–397. National Park Service, Washington, DC. Allison, James R. 2008 Human Ecology and Social Theory in Utah Archaeology. Utah Archaeology 21:​57–88. Barlow, K. Renee 2008 Writ Large: Archaeological Theory and Method in Utah. Utah Archaeology 21:​41–56. Bernardini, Wesley 2005 Hopi Oral Tradition and the Archaeology of Social Identity. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Berry, Michael S., and Claudia F. Berry 1986 Chronological and Conceptual Models of the Southwestern Archaic. In An­ thropology of the Desert West: Essays in Honor of Jesse D. Jennings, edited by Carol J. Condie and Don. D. Fowler, pp. 253–327. Anthropological Papers No. 110. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Bourdieu, Pierre 1990 The Logic of Practice. Stanford University, Stanford, California. Cannon, Michael D. 2003 A Model of Central Place Forager Prey Choice and an Application to Faunal Remains from the Mimbres Valley. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22(1):1–25. Crown, Patricia L. (editor) 2000 Women and Men in the Prehispanic Southwest: Labor, Power, and Prestige. School for American Research Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Daifuku, Hiroshi 1952 A New Conceptual Scheme for Prehistoric Cultures in the Southwestern United States. American Anthropologist 54:​191–200. Damp, Jonathan E., Stephen A. Hall, and Susan J. Smith 2002 Early Irrigation on the Colorado Plateau near Zuni Pueblo, New Mexico. American Antiquity 67:​665–676. Diehl, Michael W. (editor) 2005 Subsistence and Resource Use Strategies of Early Agricultural Communities in Southern Arizona. Anthropological Papers No. 34. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson. Diehl, Michael W., and Jennifer A. Waters 2006 Aspects of Optimization and Risk during the Early Agricultural Period in Southeastern Arizona. In Behavioral Ecology and the Transition to Agricul­ ture, edited by Douglas J. Kennett and Bruce Winterhalder, pp. 63–86. University of California Press, Berkeley. Dobres, Marcia-­Anne, and John Robb (editors) 2000 Agency in Archaeology. Routledge, London.

12

Maxine E. McBrinn and Barbara J. Roth

Doleman, William H. 2005 Environmental Constraints on Forager Mobility and the Use of Cultigens in Southeastern Arizona and Southern New Mexico. In The Late Archaic across the Borderlands: From Foraging to Farming, edited by Bradley J. Vierra, pp. 113–140. University of Texas Press, Austin. Eckert, Suzanne L. 2008 Pottery and Practice: The Expression of Identity at Pottery Mound and Hum­ mingbird Pueblo. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Fowler, Catherine S., and Don D. Fowler (editors) 2008 The Great Basin: People and Place in Ancient Times. School for Advanced Research Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Fowler, Don D. 2000 A Laboratory for Anthropology: Science and Romanticism in the American Southwest, 1846–1930. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Geib, Phil R. 1996 Glen Canyon Revisited. Anthropological Papers No. 119. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Gilman, Patricia A. 1997 Wandering Villagers: Pit Structures, Mobility and Agriculture in Southeastern Arizona. Anthropological Research Papers No. 49. Arizona State University, Tempe. Hays-­Gilpin, Kelley A. 2000 Gender Ideology and Ritual Activities. In Women and Men in the Prehis­ panic Southwest: Labor, Power, and Prestige, edited by Patricia L. Crown, pp. 91–135. School for Advanced Research Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Huber, Edgar K. 2005 Early Maize at the Old Corn Site (LA137258). In Archaeological Data Recov­ ery in the New Mexico Transportation Corridor and First Five Year Permit Area, Fence Lake Coal Mine Project, Catron County, New Mexico, Vol. 4: Synthetic Studies and Summary, edited by Edgar K. Huber and Carla Van West, pp. 36.1–36.33. Technical Series 84. Statistical Research, Inc., Tucson, Arizona. Huckell, Bruce B. 1995 Of Marshes and Maize: Preceramic Agricultural Settlements in the Cienega Valley, Southeastern Arizona. Anthropological Paper No. 59. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 1996 The Archaic Prehistory of the North American Southwest. Journal of World Prehistory 10(3):305–373. Irwin-­Williams, Cynthia 1967 Picosa: The Elementary Southwestern Culture. American Antiquity 32(4):​ 441–457. 1973 The Oshara Tradition: Origins of Anasazi Culture. Contributions in Anthropology Vol. 5, No. 1. Eastern New Mexico University, Portales. 1979 Post-­Pleistocene Archaeology, 7000–2000 bc. In Handbook of North Ameri­

Introduction

13

can Indians, Vol. 9: Southwest, edited by Alphonso Ortiz, pp. 31–42. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Janetski, Joel C. 1993 The Archaic to Formative Transition North of the Anasazi: A Basketmaker Perspective. In Anasazi Basketmaker: Papers from the 1990 Wetherill–Grand Gulch Symposium, edited by V. M. Aikens, pp. 223–241. Cultural Resource Series No. 24. Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake City, Utah. Jennings, Jesse D. 1964 The Desert West. In Prehistoric Man in the New World, edited by Jesse D. Jennings and Edward Norbeck, pp. 149–174. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Kelly, Robert L. 1995 The Foraging Spectrum: Diversity in Hunter-­Gatherer Lifeways. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. Kidder, A. V. 1927 Southwestern Archaeological Conference. Science 68:​489–491. Kidder, Alfred V., and Samuel J. Guernsey 1919 Archaeological Exploration in Northeastern Arizona. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin No. 65. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. LeBlanc, Steven A. 2008 The Case for Early Farmer Migration into the Greater American Southwest. In Archaeology without Borders: Contact, Commerce, and Change in the U.S. Southwest and Northwestern Mexico, edited by Laurie D. Webster and ­Maxine E. McBrinn, pp. 107–144. University Press of Colorado, B ­ oulder. Mabry, Jonathan B. 2005 Changing Knowledge and Ideas about the First Farmers in Southeastern Arizona. In The Late Archaic across the Borderlands: From Foraging to Farming, edited by Bradley J. Vierra, pp. 41–83. University of Texas Press, Austin. 2008 Irrigation, Short-­Term Sedentism, and Corporate Organization during the San Pedro Phase. In Las Capas: Early Irrigation and Sedentism in a South­ western Floodplain, edited by J. B. Mabry, pp. 293–327. Anthropological Papers No. 28. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson. Matson, R. G. 1991 The Origins of Southwestern Agriculture. University of Arizona Press, ­Tucson. McBrinn, Maxine E. 2005 Social Identities among Archaic Mobile Hunters and Gatherers in the Amer­ ican Southwest. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series No. 197. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 2008 Networking the Old-­Fashioned Way: Social and Economic Networks among Archaic Hunters and Gatherers in Southern New Mexico. In Archaeology without Borders: Contact, Commerce, and Change in the U.S. Southwest and Northwestern Mexico, edited by Laurie D. Webster and Maxine E. McBrinn, pp. 209–225. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.

14

Maxine E. McBrinn and Barbara J. Roth

2010 Everything Old Is New Again: Recent Approaches to Research on the Archaic Period in the Western United States. Journal of Archaeological Research 18:​289–329. Merrill, William L., Robert J. Hard, Jonathan Mabry, Gayle J. Fritz, Karen R. A ­ dams, John R. Roney, and A. C. MacWilliams 2009 The Diffusion of Maize to the Southwestern United States and Its Impact. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 106:​21019–21026. Nelson, Nels C. 1914 Pueblo Ruins of the Galisteo Basin, New Mexico. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 15 (Part 1). 1916 Chronology of the Tano Ruins, New Mexico. American Anthropologist 18:​ 159–180. Nordenskiöld, Gustaf 1893 The Cliff Dwellers of the Mesa Verde, Southwestern Colorado, Their Pottery and Implements. Translated by D. L. Morgan. P. A. Norstedt and Söner, Stockholm and Chicago. Facsimile reprint: Mesa Verde Museum Association, Mesa Verde, Colorado. Ortman, Scott G. 2012 Winds from the North: Tewa Origins and Historical Anthropology. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Parezo, Nancy J., and Joel C. Janetski 2014 Archaeology in the Great Basin and Southwest: Papers in Honor of Don D. Fowler. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Robins, Michael R., and Kelley A. Hays-­Gilpin 2000 The Bird in the Basket: Gender and Social Change in Basketmaker Iconography. In Foundations of Anasazi Culture: The Basketmaker-­Pueblo Transition, edited by Paul F. Reed, pp. 231–47. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Roth, Barbara J. 2006 The Role of Gender in the Adoption of Agriculture in the Southern Southwest. Journal of Anthropological Research 62:​513–538. 2014 Foragers, Farmers, and In Between: Variability in the Late Archaic in the Southern Southwest. In Archaeology in the Great Basin and Southwest: Papers in Honor of Don D. Fowler, edited by Nancy J. Parezo and Joel C. Janetski, pp. 98–108. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Roth, Barbara J. (editor) 2010 Engendering Households in the Prehistoric Southwest. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Roth, Barbara J., and Andrea Freeman 2008 The Middle Archaic Period and the Transition to Agriculture in the Sonoran Desert of Southern Arizona. Kiva 73:​321–353. Simms, Steven R. 2008 Ancient Peoples of the Great Basin and Colorado Plateau. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, California.

Introduction

15

Smith, Bruce D. 2001 Documenting Plant Domestication: The Consilience of Biological and Archaeological Approaches. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences 98(4):​1324–1326. Steward, Julian H. 1938 Basin-­Plateau Aboriginal Sociopolitical Groups. Smithsonian Institution Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin No. 120. United States Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. 1955 Theory of Culture Change: The Methodology of Multilinear Evolution. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. Thomas, David H. 1973 An Empirical Test for Steward’s Model of Great Basin Settlement Patterns. American Antiquity 38:​155–176. Upham, Steadman 1994 Nomads of the West: A Shifting Continuum in Prehistory. Journal of World Prehistory 8:​113–167. Wills, Wirt H. 2001 Pithouse Architecture and the Economies of Household Formation in the Prehistoric Southwest. Human Ecology 29:​477–500. Winterhalder, Bruce, and Douglas J. Kennett 2006 Behavioral Ecology and the Transition from Hunting and Gathering to Agriculture. In Behavioral Ecology and the Transition to Agriculture, edited by Douglas J. Kennett and Bruce Winterhalder, pp. 1–21. University of California Press, Berkeley.

CHAPTER 2

Early Farming and the Fate of Archaic Hunter-­Gatherers in the Albuquerque Basin Jim A. Railey

This chapter concerns the Archaic time frame in the Albuquerque Basin, which has been touched upon in some recent discussions of hunter-­ gatherers and early farming in the northern Rio Grande Valley (e.g., Post 2002; Vierra 2008; Vierra and Ford 2006, 2007). These publications did not, however, cover a host of relevant information in the Albuquerque Basin, in part because most of it comes from discoveries that are new and happening at a rapid pace, and can be found only in contract reports that are not widely distributed. As a result, few know of the now-­extensive body of information on the Archaic period in the Albuquerque Basin. Yet so much data has accumulated for this area that local patterns of Archaic demography, settlement/mobility, land use, and subsistence can now be examined in detail, allowing specific explanations of these patterns to be advanced. Most new discoveries of Archaic occupation in the Albuquerque Basin have occurred on a landform commonly referred to as the West Mesa, where much of metropolitan Albuquerque’s suburban sprawl has occurred in recent decades. Fewer investigations have been carried out at Archaic sites in the adjacent valleys of the Rios Grande, Jemez, and Puerco, but recent work there has shed new light on the development of preceramic farming (e.g., Brown 1999; Holloway et al. 2002; Walth and Railey 2011). 16



Early Farming and Hunter-Gatherers in the Albuquerque Basin

17

These discoveries have prompted a reevaluation of the prevailing idea that this area witnessed only casual farming during preceramic times (e.g., Schmader 2001; Vierra 2008; Vierra and Ford 2007). The Albuquerque Basin Environment and Paleoclimatic Trends The Albuquerque Basin (Figure 2.1) is filled with thick deposits of Cenozoic-­ age sediments (Bailey 1999:​3; Connell 2004; Connell and Love 2001; Connell et al. 2005; Hall 2005, 2006; Koning and Personius 2002; Maldonado et al. 1999; Personius et al. 2000). Their gravels include chert, ­chalcedony, petrified wood, quartzite, obsidian, rhyolite, and basalt, all of which provided tool stone for the area’s human inhabitants (LeTourneau 2000:​481–​ 483, 488–491). Tectonic forces and erosion have left behind low uplands within the basin floor, the most prominent of which is the West Mesa. Carved into these low uplands are the present-­day valleys of the Rios Grande, Jemez, and Puerco. Today a desert grassland biotic community covers most of the Albuquerque Basin (Brown 1994; Brown and Lowe 1994). Sometimes referred to as “juniper-­savanna” (e.g., Vierra and Foxx 2009), this community has dispersed plant resources that provide seed grains whose nutritional extrac­ tion requires high energy costs (Simms 1987; Toll 1983). Higher up is the piñon-­juniper zone, which contains a higher diversity and greater productivity of wild plant foods than the juniper-­savanna zone (Vierra and Foxx 2009), but which has a limited extent within the Albuquerque Basin, being restricted primarily to its margins. Climate change has important implications for understanding long-­ term trends over the Archaic time frame, which begins during the Alti­ thermal, an interval of near-­global warming (Antevs 1948, 1953, 1955, 1962; Benedict 1979; Blinn et al. 1994; Doerner 2007; Haynes 1975, 1995; Hester 1972; Huckell 1996:​317–318; Johnson and Holliday 1986, 2004; Weng and Jackson 1999). Beginning sometime in the Middle Archaic (3200–1800 bc), effective-­moisture levels increased, and despite some fluctuations, overall wetter conditions continued over most of the Late Archaic (1800 bc– ad 400) (Benedict 1979:​3; Berry and Berry 1986:​312–314; Dello-­Russo 1999:​ 48–59; Grissino-­Mayer 1995; Hogan 1983, 1994; Irwin-­Williams and Haynes 1970:​70; Mehringer 1967; Mehringer et al. 1966; Oldfield and Schoenwetter 1975; Petersen 1981; Smith 2002; Smith and McFaul 1997; Wendlund and

18

Jim A. Railey

Figure 2.1. The Albuquerque Basin and selected sites and locations mentioned in this chapter.

Bryson 1974). In the Albuquerque Basin, wetter conditions are evidenced by a multitude of Middle and Late Archaic sites on now-­dry upland surfaces, as well as buried deposits and paleobotanical remains that suggest micro-­ wetland habitats along many now-­dry arroyos and small drainages on the West Mesa and in the Puerco Valley (Smith 2002). Piñon pine appears to have been more widespread in the Middle and Late Archaic p ­ eriods, judg-



Early Farming and Hunter-Gatherers in the Albuquerque Basin

19

ing from wood charcoal in features located far from present-­day stands of this economically important tree species (e.g., O’Laughlin 2012). These rather salubrious conditions were followed by an apparently catastrophic interval of severe droughts between ad 258 and 489 (Grissino-­Mayer 1995), and this appears to have had serious consequences for late preceramic groups in the Albuquerque Basin. Archaic Archaeology in the Albuquerque Basin For a long time there were very few investigations of Archaic sites in the Albuquerque Basin (e.g., Agogino and Hester 1953; Campbell and Ellis 1952; Reinhart 1967, 1968), so most of what we know today comes from cultural resource management efforts (and spin-­off research) over the past quarter-­ century.1 Archaeologists commonly use Irwin-­Williams’s (1973) Oshara tradition to chronologically frame the Archaic time span in the area, and that convention is followed here. The vast majority of excavation data relates to the Middle and (especially) Late Archaic periods. No sites or intact features known to date from the Early Archaic Jay phase (5500–4800 bc) have been discovered in the Albuquerque Basin, and there are only a few dates from the late Early Archaic Bajada phase (4800–3200 bc). Structures

The remains of at least 77 Archaic structures (including possible structures) have been identified at 41 sites in the Albuquerque Basin (Table 2.1; ­Railey 2013: Appendix B). More than half date from the Late Archaic, while the rest are of Middle Archaic or unknown age. There are no structures known to date from the Early Archaic time frame. Most Archaic structures in the Albuquerque Basin were small huts set in shallow circular or oval pits with unprepared floors. They probably appeared similar to brush-­covered bushman huts in southern Africa (e.g., Yellen 1977:​144) and wickiups observed historically among Great Basin and Apache groups in the American West (Arkush 1987; Gerald 1958; Goodwin 1938:​7; Longacre and Ayres 1968; Shaeffer 1958; Steward 1941:​282, 284; Stewart 1941:​377, 379; Tuohy 1960). Interior hearths are present in slightly over half the structures; for a third the presence or absence of an interior hearth is unknown, usually because the structures were not fully excavated and/or were incompletely preserved. In other words, only nine fully excavated structures have no evidence of an

20

Jim A. Railey

Table 2.1. Archaic structures in the Albuquerque Basin by location and time period Rio Jemez Archaic Period

Middle Late Unknown Totals

n

1 6 3 10

Rio Puerco

%

n

%

10.0 60.0 30.0 100.0

4 3

57.1 42.9 .0 100.0

7

Rio Grande West Mesa n

8 8

%

.0 100.0 .0 100.0

n

%

10 19.2 27 51.9 15 28.9 52 100.0

Totals n

%

% of Known Periods

15 19.5 24.4 44 57.1 74.6 18 23.4 N/A 77 100.0 100.00

Source: Railey 2013: Appendix B.

interior hearth, and interior hearths occur in structures in all three river valleys and on the West Mesa. Hearths were usually offset from center and constructed directly on the structure floor or in small basin pits. Possible storage bins are sometimes present, usually along the structures’ interior edges. Perimeter posts, although rare, are suggestive of comparatively substantial structures and are present in roughly one-­quarter of the structures, but most have few or no associated postholes. There are some notable exceptions to this prevailing pattern. At least one Middle Archaic structure appears to have had a clay or adobe-­like covering on its superstructure (Railey 2004:​254–258). Also, seven unusually large Archaic structures (≥ 5 m [16 ft] in maximum diameter) have been documented in the Albuquerque Basin (Elyea and Sheppard 1999; Gerow and Bargman 1999; Jones-­Bartholomew et al. 2002; Reinhart 1967, 1968; Walth and Railey 2011). Maize and Plant Subsistence

Maize and possible maize remains from confirmed Archaic contexts in the Albuquerque Basin have been found at 10 sites, all in the river valleys (Table  2.2). The earliest dated of these occurrences consists of possible maize phytoliths from a stratigraphically buried feature at LA 133528 in the Puerco Valley. This site produced two radiocarbon dates that ­straddle the Early and Middle Archaic periods (Holloway et al. 2002). If the phytoliths from this feature are indeed maize, and if the associated dates mark their true age, then this would be a remarkable find since it would predate the ­earliest well-­dated occurrences of maize in the Southwest by a millennium or more. Although it is reasonable to question the LA 133528 discovery, it is worth noting that other reported discoveries of maize microfossils in n ­ orthwestern New Mexico also predate the earliest accepted age of



Early Farming and Hunter-Gatherers in the Albuquerque Basin

21

Table 2.2. Archaic period maize and possible maize in the Albuquerque Basin Radiocarbon Dates

LA Site

Maize

Comments

Reference

27632

Two charred cupules

ad 225–550

From a probable roasting pit

Polk 1999

60840

Charred ­fragments

ad 80–383, ad 130–234

Maize from both occupation levels of one or possibly two small shallow pit structure(s)

Gerow 1998

60834

Charred ­remains

ad 300–550

Gerow 1998 From a probable roasting pit; maize reportedly submitted for radiocarbon dating.

110942 Charred maize

360 bc–ad 90

83% maize ubiquity (5 Gerow and of 6 flotation samples) Bargman 1999

110955 One charred cupule

None

123289 Charred maize

5 of 6 dates range 790– 150 bc

3% maize ubiquity from 32 flotation samples

Walth and Railey 2011

123291 Charred maize and phytoliths

13 dates, ranging ca. 400 bc–ad 200

75% maize ubiquity from 40 flotation samples

Walth and Railey 2011

133525 Numerous carbonized fragments

410–160 bc

From probable floor of large structure buried under 1.2 m of sediment

Jones-­ Bartholomew et al. 2002; Hollo­way et al. 2002

133528 Possible maize phytoliths (two cross-shaped specimens)

3310–2910 bc

Large, complex feature, probably a structure, buried under 1.91 m of sediment. Date straddles the Early and Middle Archaic boundary.

Jones-­ Bartholomew et al. 2002; Holloway et al. 2002

131379 Eighteen cupules in one feature and possible maize phytoliths in another

1310–1040 bc; 1250–990 bc

Cupules from possible pithouse buried by .5 m of sediment; phytoliths from a second feature buried by 1.85 m of sediment.

Jones-­ Bartholomew et al. 2002; Holloway et al. 2002

Elyea 1999a

22

Jim A. Railey

maize in the Southwest (Hall 2010; Honeycutt and Fetterman 1994; Horn et al. 2002). Leaving the LA 133528 discovery aside, the earliest maize macrofossils in the Albuquerque Basin date from roughly 1400–1200 bc, during the Armijo phase (1800–800 bc). This is comparable in age to what were recently reported as the earliest occurrences of maize in the northern Rio Grande Valley, at two sites just outside the Albuquerque Basin (Vierra 2008:​77; Vierra and Ford 2006:​502–504, 2007:​119–120). Not only does maize occur with appreciable regularity at excavated Late Archaic sites in the river valleys, but judging from maize ubiquity at two sites (Walth and Railey 2011; Elyea 1999b; Gerow and Bargman 1999), farming dependence appears to have increased substantially by the En Medio phase (800 bc–ad 400). Moreover, by this time selection had already resulted in strains that were altered from the earliest maize varieties in the Southwest (Walth et al. 2011:​286). Also, among the large (≥ 5 m [16 ft]) structures in the river valleys, four out of five contained maize. This riverine pattern contrasts sharply with the West Mesa, where no maize has been recovered in confirmed Archaic contexts, and thus far only one site (Reinhart’s Third Avenue site) has a large structure. The fact that there have been many more excavations at Archaic sites on the West Mesa than in the river valleys, including many more processed flotation samples, accentuates these differences. The contrast does not appear to be attributable to preservation factors, as most river-­valley sites lie on upland surfaces where soil conditions are essentially the same as those where most West Mesa sites are located. Moreover, maize is found in early ceramic-­period contexts on the West Mesa. This includes occurrences that date from the Early Developmental period (ad 400–900) (e.g., Schmader 1990a), and this further undermines any role for preservation factors in explaining the absence of preceramic maize on the mesa. Besides maize, gourd is the only other cultigen present at Archaic sites in the Albuquerque Basin, represented by one occurrence at LA 123291 (Walth and Railey 2011). Otherwise, Archaic people used a wide variety of wild plant foods, including seeds of cheno-­ams, banana yucca, buckwheat, bulrush, dropseed, Indian ricegrass, cholla, prickly pear, piñon, and sunflower (e.g., Elyea and Sheppard 1999:​52; O’Laughlin 2004a; Phillips 2004; Railey 2004:​253–254; Scott-­Cummings and Yost 2012; Walth et al. 2011:​284).



Early Farming and Hunter-Gatherers in the Albuquerque Basin

23

Hunting and Faunal Remains

Faunal remains are not common in Archaic contexts in the A ­ lbuquerque Basin, but a few sites have revealed important details about animal procurement, including big-­game hunting. The favorable environmental conditions of later Archaic times apparently enriched grasslands, which led to an expansion of bison ranges and widespread bison hunting in the southern Plains and at least adjacent portions of the Southwest (Collins 1971; Dillehay 1974; Lensink 1993; Lintz et al. 1991; Lynott 1980; Quigg 1997). This pattern extended to the Albuquerque Basin, as evidenced by bison bones at several Late Archaic sites (Condie and Smith 1992; Hibben 1992; O’Laughlin 2004b; Walth and Railey 2011). Among these is the maize-­rich site of LA 123291, which yielded large mammal bones that may be bison, along with bovine (bison, by default) protein residue on one projectile point (Walth et al. 2011; Yost 2011). Bison was not the only game pursued by Late Archaic people in the Albuquerque Basin. At the Third Avenue site, Reinhart (1967, 1968) recovered a large number of pronghorn and rabbit bones, as well as those of birds and small rodents. Rabbit and deer/pronghorn-­size bones were also recovered at several Archaic sites in the Jemez Valley (Brown 1999). White-­tailed deer was identified at Arroyo Negra, and some of the unidentified medium and large mammal bones there and at nearby Nameless Ravine may include deer, pronghorn, and elk in addition to bison (O’Laughlin 2004b). Both sites also contained rabbit remains, which were especially numerous at Nameless Ravine. Rabbits were also taken in abundance by the inhabitants of LA 123291, where pronghorn and unidentified medium and large mammal remains were also recovered. In addition to the bovine residue on one projectile point at LA 123291, another point contained sheep residue (either Rocky Mountain or desert bighorn), and rabbit residue was identified on a third point (Walth et al. 2011; Yost 2011). Interestingly, no fish bones were found at LA 123291, despite evidence that the site’s inhabitants collected aquatic plant species, probably from the nearby Rio Grande riparian zone (Walth et al. 2011). Mobility Indicators

Taken together, the evidence suggests that most Archaic groups in the Albuquerque Basin were highly mobile hunter-­gatherers. This is indicated by the mostly small, expedient structures (cf. Binford 1990; Kelly 1995:​

24

Jim A. Railey

139–​141) or absence of preserved structural remains; the presence of small, low-­density lithic scatters; and the low numbers of features at most sites. There are exceptions to this prevailing pattern that suggest more ­sustained occupation in some cases. These include the sites with unusually large (≥ 5 m [16 ft] diameter) structures, ubiquitous maize, faunal remains, numerous features, and/or an abundance and high diversity of lithic artifacts. LA 123291 includes all of these indicators (Walth and Railey 2011). On the West Mesa, Reinhart’s (1967, 1968) Third Avenue site included at least one unusually large structure (perhaps two), numerous pronghorn and rabbit bones, a high diversity of artifact types, and a spatially discrete refuse area. Not far from Third Avenue is the Arroyo Negra site (Higgins and Lundquist 2004:​43–73; Marshall 1995:​59–64), which also contained a sheet midden with abundant artifacts and faunal remains. The bison and large mammal remains from Arroyo Negra indicate that the animals were killed elsewhere, and only the choicest body parts were transported back to the site. This contrasts with the nearby (and less intensively occupied) Nameless Ravine, where the bison/large mammal bones suggest a local kill (O’Laughlin 2004b). Local variation in Late Archaic mobility strategies is also indicated by lithic assemblages from five Late Archaic components at four closely spaced sites in the Enchanted Hills area (Railey 2012a:428–438; 2012b). Each component had one or more small huts, and four had lithic assemblages, suggesting they were short-­term residential sites of highly mobile hunter-­ gatherers. But the Holiday site was distinct from the rest, consisting of a logistical workshop focused on the production of bifaces and projectile point preforms from the locally abundant chalcedony. The differences between Holiday and the other four site components suggest that both logistically and residentially mobile strategies were used by Late Archaic groups in the area. Storage and storage pits often figure prominently in discussions of Archaic mobility and subsistence strategies in northern New Mexico (e.g., Hogan 1994:​161; Vierra 1983, 1985, 1990, 1994; Vierra and Doleman 1994), but recognizable storage pits are exceedingly rare in Archaic contexts in the Albuquerque Basin. Bell-­shaped pits are among the most distinctive of underground storage facilities, but these occur at only a few Late Archaic sites in the area. All are very small and occur in contexts suggesting use by both mobile hunter-­gatherers (e.g., Railey 2012a:271–273; Railey and Lund-



Early Farming and Hunter-Gatherers in the Albuquerque Basin

25

Figure 2.2. Archaic archaeological radiocarbon dates from the Albuquerque Basin. The counts are based on per-century fractions of the two-sigma, calibrated range for each radiocarbon date (n = 382).

quist 2012:​150–151) and more-­settled early farming groups (e.g., Walth and Railey 2011:​78–79, 88). Radiocarbon Dates and Demographic Trends

There are now at least 383 radiocarbon dates from 145 sites in the Albuquerque Basin with two-­sigma calibrations falling after the Paleoindian time frame and prior to ad 600 (Walth and Railey 2011: Appendix H). Slightly more than half of the radiocarbon-­dated sites are on the West Mesa. Although archaeologists working in the area recently have been more careful to select (whenever possible) twigs and annuals from Archaic sites for radio­carbon dating (e.g., Railey 2012a; Walth and Railey 2011), many of the Albuquerque Basin dates are potentially susceptible to the “old-­wood problem” (Schiffer 1986; Baker et al. 2008). Dello-­Russo (1999:​122–152) grappled with this problem by adjusting dates from Archaic sites in the area, but for various reasons no similar adjustment was attempted for this study. The cumulative frequency of Archaic dates over time is shown in Figure 2.2. The dates are subdivided by three contexts: riverine, Enchanted Hills, and West Mesa. Although Enchanted Hills is technically on the West Mesa, it could have been easily accessed on day trips from settlements in

26

Jim A. Railey

the nearby Rio Grande and Jemez Valleys. Moreover, the many dates from Enchanted Hills show a frequency trend line different from the rest of the West Mesa, and so it is useful to separate it out for analytical purposes. Radiocarbon frequency trends have been used as a demographic measure in the Southwest and elsewhere (e.g., Benedict 1979; Berry 1982; Berry and Berry 1986; Jones et al. 1999; Miller and Kenmotsu 2004; Railey et al. 2011). In addition to demography, the radiocarbon-­frequency trend lines for the three areas in the Albuquerque Basin are also attributable to changes and variation in land-­use patterns, site visibility and preservation, and the history of archaeological investigations. The West Mesa and Enchanted Hills frequency curves probably reflect demography and land-­use patterns more directly than does the riverine trend line, at least for the early and middle portions of the Archaic time span in the river valleys. It is likely that the river corridors served as refugia during the Altithermal, but this is at odds with the absence of Early Archaic dates from the riverine zone. For the Middle Archaic period and early Late Archaic Armijo phase, it is highly doubtful that there were fewer people in the river valleys than on the mesa. Rather, these patterns are probably explained by at least two factors. First, it is likely that fluvial processes have disproportionately affected river valley sites, especially older ones, having destroyed some via erosion and burying others under alluvial sediments (e.g., Brown 1999; Jones-­ Bartholomew et  al. 2002; Railey 2004). As a result, there is probably a disproportionate under-­representation of older Archaic sites in the river valleys compared to the West Mesa. Second, along the river valleys most development occurred prior to regulations mandating consideration of impacts to archaeological sites, and many Archaic sites were probably destroyed or covered over with little notice. In contrast, development on the West Mesa (including Enchanted Hills) has occurred in recent decades, following the promulgation and implementation of mandated regulations. Thus, Archaic sites have been documented and investigated with much more regularity on the West Mesa (including Enchanted Hills) than in the river valleys. Still, these various factors do not easily explain frequency trends for the En Medio phase, when the number of dates increases dramatically for the river valleys, whereas those from the West Mesa show a sharp decline. This trend is probably indicative of four factors: (1) depopulation of, and/or de-­emphasis of Late Archaic activity on, the West Mesa (but not Enchanted



Early Farming and Hunter-Gatherers in the Albuquerque Basin

27

Hills) by local En Medio phase peoples; (2) a dramatic rise in population levels and greater concentration of occupation in the river valleys (which is probably related to the first factor); (3) an increase in the number of intensively occupied (and highly visible) sites in the river valleys during the En Medio phase; and (4) amelioration of fluvial factors that may have adversely affected the visibility or preservation of older sites in the river valleys. Explaining Archaic Prehistory in the Albuquerque Basin With the now-­abundant data on the Archaic period in the Albuquerque Basin, we can chart demographic and land-­use trends in appreciable detail, and begin to explore several important questions surrounding the impact of early farming and the fate of the area’s Archaic hunter-­gatherers. What happened to local hunter-­gatherers in this particular area during and after the initial introduction of maize and other domesticated species? What are the settlement and subsistence implications of Late Archaic sites without maize — ​which includes all known Archaic sites on the West Mesa? Are they the remains of seasonal or other short-­term camps left by groups who moved between the river valleys and West Mesa, including those who engaged in farming in the river valleys? Or were Late Archaic sites on West Mesa occupied by full-­time hunter-­gatherers who perhaps had been marginalized by river valley groups practicing food production? Do some West Mesa Late Archaic sites represent temporary reversions to mobile hunting and gathering by early farmers? Or, considering the long span of the Archaic period, does some combination of all three scenarios account for the West Mesa Archaic sites? Definitive answers to these and other questions remain elusive, but we can explore plausible scenarios that are compatible with the observed evidence. To begin, it is useful to consider data on hunter-­gatherer demographics, mobility, and territorial sizes, and how these might relate to the Archaic occupation of the Albuquerque Basin. The radiocarbon evidence clearly suggests substantial population increases in the Albuquerque Basin over the Archaic time span. The number of dates for the entire basin increases almost five times from the end of the Early Archaic (3200 bc) to the middle of the Armijo phase (1300 bc), for an annual increase of .084 percent. This is well below the maximum potential population growth rates estimated for hunter-­gatherers, which

28

Jim A. Railey

range from .3 to 4.0 percent per annum (see Belovsky 1988:​347), but far exceeds Hassan’s (1981:​208) estimate of .005–.01 percent annually for the actual growth rate of Holocene hunter-­gatherers. The rate of increase for the radiocarbon dates is, however, below Hassan’s (1973) estimated annual growth rate of .1 percent for Neolithic populations and well below more recent estimates of population growth for the first stage of the Neolithic demographic transition (e.g., Bandy 2005, 2010; Bocquet-­Appel 2002, 2008). Of course, the rate of increase for radiocarbon dates is, at best, only an approximate indicator of population growth from the end of the Early Archaic until ca. 1300 bc and could also reflect other factors, including changes in mobility (i.e., groups with high mobility tend to create more sites with radiocarbon-­datable contexts than less mobile groups). The potential for population growth among Archaic hunter-­gatherers in the Albuquerque Basin was probably linked to environmental conditions. An increased biomass, resulting from more favorable climatic conditions beginning in the Middle Archaic and continuing through much of the Late Archaic, may have allowed for a population growth rate higher than the average for Holocene hunter-­gatherers. As new water sources appeared on the West Mesa, groups could begin exploiting this area more intensively, and the radiocarbon-­frequency trend line appears to reflect this. Interestingly, the rate of increase for the radiocarbon dates, both for the West Mesa and the basin as a whole, slows after 1300 bc. Based on current evidence, this is very close to the advent of maize cultivation in the area. Since it is widely accepted that farming allows for much higher population growth rates than is possible for mobile hunter-­gatherers, it would appear that the slower rate of increase in radiocarbon dates after 1300 bc is not a very good reflection of actual basinwide population trends. Fluctuations in climatic conditions during this time may have resulted in periodic contractions of the area’s biomass, which in turn could have negatively affected population growth, even with an increased reliance on farming. But the slowed increase in radiocarbon dates after 1300 bc may be due to changes in land use and mobility rather than a reduction in the population growth rate. Ethnographic data on population densities are also worth considering. Johnson and Earle (1987:​19) report that family/camp groups (which are exclusively hunter-­gatherers) have population densities of less than one person per 10 square miles (26 km2) (i.e., < .04 persons per km2), while family/hamlet groups (which may engage in horticulture and storage)



Early Farming and Hunter-Gatherers in the Albuquerque Basin

29

have densities of 1–20 persons per 10 square miles (i.e., .04–.77 persons per km2). Similarly, others have noted population densities for hunter-­gatherers usually falling below .1 persons per square mile (< .04 persons per km²), with early, non-­irrigation farming allowing estimated densities of around 4 persons per square mile (1.5 persons per km²) (Hassan 1973:​538; Hole et al. 1969). Assuming that all Archaic groups in the Albuquerque Basin fall within Johnson and Earle’s family level of group organization, then basin population levels potentially ranged from less than 275 to more than 5,200. The upper end of this range is almost certainly unrealistic for at least most of the preceramic time frame in the basin, as it approaches estimates of population density for the Pueblo periods in the northern Southwest (e.g., Duff and Wilshusen 2000). Native population densities in the Great Basin, perhaps the closest analogue for at least the earlier portion of the Archaic time frame in the Albuquerque Basin, ranged from .01–.19 persons per km2 (.026–.49 persons per square mile)(Kelly 1995: Table 6.4). Applying these numbers to the Albuquerque Basin (6,877 km2) yields a potential Archaic population range of approximately 70 to 1,300 persons. With the addition of farming in the Late Archaic period, higher population densities are certainly conceivable. Along with population numbers, it is also important to consider group sizes and annual ranges for ethnographic hunter-­gatherers and early farmers. Both theoretical models and empirical evidence suggest that among highly mobile hunter-­gatherers the basic, closely knit group size averages 25 persons, or 5 to 6 nuclear families (Birdsell 1968; Braun 1991; Johnson 1982, 1989; Johnson and Earle 1987:​19, 320; Kelly 1995:​210–213; Williams 1981). Larger aggregations of mobile hunter-­gatherers occurred seasonally and/or periodically for specific economic, social, or ceremonial reasons (see Hamilton et al. 2007; Johnson and Earle 1987:​28–61; Kelly 1995:​ 213–221), but the 25-­person average is fairly constant cross-­culturally. As for mobility and territorial ranges, ethnographic data suggest that daily, one-­way effective foraging distances for hunter-­gatherers rarely exceed 10 km (6 miles) from a campsite (Binford 1983:​380; Cane 1987:​395; Endicott and Endicott 1986:​150; Hitchcock and Ebert 1984; Irimoto 1981:127; Kelly 1995:​132–141; Kuchikura 1987; Lee 1968:​31; McClellan 1975:​100; Tanaka 1980:​66; Tindale 1972:​245; Vickers 1989; Vierra 1994:​121–122). Outside the daily foraging radius, Binford (1983:​380) defined the logistical zone, which is exploited by individuals or small groups and involves travel distances and

30

Jim A. Railey

overnight stays of varying lengths. At even greater distances are extended or visiting zones (Binford 1982:​8, 1983:​380–381), which may not be directly exploited during an annual round but are monitored for resource availability by either direct observation or through contact and information sharing with other groups. Assuming a daily foraging radius of 10 km (6 miles), many groups could have moved on a daily basis between much of the West Mesa and the river valleys, while some could conceivably have ­restricted foraging and hunting activities to the mesa, at least during portions of a given year. Given the configuration of the West Mesa (which merges smoothly with the Rio Grande and lower Jemez floodplains but drops off into the Puerco Valley and most of the Jemez Valley along high, sharp escarpments), foot travel between the river valleys and mesa would have been much more feasible on the east side of the basin than on the west. Annual foraging ranges vary widely among ethnographically known hunter-­gatherers. Vierra (1994:​122, Table 1) reports a range of 450–13,000 km2 (173–5,000 square miles) for 14 hunter-­gatherer groups, and data provided by Kelly (1995: Table 4.1) show an even wider range (although at the smaller end of the range reported by Kelly are mostly sedentary hunter-­gatherers of the Pacific Coast). Among Great Basin hunter-­gatherers, annual foraging ranges reported by Kelly (1995: Table 4–1) are 706 km2 (273 square miles) for the Southern Paiute, 1,964 km2 (558 square miles) for the Owens Valley Paiute, and 2,327 km2 (898 square miles) for the Washo. For many hunter-­gatherer groups in the Great Basin and Southwest, seasonal access to vertically arrayed resource zones was key to their subsistence economies. In grassland and scrub zones at lower elevations, the availability of key plant resources peaked in the spring through early autumn, while at higher elevations the resource peak occurred in the fall (Hogan 1994; Toll and Cully 1983, 1994; Vierra and Foxx 2009). Among the most critical of the higher-­elevation zones is the piñon-­juniper woodland, where the availability of food resources (principally nuts, berries, grass seed, and large game animals) peaked in the autumn and constituted the greatest abundance of natural food resources to be found anywhere in the Southwest in any season (Wills 1988a:461). Historic hunter-­gatherers in the Great Basin and Southwest maintained annual ranges and group territories that allowed them to exploit the seasonal variation in resource availability in different elevation zones (e.g., Goodwin 1938; Steward 1941), and similar patterns have been inferred for Archaic hunter-­gatherers in



Early Farming and Hunter-Gatherers in the Albuquerque Basin

31

the Southwest (e.g., Doleman 2005; Hogan 1994; Toll and Cully 1983, 1994; Vierra and Doleman 1994:​77; Wills 1988a:462, 1992, 1995; Wills and Huckell 1994). These seasonal-­mobility models involve at least an implicit assumption that Archaic hunter-­gatherers were generally free to move over long distances; however, to what extent these mobility scenarios are applicable to the entire Archaic time frame in the Albuquerque Basin (or elsewhere in the Southwest) remains an open question. Several considerations should be taken into account before uncritically assuming that all Archaic hunter-­ gatherers in the area pursued this kind of vertically zoned seasonal mobility, and these considerations have implications for our understanding of the advent and development of farming in the area. In contrast to many parts of the Southwest, the extent of piñon-­juniper woodlands within and along the margins of the Albuquerque Basin is mostly very limited. True, these piñon-­juniper patches and belts are no more than 30 km (less than 20 miles) from any of the Albuquerque ­area’s major streams. Moreover, as noted above, piñon pine may have been more extensive within the Albuquerque Basin during at least portions of the Archaic period. Still, patches of piñon pine were probably always less extensive here than in many other parts of the Southwest. One possible adaptation to these conditions was a highly mobile, wide-­ ranging foraging pattern for Archaic hunter-­gatherers in the Albuquerque Basin (Hogan 1994:​158). Distances between the interior basin floor and piñon-­juniper zones in the Albuquerque area are well within the annual ranges of historically documented hunter-­gatherers, and at least some Archaic peoples in the Albuquerque Basin probably covered these distances to access the seasonal abundance of resources in the nearby mountains. The presence of piñon hulls at LA 123291 (Walth and Railey 2011), for example, shows that the occupants of this river-­valley site procured this important resource, probably in the narrow piñon-­juniper belt along the Sandia Mountains immediately to the east. As for the lowlands, both the river valleys and West Mesa are part of the basin floor, and with the exception of a limited patch of piñon at its far northwestern corner, the West Mesa offers little in terms of food resources that could not also be found in the surrounding river valleys. During the early portions of the Archaic period (i.e., during the Early Archaic and at least the earlier portion of the Middle Archaic), when population levels were low and group ranges were probably very extensive, summer foraging

32

Jim A. Railey

may have been so dispersed that hunter-­gatherers spread out across the entire basin floor (including the West Mesa) to exploit the spring through early autumn florescence of food resources before moving to the distant piñon-­juniper woodlands in the fall. With low population densities hunter-­ gatherers could have maintained a high level of foraging efficiency through high residential mobility, frequent camp relocations, and movement tied to the seasonal availability of food resources (Kelly 1995:​111–148). The main factor limiting mobility options during the Altithermal was probably the absence or scarcity of surface water on the West Mesa and other areas away from the rivers. Still, the potential roles of population growth and intergroup conflict raise hard questions in terms of how long such a widely dispersed foraging pattern could have been maintained. Rather than assuming unencumbered mobility over the entire course of the Archaic time span, it’s possible that population growth eventually led to constraints on mobility and group-­ foraging ranges in the Albuquerque Basin. A related assumption is that migration to areas outside the Albuquerque Basin was not a viable option for most groups since population levels and land use appear to have expanded sharply across the Southwest during the Late Archaic (cf. Berry and Berry 1986; Carmichael 1986; Mallouf 1985, 2005:​219; Miller and Kenmotsu 2004:​226). Moreover, constraints on mobility were probably exacerbated during intervals of climatic downturns and associated subsistence stress. Among the potential outcomes of this long-­term process were territorial circumscription, intensified competition, and the advent and development of farming. In other words, the long-­term patterning we see in the archaeological record of the Albuquerque Basin Archaic can be profitably explained by the interplay of three factors: (1) sociopolitical dynamics, (2) climate change, and (3) population growth. The explanation pursued here is rooted in the thesis that population growth and climate change had profound implications for hunter-­gatherers and early farmers throughout the American West. This includes substantial population growth during boom times, with creeping subsistence and demographic stress over time, and acute stress during periods of reduced effective moisture (see Jones et al. 1999:​139). Although I emphasize the role of population packing here, I do not strictly follow density-­dependent models that assume a diminished diversity of food resources as the extent of group-­foraging ranges began to shrink (e.g., Binford 1983; Hunter-­Anderson 1986). Evidence from the Al-



Early Farming and Hunter-Gatherers in the Albuquerque Basin

33

buquerque Basin suggests that the diversity of utilized resources may have actually increased during droughts (Dello-­Russo 1999; Vierra 2011:​32). This evidence could be seen as an indicator that as individual plant species declined in numbers and productivity during droughts, and the potential quantity of food from particular plants decreased as population density increased (regardless of environmental conditions), Archaic ­foragers were forced to broaden their focus to include more diverse resources. Maize could have been added to the diet as part of this diversification strategy. If so, some local groups may have considered the higher energy costs for producing maize (compared to collecting wild seeds) worth it. Moreover, compared to most wild seeds, maize offered a higher potential output per unit of land and lower processing costs, and these advantages would have helped offset the higher costs associated with crop production (i.e., tilling, planting, and watering). Such a strategy is potentially consistent with the expectations of optimal foraging principles as emphasized in diet-­breadth and risk-­reduction models (e.g., Barlow 2002, 2006; Phillips 2009), which are sometimes juxtaposed against density-­dependent models (e.g., Vierra 2011:​32). Rather than an either/or option, I see room for both population packing, as stressed in density-­dependent models, as well as factors stressed in diet-­breadth models. In other words, as populations increased and more and more people foraged within a given area, it makes sense that they would have utilized a wider variety of plants and, at some point, added cultivated maize to the diet. Social competition was probably another important cata­ lyst in this long-­term process (Hayden 1995a, 1995b, 2001, 2009). With the organizational flexibility typical of hunter-­gatherers, as populations grew, social groups could have simply fissioned, with the numbers of self-­similar structures multiplying as a result (Hamilton et al. 2007). Accordingly, and assuming that hunter-­gatherers in the Albuquerque Basin maintained close-­knit groups averaging 25 persons each (see above), then the number of such groups simply multiplied with population growth. This, in turn, implies progressively smaller group territories, but under improved environmental conditions and expansion of available biomass, the fission process could potentially proceed for a long time before ­serious resource limits and stress were encountered. Even under the best of ­conditions such a process would eventually reach its limits, however, and with any downturn in environmental conditions those limits would be encountered sooner rather than later.

34

Jim A. Railey

When such limits were encountered, and in the absence of any fundamental social and economic restructuring that might otherwise create polities capable of accommodating and integrating larger numbers of people, it is expected that competition and conflict ensued and/or intensified. Continued population growth may have imposed increasing constraints on mobility for Late Archaic hunter-­gatherers in the Albuquerque Basin. Such pressures would expectably lead to increasing negotiation over access to certain valued, spatially-­restricted resource patches (such as riparian or piñon-­juniper zones) and might even lead some individuals and groups to at least attempt to control access to such resources through incipient land-­ tenure systems (cf., Adler 1996; Eerkens 1999; Kelly 1995:​181–201; Kohler 1992; Smith 1988). Travel to distant resource patches may have become an increasingly difficult option if other people had already laid claims to such resources and were ready to defend them against outsiders. Hunter-­ gatherers were no strangers to violent conflict, and in fact homicide rates documented for small-­scale societies tend to be proportionately higher than those among larger, more complex societies (e.g., Ember and Ember 1992; Keeley 1996). As a result of this ongoing dynamic, some groups may have lost reliable access to the more extensive piñon-­juniper patches around and beyond the basin’s margins. Some perhaps even lost regular access to the river valleys and began to occupy the West Mesa on a more sustained basis. By Middle Archaic times, at least some local hunter-­gatherers began spending the colder months on the mesa, as evidenced by huts with interior hearths. As noted above, interior hearths are found in Middle and Late Archaic structures on both the mesa and in the river valleys, suggesting people were overwintering (or spending at least parts of the colder season) in both places. As a result of population packing, group fission, and the reduction of foraging ranges, some groups — ​perhaps as early as the Middle Archaic — ​ may have focused most or all of their annual rounds on the West Mesa, while others stuck closer to the river valleys. Potential evidence for residential basing on the West Mesa becomes stronger over time, with En Medio-­ phase sites such as Third Avenue and Arroyo Negra. These sites do not necessarily indicate year-­round occupation of the West Mesa by Archaic peoples, as either or both could have been occupied by groups who ranged



Early Farming and Hunter-Gatherers in the Albuquerque Basin

35

between the river valleys and the mesa. In fact, most Late Archaic sites on the mesa indicate a prevailing pattern of high residential mobility. But with population packing and on-­going group fission, mobility options were probably increasingly limited, and some marginalized groups may have spent all or most of their time on the West Mesa. Over time, occupation and use of the West Mesa (which peaked in the Armijo phase) would have impacted available resources, not the least of which was firewood. The West Mesa is very lightly-­wooded, with scattered stands of juniper and (much less plentiful and less extensive) piñon providing the only sources of quality firewood, as well as structural materials for Archaic huts (e.g., Murrell 2009:​49). O’Laughlin (2009; 2012) has presented macrobotanical data that suggest the following trend in firewood use and depletion over the course of the Archaic period on the West Mesa. Dead tree wood on the ground surface would have presented the best and most easily collected fuel, followed by dead wood pulled and chopped from other­wise living or recently-­dead trees. As dead wood was depleted, people were forced to burn more green wood and leaves, with one result being the common occurrence, and increasing frequency, of charred juniper seeds in archaeological features on the West Mesa. Finally, as trees became severely depleted on the West Mesa, people turned to more abundant but lower-­ quality fuel sources such as saltbush and greasewood. The ubiquity of these shrubby taxa peaks in West Mesa flotation samples during the Armijo and En Medio phases. Meanwhile, in the river valleys Archaic hunter-­gatherers enjoyed access to a more abundant and densely concentrated resource base. This included a much higher density of tree species (cottonwoods, willows, etc.) for use as fuel wood, construction material, and various tools. Also, unlike the excessively drained, sandy soils on the West Mesa, the river valleys offered fertile, alluvial sediments suited to farming, including patches at arroyo mouths along the floodplain edge that were probably suited to akchin farming (see Walth and Railey 2011:​340–341). In keeping with the model advanced here, the development of farming was probably spurred by a need to increase the carrying capacity of group territories in the face of the ongoing dynamic of population growth, social fission, territorial circumscription, competition, and occasional downturns in the available biomass.

36

Jim A. Railey

At the same time, the complete absence of preceramic maize on the West Mesa suggests that this upland landform either continued to be occupied by mobile hunter-­gatherers through the Late Archaic period and/or was utilized seasonally or logistically by river-­valley groups who simply did not carry much (or any) maize during their forays onto the mesa. Either way, radiocarbon evidence suggests that occupation and use of the West Mesa declined during the En Medio phase, while over the same period basin-­wide population levels continued to increase. Most of this increase is now evidenced by river-­valley dates, suggesting occupation and activity there intensified. The two trends are almost certainly interrelated, with the combined effects of continued population growth, climatic instability, territorial circumscription, depletion of firewood and other resources on the West Mesa, competition, and development of incipient land-­tenure systems probably “pulling” people off the mesa and into the river valleys. The net result was an increasing emphasis on farming, a gradual de-­emphasis on highly mobile hunting and gathering, and declining use of the West Mesa as people became more “tethered” to the river valleys. To the extent that this scenario is accurate, then increasing numbers of local Late Archaic groups probably shifted away from residential mobility to more logistical strategies of resource procurement. This could have included procurement forays from river-­valley settlements onto nearby portions of the West Mesa, such as the Enchanted Hills area with its abundant lithic nodules. The En Medio phase lithic workshop at the Holiday site (discussed above) may evidence such logistical use of the area by a group based in the nearby river valleys (Railey 2012a, 2012b). The increased frequency of radiocarbon dates in Enchanted Hills during the En Medio phase — ​which stands in contrast to the marked decline of dates during this phase for the rest of the West Mesa — ​is also consistent with intensified logistical use of this area by groups based in the nearby river valleys. Higher up on the West Mesa, at least some Late Archaic hunter-­gatherers may have opted for a more logistical strategy, aimed in part at defending the resources within their territories. Such a move could help explain the appearance of intensively occupied residential sites such as Third Avenue and Arroyo Negra. Even during the En Medio phase, however, there is evidence to suggest that residential mobility strategies were still operating in the area, including sites in Enchanted Hills (Railey 2012a, 2012b; see above). The observed



Early Farming and Hunter-Gatherers in the Albuquerque Basin

37

variability suggests two possible scenarios. One involves the coexistence of highly mobile hunter-­gatherers with more settled, logistically oriented groups based in the nearby river valleys and at certain locations on the West Mesa. Assuming there were two distinct populations, then it follows that the West Mesa remained largely the domain of mobile hunter-­gatherers, who were perhaps marginalized by early agriculturalists. Such a scenario is purely hypothetical but is worth considering in light of the evidence. In the other scenario, subsistence and mobility strategies may simply have been highly varied and dynamic over the course of the Late Archaic, with groups shifting between residentially mobile and more logistical strategies depending on a variety of conditions. In any event, over the course of the late Armijo and En Medio phases, mobile hunter-­gatherers were probably outcompeted, and/or absorbed, by hunter-­gatherer-farmers based in the river valleys. Whether the earliest farmers in the area were “immigrants” armed with agricultural technology or “indigenous” hunter-­gatherers who adopted farming (or both) is unknown. Either way, some hunter-­gatherers based on the West Mesa may simply have given up their highly mobile lifeway and moved to the river valleys to practice at least part-­time farming. Insofar as this is true, the “haves” (river-­valley groups engaged in farming) would have had increasing incentive to defend their territories along the riparian zones against the “have nots” (mobile hunter-­gatherers living in an increasingly precarious social and natural environment). This conflict-­based scenario does not preclude the possibility of at least occasional symbioses between West Mesa and river-­valley groups. But it is hard to imagine what resources the West Mesa had to offer that could not also have been obtained in and near the river valleys; the same juniper-­ savanna zone that covers the West Mesa also flanks the riparian strips. One possibility is that West Mesa hunters traded meat and other game products to the valley dwellers in exchange for maize and perhaps other goods, but at present there is no evidence for this. In fact, we know from the archaeological record that bison and other big game were hunted on the West Mesa, East Mesa, and in the river valleys. Even at LA 123291 — ​the basin site with best evidence of preceramic farming dependence — ​there are comparatively high numbers of projectile points that, along with faunal remains (including both animal bone and protein residues on projectile points),

38

Jim A. Railey

suggest big-­game hunting may have been staged directly out of this river-­ valley settlement (Walth and Railey 2011:​346–361). If so, then at least some of the area’s early farmers apparently were quite capable of procuring big game themselves. Moreover, the absence of maize from Archaic sites on the West Mesa further undermines any scenario featuring resource symbiosis between valley and mesa groups. The notion of two contemporary but separate Late Archaic adaptations in the Albuquerque Basin remains largely hypothetical, and there is still the very likely possibility that many (if not most, or even all) Late Archaic groups ranged between the valley and mesa, exploiting the scattered resources of the basin floor through both residential and logistical mobility. Early agriculture was probably risky, and it is easily conceivable that some Late Archaic groups in the area occasionally abandoned farming to resume mobile hunting and gathering, including some sustained forays onto the West Mesa. In other words, mobility, subsistence strategies, and social organization may have been very dynamic and flexible over the course of the Late Archaic period. Evidence suggests that gradual depopulation of the West Mesa over the course of the En Medio phase was very likely the result of not only a “pull” created by the development of farming and expanded carrying capacity of the river valleys, but also by a “push” prompted by deteriorating climatic conditions, firewood depletion, and social competition. The catastrophic drought that began in ad 258 may have been the final blow to Archaic occupation of the West Mesa, and this period corresponds to a further intensification of farming and greater commitment to more sedentary life in the river valleys, and eventually to fundamental shifts in social and economic organization. By the time the drought abated in the sixth century, people had come to rely so heavily on valley-­based farming that, with few exceptions (e.g., Schmader 1990a), the West Mesa never again hosted sustained occupation by native peoples. The earliest ceramic-­period occupants of the Albuquerque Basin were farmers living in pithouses that were much more architecturally complex and substantially built than even the largest structures of the Archaic period (e.g., Acklen et al. 1995; Hammack et al. 1983; Peckham 1957; Schmader 1988, 1990a, 1990b, 1990c, 1993, 1994; Walth 1999). These archaeological indicators are all part of a fundamental transformation of lifeways that set the stage for the more impressive developments of the area’s late prehistoric Pueblo dwellers.



Early Farming and Hunter-Gatherers in the Albuquerque Basin

39

Conclusion An intensive flurry of archaeological investigations over the past two decades has resulted in a veritable explosion of evidence pertaining to the Archaic period in the Albuquerque Basin. Until now, this rich body of data has remained largely buried in contract reports that have not been widely circulated. As a result, the Albuquerque Basin Archaic has remained “in the shadows” even as much less abundant evidence for the Archaic p ­ eriod, from areas immediately to the north, has been published in scholarly venues (e.g., Post 2002; Vierra 2008, 2011; Vierra and Ford 2006, 2007). The sheer volume of new data provides not only a vivid picture of patterns and trends for the Archaic period in the Albuquerque area, but also prompts us to explore detailed explanations about hunter-­gatherers and the advent of farming. Moreover, the long-­term, profound changes evident in this data encourage us to rethink static models of Archaic hunter-­gatherer subsistence and settlement in the Southwest in favor of more dynamic and diachronic processes that enveloped the lives of Archaic peoples and eventually led to the momentous developments of post-­Archaic times. As for the advent of farming, some of the earlier, more influential discussions of agricultural beginnings in the Southwest emphasized the important role of the piñon-­juniper zone, a very gradual adoption of farming, and a low dependence on agriculture in the preceramic time frame (e.g., Minnis 1985, 1992; Wills 1988a, 1988b, 1989, 1992; Wills and Huckell 1994; see also Doleman 2005; Vierra and McBrinn, this volume). In contrast, in the Albuquerque Basin the importance of river-­valley-based farming (evidenced by high maize ubiquity) is clearly evident, along with (perhaps) a minimal role for the piñon-­juniper zone in the shift to farming. In this respect, evidence from the Albuquerque Basin contributes to an emerging picture of tremendous regional and contextual diversity for early farming in the Southwest. Acknowledgments The recent explosion of information on the Archaic time frame in the Albuquerque Basin stems from the efforts of many people and organizations. Much of the work has been supported by the New Mexico Department of Transportation, PNM, and various other entities that funded the many cultural resource management projects in the Albuquerque area. Various government-­agency archaeologists have also been very supportive of this work, including Jan Biella of the New Mexico Historic Preservation Division, Matt Schmader at the City of Albuquerque, and John ­Schelberg,

40

Jim A. Railey

now retired from the US Army Corps of Engineers’ Albuquerque District. In pursuing this research over the years, I have benefited from a very positive spirit of camaraderie with my erstwhile business competitors, who have freely shared radiocarbon dates, copies of their contract reports, and other information — ​sometimes before their results were published. Among these generous colleagues are Kirsten Campbell, Richard Chapman, Carol Condie, Toni Goar, Teresa Hurt, Jesse Murrell, Matt Schmader, and Gerry Raymond. Brad Vierra has generously shared copies of his many publications, including his stimulating ideas about Archaic hunter-­ gatherers in the region. Matt Schmader has offered useful comments that helped temper some of my more outlandish interpretations about the Albuquerque Basin Archaic. Lance Lundquist, with whom I was fortunate enough to work for several years, was the first to examine the long-­term frequency patterning of radiocarbon dates in the Albuquerque Basin. In this chapter he will certainly recognize some ideas whose seeds he planted. Tom O’Laughlin has analyzed a multitude of flotation samples from the area for more than a decade now, and his data and interpretations have made a big contribution to this collective effort. At SWCA I also had the privilege to work with Cherie Walth and Rebecca Schwendler on two major data recovery projects that produced an abundance of Archaic period data. Thanks also to the University of New Mexico’s Department of Anthropology for granting me adjunct faculty status, through which my research for this chapter was greatly expedited. Finally, I offer special thanks to my employer, SWCA, for the chance to work on so many exciting projects and for granting me a paid, two-­week sabbatical to work on this chapter, without which its completion would have been a much less enjoyable task.

Notes 1. The numerous excavations at Archaic sites in the Albuquerque area over the past 25 years are reported in Acklen et al. 1995; Brandi and Dilley 1998; Brown 1999; Campbell 2008; Carlson 2009; Condie and others 2005; Condie and Smith 1992, 2007; Dello-­Russo 1999; Dilley and Schmader 2008; D ­ illey et al. 1998; ­Estes 2009; Gerow 1998; Higgins and Lundquist 2004; Jones-­Bartholomew and others 2002; Kennedy and others 1998; Kovacik 1998; Lundquist 2005; Murrell 2009; Railey 2012a, 2013; Railey and Lundquist 2012; Raymond and others 2008; Rio Grande Consultants 1995; Schmader 2001; Schmader and others 2006; Schwendler and Railey 2009; Seymour and others 1997; Turnbow et al. 1997; VanPool and VanPool 2003; and Walth and Railey 2011.

References Acklen, John C., John A. Evaskovich, David V. Hill, Richard D. Holmes, William B. Hudspeth, Dorothy L. Larson, Phillipe D. Le Tourneau, David P. Staley, and Christopher A. Turnbow 1995 Data Recovery at the LA 100419 and LA 100420 Albuquerque International Airport Expansion, Bernalillo County, New Mexico. Report No. 11288-­0020. TRC Mariah Associates, Inc., Albuquerque, New Mexico.



Early Farming and Hunter-Gatherers in the Albuquerque Basin

41

Adler, Michael A. 1996 Land Tenure, Archaeology, and the Ancestral Pueblo Social Landscape. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 15(4):337–371. Agogino, George A., and J. J. Hester 1953 The Santa Ana Pre-­Ceramic Sites. El Palacio 60(4):131–140. Antevs, Ernst 1948 Climatic Changes and Pre-­White Man. University of Utah Bulletin 38:​168– 191. 1953 Climatic History and the Antiquity of Man in California. University of Cal­ ifornia Archaeological Survey Reports 16:​23–31. 1955 Geologic-­Climatic Dating in the West. American Antiquity 20(4):317–335. 1962 Late Quaternary Climates in Arizona. American Antiquity 28(2):193–198. Arkush, Brooke S. 1987 Historic Northern Paiute Winter Houses in Mono Basin, California. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 9(2):174–187. Bailey, Nicole 1999 Geomorphology of West Mesa: An Overview. In Archaeological Testing Plan for 25 Sites along the Paseo del Volcan Corridor, Bernalillo and Sandoval Counties, New Mexico, by David A. Phillips, Jr., pp. 3–5. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Baker, Steven G., Jeffrey S. Dean, and Ronald H. Towner 2008 Final Report for the Old Wood Calibration Project, Western Colorado. Centuries Research, Inc., Montrose, Colorado. Bandy, Matthew S. 2005 New World Settlement Evidence for a Two-­Stage Neolithic Demographic Transition. Current Anthropology 46(S):S109–S115. 2010 Population Growth, Village Fissioning, and Alternative Early Village Trajectories. In Becoming Villagers: Comparing Early Village Societies, edited by Matthew S. Bandy and Jake R. Fox, pp. 19–36. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Barlow, K. Renee 2002 Predicting Maize Agriculture among the Fremont: An Economic Comparison of Farming and Foraging in the American Southwest. American Antiq­ uity 67(1):65–88. 2006 A Formal Model for Predicting Agriculture among the Fremont. In Be­ havioral Ecology and the Transition to Agriculture, edited by Douglas Kennett and Bruce Winterhalder, pp. 87–102. University of California Press, ­Berkeley. Belovsky, Gary E. 1988 An Optimal Foraging–Based Model of Hunter-­Gatherer Population Dynamics. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 7:​329–372. Benedict, James B. 1979 Getting Away from It All: A Study of Man, Mountains, and the Two-­Drought Altithermal. Southwestern Lore 45(3):1–12.

42

Jim A. Railey

Berry, Claudia F., and Michael S. Berry 1986 Chronological and Conceptual Models of the Southwestern Archaic. In Anthropology of the Desert West, edited by Carol Condie and Don Fowler, pp. 254–327. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Berry, Michael S. 1982 Time, Space, and Transition in Anasazi Prehistory. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Binford, Lewis R. 1982 The Archaeology of Place. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1:​5–31. 1983 In Pursuit of the Past. Thames and Hudson, New York. 1990 Mobility, Housing, and Environment: A Comparative Study. Journal of An­ thropological Research 46:​119–152. Birdsell, Joseph 1968 Some Predictions for the Pleistocene Based on Equilibrium Systems for Recent Hunter-­Gatherers. In Man the Hunter, edited by Richard B. Lee and Irven DeVore, pp. 229–240. Aldine, Chicago. Blinn, D. W., R. H. Hevly, and O. K. Davis 1994 Continuous Holocene Record of Diatom Stratigraphy, Paleohydrology and Anthropogenic Activity in a Spring-­Mound in Southwestern United States. Quaternary Research 42:​197–205. Bocquet-­Appel, Jean-­Pierre 2002 Paleoanthropological Traces of a Neolithic Demographic Transition. Cur­ rent Anthropology 43:​637–650. 2008 Explaining the Neolithic Demographic Transition. In The Neolithic Demo­ graphic Transition and Its Consequences, edited by Jean-­Pierre Bocquet-­ Appel and Ofer Bar-­Yosef, pp. 35–56. Springer, New York. Brandi, James M., and Michael J. Dilley 1998 Archaeological Investigation of Fourteen Sites in Unit 22 (Northern ­Meadows), Rio Rancho Estates, NM. Rio Grande Consultants Inc., Albuquerque. Braun, David P. 1991 Are There Cross-­Cultural Regularities in Tribal Social Practices? In Be­ tween Bands and States, edited by Susan A. Gregg, pp. 423–444. Occasional Paper 9. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Illinois. Brown, David E. 1994 Plains and Great Basin Grasslands. In Biotic Communities: Southwestern United States and Northwestern Mexico, edited by David E. Brown, pp. 115– 121. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Originally published 1982, “­Biotic Communities of the American Southwest — ​United States and Mexico,” Desert Plants 4(1–4). Brown, David E., and Charles H. Lowe 1994 Biotic Communities of the Southwest. Map. Rev. ed. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Brown, Kenneth L. (editor) 1999 Data Recovery Along the 1995 MAPCO Four Corners Pipeline: Sites in the



Early Farming and Hunter-Gatherers in the Albuquerque Basin

43

J­emez and Las Huertas Drainages, Sandoval County, New Mexico. Vol. 3. Office of Contract Archeology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Campbell, John M., and Florence Hawley Ellis 1952 The Atrisco Sites: Cochise Manifestations in the Middle Rio Grande Valley. American Antiquity 17(3):211–221. Campbell, Kirsten 2008 Archaeological Testing Report, Unser Boulevard Phase II, Farol Road to Prog­ ress Boulevard, City of Rio Rancho, New Mexico. Criterion Environmental Consulting, Albuquerque. Cane, Scott 1987 Australian Aboriginal Subsistence in the Western Desert. Human Ecology 15:​391–434. Carlson, Christopher 2009 Archaeological Monitoring of the Iris 14–Enchanted Hills 14 Feeder Project, Sandoval County, New Mexico. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Albuquerque. Carmichael, David L. 1986 Archaeological Survey in the Southern Tularosa Basin of New Mexico. Historic and Natural Resources Report No. 3. Environmental Management Office, Directorate of Engineering and Housing, US Army Air Defense Artillery Center, Fort Bliss, Texas. In Publications in Anthropology No. 10, El Paso Centennial Museum, University of Texas at El Paso. Collins, Michael B. 1971 A Review of Llano Estacado Archaeology and Ethnohistory. Plains Anthro­ pologist 16:​85–104. Condie, Carol J., and Landon D. Smith 1992 Data Recovery at Costilla Grande (LA 37631), a Multi-­component Site on San­ dia Pueblo Land, Bernalillo County, New Mexico. Publication 198. Quivira Research Center, Albuquerque. 2007 Test Excavations at LA 109589, Southwest Landfill, Albuquerque, Bernalillo County, New Mexico, for Southwest Landfill LLC. Publication 492. Quivira Research Center, Albuquerque. Condie, Carol J., Landon D. Smith, and Hayward H. Franklin 2005 Testing and Partial Data Recovery at Seven Sites (LA 128980, 128982, 128983, 128984, 128985, 143456, 143457) in the Proposed Cabezon Subdivision, Rio Rancho, Sandoval County, New Mexico, for Metric Corporation. Publication 476. Quivira Research Center, Albuquerque. Connell, Sean D. 2004 Geology of the Albuquerque Basin and Tectonic Development of the Rio Grande Rift in North-­central New Mexico. In The Geology of New Mexico: A Geologic History, edited by G. H. Mack and K. A. Giles, pp. 359–388. Special Publication 11. New Mexico Geologic Society, Socorro. Connell, Sean D., John W. Hawley, and David W. Love 2005 Late Cenozoic Drainage Development in the Southeastern Basin and Range of New Mexico, Southeasternmost Arizona, and Western Texas. In

44

Jim A. Railey

New Mexico’s Ice Ages, edited by S. G. Lucas, G. S. Morgan, and K. E. Zeigler, pp. 125–150. Bulletin 28. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science, Albuquerque. Connell, Sean D., and David W. Love 2001 Stratigraphy of Middle and Upper Pleistocene Fluvial Deposits of the Rio Grande (Post–Santa Fe Group) and the Geomorphic Development of the Rio Grande Valley, Northern Albuquerque Basin, Central New Mexico. Open File Report 454C (pp. 1–12). New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources, Socorro. Dello-­Russo, Robert D. 1999 Climatic Stress in the Middle Rio Grande Valley of New Mexico: An Evaluation of Changes in Foraging Behavior during the Late Archaic/Basket­ maker II Period. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Dillehay, Tom D. 1974 Late Quaternary Bison Population Changes on the Southern Plains. In Plains Anthropologist: Journal of the Plains Conference 19(65):180–196. Dilley, Michael J., and Matthew F. Schmader 2008 Long-­term Land Use in Lomas Encantadas: Archaeological Data Recovery at Twenty Sites in Unit 20, Rio Rancho Estates, New Mexico. Draft final report. Rio Grande Consultants, Albuquerque. Dilley, Michael, Michael D. Kennedy, and Daniel Wells 1998 Data Recovery at Thirty-­seven Archaeological Sites in Enchanted Hills (Unit 20 West), Rio Rancho, New Mexico. Draft final report (no NMCRIS number). Rio Grande Consultants, Albuquerque. Doerner, James P. 2007 Late Quaternary Prehistoric Environments of the Colorado Front Range. In Frontiers in Colorado Paleoindian Archaeology: From the Dent Site to the Rocky Mountains, edited by R. H. Brunswig and B. L. Pitblado, pp. 11–38. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. Doleman, William H. 2005 Environmental Constraints of Forager Mobility and the Use of Cultigens in Southeastern Arizona and Southern New Mexico. In The Late Archaic across the Borderlands: From Foraging to Farming, edited by Bradley J. Vierra, pp. 113–140. University of Texas Press, Austin. Duff, Andrew I., and Richard H. Wilshusen 2000 Prehistoric Population Dynamics in the Northern San Juan Region, ad 950-­ 1300. Kiva 66(1):167–190. Eerkens, Jelmer W. 1999 Common Pool Resources, Buffer Zones, and Jointly Owned Territories: Hunter-­Gatherer Land and Resource Tenure in Fort Irwin, Southeastern California. Human Ecology 27(2):297–318. Elyea, Janette M. 1999a LA 110955. In Data Recovery Along the 1995 MAPCO Four Corners Pipeline: Sites in the Jemez and Las Huertas Drainages, Sandoval County, New Mexico,



Early Farming and Hunter-Gatherers in the Albuquerque Basin

45

Vol. 3, edited by Kenneth L. Brown, pp. 143–154. Office of Contract Archaeology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. 1999b Archaic Foragers and Early Farmers in the Jemez and Puerco Valleys. In Data Recovery Along the 1995 MAPCO Four Corners Pipeline: Sites in the Jemez and Las Huertas Drainages, Sandoval County, New Mexico, Vol. 3, edited by Kenneth L. Brown, pp. 143–154. Office of Contract Archaeology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Elyea, Janette M., and John Mark Sheppard 1999 LA 25864. In Data Recovery Along the 1995 MAPCO Four Corners Pipeline: Sites in the Jemez and Las Huertas Drainages, Sandoval County, New Mexico, Vol. 3, edited by Kenneth L. Brown, pp. 43–67. Office of Contract Archaeology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Ember, Carol R., and Melvin Ember 1992 Resource Unpredictability, Mistrust, and War: A Cross-­Cultural Study. Jour­ nal of Conflict Resolution 36(2):242–262. Endicott, Kirm, and Karen L. Endicott 1986 The Question of Hunter-­Gatherer Territoriality: The Case of the Batek in Malaysia. In The Past and Future of !Kung Ethnography: Critical Reflections and Symbolic Perspectives, Essays in Honor of Lorna Marshall, edited by ­Megan Biesele, Robert Gordon, and Richard Lee, pp. 137–162. Helmut Buske Verlag, Hamburg. Estes, Robert J. 2009 Testing and Data Recovery at LA 158176, LA 158177, LA 158178, and LA 158179, along a Segment of Northern Boulevard, City of Rio Rancho, Sandoval County, New Mexico. Marron and Associates, Albuquerque. Gerald, Rex E. 1958 Two Wickiups on the San Carlos Indian Reservation, Arizona. Kiva 23(3):5–11. Gerow, Peggy A. (editor) 1998 The Hawk–Rio Puerco Project: Excavations at Seven Sites in the Middle Rio Puerco Valley, New Mexico. Office of Contract Archeology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Gerow, Peggy A., and Byrd A. C. Bargman 1999 LA 110942. In Data Recovery Along the 1995 MAPCO Four Corners Pipeline: Sites in the Jemez and Las Huertas Drainages, Sandoval County, New Mexico, Vol. 3, edited by Kenneth L. Brown, pp. 139–152. Office of Contract Archeology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Goodwin, Grenville 1938 The Southern Athapascans. Kiva 4(2):5–10. Grissino-­Mayer, Henri D. 1995 Tree-­Ring Reconstructions of Climate and Fire History at El Malpais National Monument, New Mexico. PhD dissertation, Department of Geo­ sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson. Hall, Stephen A. 2005 Geomorphology and Geoarchaeology. In Phase 1 Data Recovery of the Mari­posa East Property Development in Rio Rancho, Bernalillo County, New

46

Jim A. Railey

­ exico, edited by Lance Lundquist. Cultural Resources Report No. 2005-­69. M SWCA, Albuquerque. 2006 Appendix A: Geomorphology and Archaeological Geology Along Paseo del Volcan Corridor, Rio Rancho, Sandoval County, NM. In Testing and Data Recovery Excavations at Eight Sites Along Paseo del Volcan, Unser Boulevard to Iris Road, City of Rio Rancho, Sandoval County, New Mexico, by Gerry Raymond, Kirsten Campbell, Adam Okun, David Vaughn, and George Arms (2008). Criterion Environmental Consulting, Albuquerque. 2010 Early Maize Pollen from Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, USA. Palynology 34(1):​125–137. Hamilton, Marcus J., Bruce T. Milne, Robert S. Walker, Oskar Burger, and James H. Brown 2007 The Complex Structure of Hunter–gatherer Social Networks. Proceedings of the Royal Society Bulletin 274:​2195–2202. Hammack, Nancy S., Alan Ferg, and Bruce Bradley 1983 Excavations at Three Developmental Period Sites near Zia and Santa Ana Pueblos, New Mexico. CASA Paper No. 2. Complete Archaeological Service Associates, Cortez, Colorado. Hassan, Fekri A. 1973 On Mechanisms of Population Growth during the Neolithic. Current An­ thropology 14(5):535–542. 1981 Demographic Archaeology. Academic Press, New York. Hayden, Brian 1995a Pathways to Power: Principles for Creating Socioeconomic Inequalities. In Foundations of Social Inequality, edited by T. Douglas Price and Gary M. Feinman, pp. 15–86. Plenum, New York. 1995b A New Overview of Domestication. In Perspectives on the Prehistoric Transi­ tion to Agriculture, edited by T. Douglas Price and Anne B. Gebauer, pp. 273– 299. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico. 2001 Richman, Poorman, Beggarman, Chief: The Dynamics of Social Inequality. In Archaeology at the Millennium: A Sourcebook, edited by Gary M. Feinman and T. Douglas Price, pp. 231–272. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York. 2009 The Proof Is in the Pudding: Feasting and the Origins of Domestication. Current Anthropology 50:​597–602. Haynes, C. Vance, Jr. 1975 Pleistocene and Recent Stratigraphy. In Late Pleistocene Environments of the Southern High Plains, edited by Fred Wendorf and James J. Hester, pp. 57– 96. Fort Burgwin Research Center, Southern Methodist University, Dallas. 1995 Geochronology of Paleoenvironmental Change, Clovis Type Site, Black­ water Draw, New Mexico. Geoarchaeology 10:​317–388. Hester, James J. 1972 Blackwater Draw Locality No. 1: A Stratified, Early Man Site in Eastern New Mexico. Fort Burgwin Research Center 8. Southern Methodist University, Dallas.



Early Farming and Hunter-Gatherers in the Albuquerque Basin

47

Hibben, Frank C. 1992 An Archaic Bison-­Hunting Culture. The Artifact 30(4):17–27. Higgins, Howard C., and Lance Lundquist (editors) 2004 Archaeology of Albuquerque’s West Mesa and the Middle Rio Puerco Valley, Bernalillo and Sandoval Counties, New Mexico. TRC, Albuquerque. Hitchcock, Robert L., and James Ebert 1984 Foraging and Food Production among Kalahari Hunter/Gatherers. In From Hunters to Farmers: The Causes and Consequences of Food Production in Africa, edited by J. Desmond Clark and Steven A. Brandt, pp. 328–348. University of California Press, Berkeley. Hogan, Patrick F. 1983 Paleo-­Environmental Reconstruction. In Economy and Interaction along the Lower Chaco River, edited by Patrick Hogan and Joseph C. Winter, pp. 49– 62. Office of Contract Archaeology and the Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. 1994 Foragers to Farmers II: A Second Look at the Adoption of Agriculture in Northwestern New Mexico. In Archaic Hunter-­Gatherer Archaeology in the American Southwest, edited by Bradley J. Vierra, pp. 155–184. Contributions in Anthropology Vol. 13, No. 1. Eastern New Mexico University, Portales. Holloway, Richard, Dee Jones-­Bartholomew, and Stephen W. Yost 2002 Analysis Results, In Cultural Resource Monitoring for Proposed West Mesa to Person Station Gas Line Project, Bernalillo County, New Mexico, by Dee Jones-­Bartholomew, John C. Acklen, Jim A. Railey, Joan M. Yost, and Grant D. Smith, pp. 108–128. TRC, Albuquerque. Hole, Frank, Kent V. Flannery, and James A. Neely 1969 Prehistory and Human Ecology of the Deh Luran Plain. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology 1. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Honeycutt, Linda, and Jerry Fetterman (editors) 1994 Excavations Along the Arkansas Loop Pipeline Corridor, Northwestern New Mexico. Woods Canyon Archaeological Consultants, Yellow Jacket, ­Colorado. Horn, Jonathan C., Jerry Fetterman, and Linda Honeycutt (editors) 2002 The Mid-­America Pipeline Company/Williams Rock Mountain Expansion Loop Pipeline Archaeological Data Recovery Project, Northwestern New Mexico, Western Colorado, and Eastern Utah. Draft. Alpine Archaeological Consultants, Montrose, Colorado, and Woods Canyon Archaeological Consultants, Yellow Jacket, Colorado. Huckell, Bruce B. 1996 The Archaic Prehistory of the North American Southwest. Journal of World Prehistory 10(3):305–373. Hunter-­Anderson, Rosalind L. 1986 Prehistoric Adaptation in the American Southwest. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

48

Jim A. Railey

Irimoto, Takashi 1981 Chipewyan Ecology: Group Structure and Caribou Hunting System. Senri Ethnological Studies 8. National Museum of Ethnology, Osaka, Japan. Irwin-­Williams, Cynthia 1973 The Oshara Tradition: Origins of Anasazi Culture. Contributions in Anthropology No. 5, Vol. 1. Eastern New Mexico University, Portales. Irwin-­Williams, Cynthia, and C. Vance Haynes, Jr. 1970 Climatic Change and Early Population Dynamics in the Southwestern United States. Quaternary Research 1(1):59–71. Johnson, Allen W., and Timothy Earle 1987 The Evolution of Human Societies: From Foraging Group to Agrarian State. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. Johnson, Eileen, and Vance T. Holliday 1986 The Archaic Record at Lubbock Lake. Plains Anthropologist 31:​7–54. 2004 Archeology and Late Quaternary Environments of the Southern High Plains. In The Prehistory of Texas, edited by Timothy K. Perttula, pp. 283– 295. Texas A&M University Press, College Station. Johnson, Gregory A. 1982 Organizational Structure and Scalar Stress. In Theory and Explanation in Archaeology: The Southampton Conference, edited by C. Renfrew, M. J. Rowlands, and B. A. Segraves, pp. 389–421. Academic Press, New York. 1989 Dynamics of Southwestern Prehistory: Far Outside — ​Looking In. In Dy­ namics of Southwestern Prehistory, edited by L. S. Cordell and G. J. Gumerman, pp. 371–389. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. Jones, Terry L., Gary M. Brown, L. Mark Raab, Janet L. McVickar, W. Geoffrey Spaulding, Douglas J. Kennett, Andrew York, and Phillip L. Walker 1999 Demographic Crises in Western North America during the Medieval Climatic Anomaly. Current Anthropology 40(2):137–170. Jones-­Bartholomew, Dee, John C. Acklen, Jim A. Railey, Joan M. Yost, and Grant D. Smith 2002 Cultural Resource Monitoring for Proposed West Mesa to Person Station Gas Line Project, Bernalillo County, New Mexico. TRC, Albuquerque. Keeley, Lawrence H. 1996 War Before Civilization. Oxford University Press, New York and Oxford. Kelly, Robert L. 1995 The Foraging Spectrum: Diversity in Hunter-­Gatherer Lifeways. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. Kennedy, Michael D., James Brandi, Michael Dilley, and Daniel Wells 1998 Data Recovery at 37 Archaeological Sites in Enchanted Hills (Unit 20 West), Rio Rancho NM. Draft report on file, Rio Grande Consultants, Albu­ querque. Kohler, Timothy A. 1992 Field Houses, Villages, and the Tragedy of the Commons in the Early Northern Anasazi Southwest. American Antiquity 57(4):617–635.



Early Farming and Hunter-Gatherers in the Albuquerque Basin

49

Koning, Daniel J., and Stephen F. Personius 2002 Geologic Map of the Bernalillo NW Quadrangle, Bernalillo County, New Mex­ ico. Misc. Field Studies, Map MF-­2404, 1 sheet. US Geological Survey, New Mexico. Kovacik, Joseph J. 1998 Archaeological Testing at Twenty-­Seven Sites along the Proposed Northwest Corridor, Bernalillo County, New Mexico. Keystone Report No. 134, prepared for the County of Bernalillo and Avid Engineering, Inc. Keystone Environmental and Planning, Albuquerque. Kuchikura, Yukio 1987 Subsistence Ecology among Semaq-­Beri Hunter-­Gatherers of Peninsular Ma­ laysia. Hokkaido Behavioral Science Report No. 1, Series E. Department of Behavioral Science, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan. Lee, Richard B. 1968 What Hunters Do For a Living, or How to Make Out on Scarce Resources? In Man the Hunter, edited by Richard B. Lee and Irven Devore, pp. 30–48. Aldine, Chicago. Lensink, Stephen C. 1993 Episodic Climatic Events and Mill Creek Culture Change: An Alternative Explanation. Plains Anthropologist 38(145):189–197. LeTourneau, Phillipe D. 2000 Folsom Toolstone Procurement in the Southwest and Southern Plains. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Lintz, Christopher, J. Spath, D. Hughes, and J. Heubner 1991 Additional Radiocarbon Dates from the Twilla Bison Kill Site. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society 60:​257–266. Longacre, William A., and James E. Ayres 1968 Archeological Lessons from an Apache Wickiup. In New Perspectives in Archeology, edited by Sally R. Binford and Lewis R. Binford, pp. 151–160. Aldine, Chicago. Lundquist, Lance (editor) 2005 Final Report on Data Recovery at Phase 1 of the Mariposa East Property De­ velopment in Rio Rancho, Sandoval County, New Mexico. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Albuquerque. Lynott, Mark J. 1980 Prehistoric Bison Populations of Northcentral Texas. Bulletin of the Texas Archaeological Society 50:​89–101. Maldonado, F., S. D. Connell, D. W. Love, V. J. S Grauch, J. L. Slate, and W. C. Mc­ Intosh 1999 Neogene Geology of the Isleta Reservation and Vicinity, Albuquerque Basin, Central New Mexico. In Albuquerque Geology: New Mexico ­Geological ­Society Fiftieth Annual Field Conference, edited by F. J. Pazzaglia and S. G. Lucas, pp. 175–188. New Mexico Geological Society, Albuquerque.

50

Jim A. Railey

Mallouf, Robert J. 1985 A Synthesis of Eastern Trans-­Pecos Prehistory. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Texas at Austin. 2005 Late Archaic Foragers of Eastern Trans-­Pecos Texas and the Big Bend. In The Late Archaic Across the Borderlands, edited by Bradley J. Vierra, pp. 219–246. University of Texas Press, Austin. Marshall, Michael P. 1995 The Paseo del Volcan Cultural Resource Management Project: A Sample Sur­ vey and Records Search for the Proposed Alternate Corridors in Bernalillo and Sandoval Counties, New Mexico. Cibola Research Consultants and Marron and Associates, Albuquerque. McClellan, Catherine 1975 My Old People Say: An Ethnographic Survey of Southern Yukon Territory. Publications in Ethnology 6. National Museum of Man, Ottawa, Canada. Mehringer, Peter J. 1967 Pollen Analysis of the Tule Springs Area, Nevada. In Pleistocene Studies in Southern Nevada, edited by H. M. Wormington and D. Ellis, pp. 130–200. Anthropological Papers No. 13. Nevada State Museum, Carson City. Mehringer, Peter J., Jr., Paul S. Martin, and C. Vance Haynes 1966 Murray Springs: A Mid-­Postglacial Pollen Profile from Southern Arizona. Interim Research Report 13. University of Arizona Geochronology Laboratories, Tucson. Miller, Myles R., and Nancy A. Kenmotsu 2004 Prehistory of the Jornada Mogollon and Eastern Trans-­Pecos Regions of Texas. In The Prehistory of Texas, edited by Timothy K. Perttula, pp. 205–265. Texas A&M University Press, College Station. Minnis, Paul E. 1985 Social Adaptation to Food Stress: A Prehistoric Southwestern Example. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 1992 Earliest Plant Cultivation in the Desert Borderlands of North America. In The Origins of Agriculture: An International Perspective, edited by C. Wesley Cowan and Patty Jo Watson, pp. 121–141. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. Murrell, Jesse B. (editor) 2009 Archaeological Investigations at the Nine Mile Hill Site, City of Albuquerque, New Mexico. Parametrix, Albuquerque. O’Laughlin, Thomas C. 2004a Macrobotanical Remains. In Archaeology of Albuquerque’s West Mesa and the Middle Rio Puerco Valley, Bernalillo and Sandoval Counties, New Mex­ ico, edited by Howard C. Higgins and Lance Lundquist, pp. 299–310. TRC, Albuquerque. 2004b Faunal Remains. In Archaeology of Albuquerque’s West Mesa and the Middle Rio Puerco Valley, Bernalillo and Sandoval Counties, New Mexico, edited by Howard C. Higgins and Lance Lundquist, pp. 318–328. TRC, Albuquerque. 2009 Macrobotanical Remains. In Final Results of Archaeological Data Recovery at



Early Farming and Hunter-Gatherers in the Albuquerque Basin

51

Three Sites in the Quail Ranch Phase I Regional Retention Facility, Bernalillo County, New Mexico, edited by Rebecca H. Schwendler and Jim A. Railey, pp. 179–190. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Albuquerque. 2012 Macrobotanical Remains. In Archaeology in a Lithic-­Rich Landscape: Exca­ vations at 18 Sites Along the Proposed Paseo del Volcan Corridor, From Iris Road to U.S. 550, City of Rio Rancho, Sandoval County, New Mexico, edited by Jim A. Railey. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Albuquerque. Oldfield, F., and James Schoenwetter 1975 Pollen-­Analytical Results, Part II. In Late Pleistocene Environments of the Southern High Plains, edited by Fred Wendorf and James J. Hester, pp. 149– 177. Fort Burgwin Research Center, Southern Methodist University, Dallas. Peckham, Stewart L. 1957 Three Pithouse Sites near Albuquerque, New Mexico. Highway Salvage Archeology No. 12. New Mexico State Highway Department and Museum of New Mexico, Santa Fe. Personius, S. F., M. N. Machette, and B. D. Stone 2000 Preliminary Geologic Map of the Loma Machete Quadrangle, Bernalillo County, New Mexico. Misc. Field Studies, Map MF-­2334, 1 sheet. US Geological Survey, New Mexico. Petersen, Kenneth Lee 1981 10,000 Years of Climate Change Reconstructed from Fossil Pollen, La Plata Mountains, Southwestern Colorado. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman. Phillips, Bruce G. 2004 Pollen Remains. In Archaeology of Albuquerque’s West Mesa and the Middle Rio Puerco Valley, Bernalillo and Sandoval Counties, New Mexico, edited by Howard C. Higgins and Lance Lundquist, pp. 311–317. TRC, Albuquerque. Phillips, David A., Jr. 2009 Adoption and Intensification of Agriculture in the North American Southwest: Notes Toward a Quantitative Approach. American Antiquity 74(4):​ 691–707. Polk, Harding, II 1999 LA 27632. In Data Recovery Along the 1995 MAPCO Four Corners Pipeline: Sites in the Jemez and Las Huertas Drainages, Sandoval County, New Mexico, Vol. 3, edited by Kenneth L. Brown, pp. 59–67. Office of Contract Archeology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Post, Stephen S. 2002 Emerging from the Shadows: The Archaic Period in the Northern Rio Grande. In Traditions, Transitions, and Technologies: Themes in Southwestern Archaeology, edited by Sarah Schlanger, pp. 33–48. University of Colorado Press, Boulder. Quigg, J. Michael 1997 The Sanders Site (41HF128): A Single Event Late Archaic Camp/Bison Processing Site in Hansford County, Texas. Technical Report No. 19751. Mariah Associates, Laramie, Wyoming.

52

Jim A. Railey

Railey, Jim A. 2004 Monitoring Results. In Archaeology of Albuquerque’s West Mesa and the Middle Rio Puerco Valley, Bernalillo and Sandoval Counties, New Mexico, edited by Howard Higgins and Lance Lundquist, pp. 227–260. TRC, Albuquerque. 2012a (editor) Archaeology in a Lithic-­Rich Landscape: Excavations at 18 Sites Along the Proposed Paseo del Volcan Corridor, From Iris Road to U.S. 550, City of Rio Rancho, Sandoval County, New Mexico. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Albuquerque. 2012b Lithics and Mobility: A Case Study from the Albuquerque Basin Late Archaic. Paper presented at the Seventy-­seventh Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Memphis. 2013 (editor) Archaeological Data Recovery for LA 124584 and LA 124601 in the Western Albuquerque Land Holding’s Watershed Subdivision Tract M, Al­ buquerque, Bernalillo County, New Mexico. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Albuquerque. Railey, Jim A., Matthew S. Bandy, and Lance Lundquist 2011 Radiocarbon Dates, Climate Change, and Settlement-­Subsistence Trends in the Permian Basin Study Area, Southeastern New Mexico. In Patterns in Transition: Papers from the 16th Biennial Jornada Mogollon Conference, edited by Melinda R. Landreth, pp. 191–232. El Paso Museum of Archaeology, El Paso. Railey, Jim A., and Lance Lundquist (editors) 2012 Archaeological Data Recovery for Phases 2–3 of the Mariposa Development, Sandoval County, New Mexico. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Albuquerque. Raymond, Gerry, Kirsten Campbell, Adam Okun, David Vaughn, and George Arms 2008 Testing and Data Recovery Excavations at Eight Sites Along Paseo del Volcan, Unser Boulevard to Iris Road, City of Rio Rancho, Sandoval County, New Mexico. Criterion Environmental Consulting, Albuquerque. Reinhart, Theodore R. 1967 The Rio Rancho Phase: A Preliminary Report on the Early Basketmaker Culture in the Rio Grande Valley, New Mexico. American Antiquity 32:​458–470. 1968 Late Archaic Cultures of the Middle Rio Grande Valley, New Mexico: A Study of the Process of Culture Change. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Rio Grande Consultants 1995 Cultural Resources Management Program and Data Recovery Plan for Ar­ chaeological Sites in an Area of Potential Effect, Unit 20 West, Rio Rancho, New Mexico. Rio Grande Consultants, Albuquerque. Schiffer, Michael B. 1986 Radiocarbon Dating and the “Old Wood” Problem: The Case of the Hohokam Chronology. Journal of Archaeological Science 13:​13–30. Schmader, Matthew F. 1988 At the River’s Edge: Early Puebloan Occupations in the Middle Rio Grande



Early Farming and Hunter-Gatherers in the Albuquerque Basin

53

Valley, NM: Report on the 1988 Field Season. Rio Grande Consultants, Albuquerque. 1990a Preliminary Report: Testing and Data Recovery at Three Sites in North Hills, Rio Rancho, New Mexico. Rio Grande Consultants, Albuquerque. 1990b At the River’s Edge: Early Puebloan Settlement in the Middle Rio Grande ­Valley: Report on the 1989 Field Season. Rio Grande Consultants, Albu­ querque. 1990c An Intensive Archaeological Survey of 915 Acres in Unit 20 Phase 1, Rio Ran­ cho, New Mexico. Rio Grande Consultants, Albuquerque. 1993 At the River’s Edge: Early Puebloan Occupations in the Middle Rio Grande Valley: Report on the 1990–1991 Field Season. Rio Grande Consultants, Albuquerque. 1994 Early Puebloan Site Structure and Technological Organization in the Middle Rio Grande Valley, New Mexico. PhD dissertation, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. 2001 Gimme Shelter: Uncovering Archaic Structures in Rio Rancho and Santa Fe, New Mexico. Poster presented at the Sixty-­sixth Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans. Schmader, Matthew F., Michael J. Dilley, and David Barsanti 2006 The Hawk Project: Archaeological Data Recovery at Ten Sites in Unit 25, Rio Rancho Estates, N.M. Rio Grande Consultants, Albuquerque. Schwendler, Rebecca H., and Jim A. Railey (editors) 2009 Final Results of Archaeological Data Recovery at Three Sites in the Quail Ranch Phase I Regional Retention Facility, Bernalillo County, New Mexico. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Albuquerque. Scott-­Cummings, Linda, and Chad Yost 2012 Phytoliths and Starches. In Archaeology in a Lithic-­Rich Landscape: Exca­ vations at 18 Sites Along the Proposed Paseo del Volcan Corridor, From Iris Road to U.S. 550, City of Rio Rancho, Sandoval County, New Mexico, edited by Jim A. Railey. Draft final report. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Albu­ querque. Seymour, Deni, Jeffrey Hokanson, and Vicky J. T. Cunningham 1997 Excavations at Lru-­Kish Kachreu and Other Sites at the Sandoval County Land­ fill. Lone Mountain Report 15. Lone Mountain Technical Series Report 1. Shaeffer, Margaret W. M. 1958 The Construction of a Wickiup on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation. Kiva 24(2):14–20. Simms, Steven R. 1987 Behavioral Ecology and Hunter-­Gatherer Foraging: An Example from the Great Basin. BAR International Series 381. Oxford, UK. Smith, Eric Alden 1988 Risk and Uncertainty in the “Original Affluent Society”: Evolutionary Ecology of Resource Sharing and Land Tenure. In Hunters and Gatherers: ­History, Evolution, and Social Change, edited by Timothy Ingold, David Riches, and James Woodburn, pp. 222–252. Berg, Oxford, UK.

54

Jim A. Railey

Smith, Grant D. 2002 Geomorphological Investigations. In Cultural Resource Monitoring for Proposed West Mesa to Person Station Gas Line Project, Bernalillo County, New Mexico, by D. A. Jones-­Bartholomew, John C. Acklen, Grant D. Smith, S­ tephen W. Yost, Jim A. Railey, and Joan M. Yost, pp. 91–107. Report No. 32166. Prepared for Public Service Company of New Mexico. TRC, Albuquerque. Smith, Grant D., and M. McFaul 1997 Paleoenvironmental and Geoarchaeological Implications of Late Quaternary Sediments and Paleosols: North-­central to Southwestern San Juan Basin, New Mexico. Geomorphology 21:​107–138. Steward, Julian H. 1941 Culture Element Distributions: XIII, Nevada Shoshone. University of California Anthropological Records 4(2). Stewart, Omer C. 1941 Culture Element Distributions: XIV, Nevada Shoshone. University of California Anthropological Records 4(3). Tanaka, Jiro 1980 The San Hunter-­Gatherers of the Kalahari: A Study of Ecological Anthropology. University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo. Tindale, Norman 1972 The Pitjandjara. In Hunters and Gatherers Today, edited by M. G. Bicchieri, pp. 217–268. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York. Toll, Molly S. 1983 Changing Patterns of Plant Utilization for Food and Fuel: Evidence from Flotation and Macrobotanical Remains. In Economy and Interaction Along the Lower Chaco River, edited by Patrick Hogan and Joseph C. Winter, pp. 331–350. Office of Contract Archaeology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Toll, Molly S., and Anne C. Cully 1983 Archaic Subsistence and Seasonal Round. In Economy and Interaction Along the Lower Chaco River, edited by Patrick Hogan and Joseph C. Winter, pp. 385–392. Office of Contract Archaeology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. 1994 Archaic Subsistence and Seasonal Population Flow in Northwest New Mexico. In Archaic Hunter-­Gatherer Archaeology in the American Southwest, edited by Bradley J. Vierra, pp. 103–120. Contributions in Anthropology Vol. 13, No. 1. Eastern New Mexico University, Portales. Tuohy, Donald R. 1960 Two More Wickiups on the San Carlos Indian Reservation. Kiva 26(2):​ ­27–30. Turnbow, Christopher A., R. Blake Roxlau, and William B. Hudspeth 1997 Data Recovery Investigations at LA 103035 and LA 109582, Santa Fe Mainline Expansion Project, Bernalillo County, New Mexico. TRC, Albuquerque.



Early Farming and Hunter-Gatherers in the Albuquerque Basin

55

VanPool, Christine S., and Todd VanPool 2003 Archaeological Data Recovery at Five Sites Along NM 44 in the Lower Jemez River Valley, Sandoval County, New Mexico. Office of Contract Archaeology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Vickers, William T. 1989 Patterns of Foraging and Gardening in a Semi-­Sedentary Amazonian Community. In Farmers as Hunters: The Implications of Sedentism, edited by ­Susan Kent, pp. 46–59. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Vierra, Bradley J. 1983 Archaic Use of the Project Area. In The Archaeological Resources in the Arch Joint Venture Project Along Coal Creek and De-­Na-Zin Wash, San Juan County, New Mexico. Studies in Anthropology No. 3. Division of Conservation Archaeology, Farmington, New Mexico. 1985 Hunter-­Gatherer Settlement Systems: To Reoccupy or Not to Reoccupy, That is the Question. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. 1990 Archaic Hunter-­Gatherer Archaeology in Northwestern New Mexico. In Perspectives on Southwestern Prehistory, edited by Paul E. Minnis and Charles L. Redman, pp. 57–70. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. 1994 Archaic Hunter-­Gatherer Mobility Strategies in Northwestern New Mexico. In Archaic Hunter-­Gatherer Archaeology in the American Southwest, edited by Bradley J. Vierra, pp. 121–154. Contributions in Anthropology Vol. 13, No. 1. Eastern New Mexico University, Portales. 2008 Early Agriculture on the Southeastern Periphery of the Colorado Plateau: Diversity in Tactics. In Archaeology Without Borders: Contact, Commerce, and Change in the U.S. Southwest and Northwestern Mexico, edited by L ­ aurie D. Webster and Maxine E. McBrinn, pp. 71–88. University of Colorado Press, Boulder. 2011 Foraging Societies in an Arid Environment: Coping with Change in the Greater Southwest. In Movement, Connectivity, and Landscape Change in the Ancient Southwest: The Twentieth Annual Southwest Symposium, edited by Margaret C. Nelson and Colleen Strawhacker, pp. 25–44. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. Vierra, Bradley J., and William H. Doleman 1994 The Organization of Archaic Settlement-­Subsistence Systems in the Northern Southwest. In Archaic Hunter-­Gatherer Archaeology in the American Southwest, edited by Bradley J. Vierra, pp. 76–102. Eastern New Mexico University, Contributions in Anthropology, Volume 13, No. 1. Portales, New Mexico. Vierra, Bradley J., and Richard I Ford 2006 Early Maize Agriculture in the Northern Rio Grande Valley, New Mexico. In Histories of Maize: Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Prehistory, Linguistics, Biogeography, Domestication, and Evolution of Maize, edited by J. Staller, R. Tykot, and B. Benz, pp. 497–510. Elsevier, Boston.

56

Jim A. Railey

2007 Foragers and Farmers in the Northern Rio Grande Valley, New Mexico. Kiva 73(2):117–130. Vierra, Bradley J., and Teralene Foxx 2009 Archaic Upland Resource Use: The View from the Pajarito Plateau. In Be­ tween the Mountains, Beyond the Mountains: Papers in Honor of Paul Wil­ liams, pp. 153–166. Papers of the Archaeological Society of New Mexico Vol. 35. Albuquerque. Walth, Cherie K. 1999 LA 109129. In Data Recovery Along the 1995 MAPCO Four Corners Pipeline: Sites in the Jemez and Las Huertas Drainages, Sandoval County, New Mexico, Vol. 3, edited by Kenneth L. Brown, pp. 71–130. Office of Contract Archeology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Walth, Cherie K., Thomas O’Laughlin, Chad Yost, and Bruce Phillips 2011 Macrobotanical, Pollen, Phytolith Analysis, and Protein Residue. In Data Recovery Excavations at Seven Sites Along Interstate 25, Sandoval County, New Mexico, edited by Cherie K. Walth and Jim A. Railey, pp. 283–297. Cultural Resource Technical Series 2011-­1. Prepared for the New Mexico Department of Transportation. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Albuquerque. Walth, Cherie K., and Jim A. Railey (editors) 2011 Data Recovery Excavations at Seven Sites Along Interstate 25, Sandoval County, New Mexico. Cultural Resource Technical Series 2011-­1. Prepared for the New Mexico Department of Transportation. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Albuquerque. Wendlund, Wayne M., and Reid A. Bryson 1974 Dating Climatic Episodes of the Holocene. Quaternary Research 4(1):9–24. Weng, Chengyu, and Stephen T. Jackson 1999 Late Glacial and Holocene Vegetation History and Paleoclimate of the Kaibab Plateau, Arizona. Paleogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 153:​ 179–201. Williams, B. J. 1981 A Critical Review of Models in Sociobiology. Annual Review of Anthropology 10:​163–192. Wills, Wirt H. 1988a Early Agriculture and Sedentism in the American Southwest: Evidence and Interpretations. Journal of World Prehistory 2:​445–488. 1988b Early Prehistoric Agriculture in the American Southwest. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico. 1989 Patterns of Prehistoric Food Production in West-­Central New Mexico. Jour­ nal of Anthropological Research 45:​139–157. 1992 Plant Cultivation and the Evolution of Risk-­Prone Economies in the Prehistoric American Southwest. In Transitions to Agriculture in Prehistory, edited by Anne Birgitte Gebauer and T. Douglas Price, pp. 153–176. Monographs in World Achaeology No. 4. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin.



Early Farming and Hunter-Gatherers in the Albuquerque Basin

57

1995 Archaic Foraging and the Beginning of Food Production in the American Southwest. In Last Hunters, First Farmers: New Perspectives on the Prehis­ toric Transition to Agriculture, edited by T. Douglas Price and Anne Birgitte Gebauer, pp. 215–242. School of American Research, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Wills, W. H., and Bruce B. Huckell 1994 Economic Implications of Changing Land-­use Patterns in the Late Archaic. In Themes in Southwest Prehistory, edited by George J. Gumerman, pp. 33– 52. School of American Research, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Yellen, John E. 1977 Archaeological Approaches to the Present. Academic Press, New York. Yost, Chad 2011 Appendix D: Phytolith and Protein Residue Analysis of Groundstone and Lithic Artifacts from Sites LA 123288, LA 123289, LA 123291, and LA 123292, Northern New Mexico. In Data Recovery Excavations at Seven Sites Along Interstate 25, Sandoval County, New Mexico, edited by Cherie K. Walth and Jim A. Railey, pp. 480–504. Cultural Resource Technical Series 2011-­1. Prepared for the New Mexico Department of Transportation. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Albuquerque.

CHAPTER 3

Resistant Foragers Foraging and Maize Cultivation in the Northern Rio Grande Valley

Bradley J. Vierra and Maxine E. McBrinn

Over the past twenty years the archaeological perspective on the introduction of maize and squash into the lives of hunters and gatherers in the Archaic Southwest has changed dramatically. For decades we have been intensely interested in when the earliest maize appeared in the region. We now know that people in some parts of the Southwest were already semi-­ sedentary farmers 3,000 or more years ago, and we are asking a second, and more anthropological, question: Why did the availability of cultigens quickly lead to revolutionary changes in economics and mobility in some areas but not in others? In other words, the focus is shifting primarily from a question of when cultigens arrived to one of why. Concurrently, the most compelling data now provide evidence not simply for the presence of cultigens, but also that those cultigens were fueling profound social transformations in at least some portions of the Southwest. For much of the mid-­twentieth-century, archaeologists were focused very strongly on the question of when maize first appeared in the Southwest (Cordell 1997:​137–140; Wills 1988:​1–4, 7). In some ways they were in a race to find the earliest maize, concentrating their searches on caves and rockshelters, where macrobotanical remains were more likely to be preserved. Archaeologists and botanists working at that time placed great importance 58



Resistant Foragers

59

on the physiological changes in maize — ​for example, the number of rows on the cob and the shape of the cupule (Cordell 1997:​131–132; Vierra and Ford 2006; Wills 1988:​2) — ​to mark and understand the process of generations of maize being selected to withstand the rigors of cultivation in the arid and cool Archaic Southwest (e.g. Martin et al. 1952; Dick 1965). During this long period there was some discussion about why Archaic people didn’t more quickly embrace all of the social changes that farming could, and eventually did, stimulate, but much of the attention was focused on the physical plant remains and on dating them. While we are still very interested in when maize was first introduced in the Southwest, our focus has slowly shifted to the second set of questions: Where and why did people move from viewing cultigens as essentially just another plant food to investing substantial labor into raising corn to harvest. As the result of several cultural resource management projects and some academic research, we now know that as early as 3,000 years ago people in the Tucson Basin (e.g., Mabry 2005; Ezzo and Deaver 1998; Gregory 1999; Roth and Whittlesey, this volume), northwestern New Mexico (Damp et al. 2002), and some parts of northern Chihuahua (Hard and Roney 1998, 2004, 2005; Hard et al. 2006) were investing significant levels of communal labor into creating an infrastructure to support farming, including fields, canal systems, and wells to access ground water. Some of these sites also have evidence that people built substantial houses and/or created terraces for houses or defense. Whether they were migrants or established populations, foragers in these areas seem to have embraced the potential of maize and squash to remake their lives in a new pattern. In contrast to these areas, sites in the northern Rio Grande Valley (Figure 3.1) present an older view of the Archaic period, one in which foragers relied on an extensive suite of plants and animals, and architecture was uncommon and ephemeral. As in much of the Southwest, maize appeared in the area 3,000 years ago; however, instead of enthusiastically embracing agriculture, foragers residing in the northern Rio Grande appear to have relegated maize to a supporting role while they continued to rely on their established subsistence strategies for another 1,500 to 2,000 years. This brings us to our main point: It was not until ad 600 or later that people in the northern Rio Grande began to settle into villages, produce ceramics, and develop the familiar Pueblo life way. Why did they wait so long?

60

Bradley J. Vierra and Maxine E. McBrinn

Figure 3.1. The Northern Rio Grande region.

Early Maize in the Rio Grande Valley It is nothing new to suggest that maize was not integrated into Rio Grande Valley foraging economies until quite late, and that at least some populations in the northern part of the valley continued to emphasize foraging over cultivation until much later in the Archaic period than traditionally believed (e.g., Cordell 1979:​33, 103; McNutt 1969:​81). Accordingly, several different subsistence economies may have coexisted during the Develop-



Resistant Foragers

61

mental period (ad 600–1200), reflecting both lowland cultivation and upland foraging land-­use strategies (Scheick 2007; Vierra and Ford 2007). Some of the earliest dates for maize in the area are from Jemez Cave at an elevation of 7,050 ft (2,150 m) in the Jemez Mountains, where maize remains have been dated to about 3,200 years ago (2990 bp). This maize appears to represent a primitive form of chapalote characterized by small, triangular-­shaped cupules. Although roughly contemporaneous, maize from the Cabezon site (3,370 years old or 3125 bp) located northwest of Albuquerque in the Puerco River valley (6,130 ft or 1,870 m elevation) appears to be more developed than that at nearby Jemez Cave; that is, the cupules are rectangular, indicating that human selection was already changing the productivity of this early variety of maize. This pattern continued with the earliest directly dated specimens from within the Rio Grande Valley proper at ca. ad 200 from the Chama Alcove site and ad 400 from the Nambe Falls site, which appear to represent higher-­yielding varieties than their earlier counterparts (Vierra and Ford 2006, 2007). Cupule size and maize productivity continued to increase through Pueblo times (Vierra and Ford 2007:​121). Otherwise, only about 10 sites in the valley have produced maize dating before ad 500, despite many archaeologists looking carefully for evidence of early or even not-­so-early maize (Railey, this volume; Vierra 2008; Vierra and Ford 2007; Walth and Railey 2011). A recent review of flotation samples from 75 Late Archaic/Early Developmental features on three separate excavation projects in the Santa Fe area indicates that the samples were dominated by cheno-­am seeds but did not contain any cultigens (McBride and Toll 2010). It was not until ad 600–900 that maize quantities exceeded that of plants from the Amaranth family (which includes Chenopodium spp.) at sites in the area. Even then, some sites dating from as late as ad 900 might be mistaken for a typical Late Archaic site based on their architecture, lithic materials, and subsistence data because they lack any evidence of maize (Vierra 2008; Vierra and Ford 2007). The lack of maize at the vast majority of sites dating prior to ad 600 cannot be explained by assuming that corn was not available. As previously noted, two sites in the northern Rio Grande region have produced maize dating from around 3,000 years ago. If maize was available, then why wasn’t it commonly cultivated in the northern Rio Grande Valley? Why did the people in this part of the Southwest wait so long to make farming their

62

Bradley J. Vierra and Maxine E. McBrinn

­ rincipal subsistence strategy? Why did they relegate maize to a supporting p role for so long? Alternatively, we can turn this question around and ask why people in other parts of the Southwest promoted maize into a dominant position in their diet so quickly. Why were they willing to substantively abandon a subsistence method and way of life that had allowed their ancestors to survive and even thrive for thousands of years? Optimal Foraging Models Optimal foraging models provide a set of tools that might elucidate why maize was quickly accepted and used at some locations, while in others it was only a minor dietary component. Renee Barlow (2002, 2006), Michael Diehl (2001; Diehl and Waters 2006), and William Hudspeth (2000) have determined the postencounter return rates for maize and other available plant and animal foods in the eastern Great Basin and Southwest. In particular, Hudspeth (2000) has explicitly listed the wild resources available along the lower Rio Chama within the northern Rio Grande region. The data presented by him and other scholars provide valuable information for examining why foragers in the northern Rio Grande region continued to primarily hunt and gather long after others in the Southwest had turned to farming. The list of food resources available to foragers in the northern Rio Grande is very long. Faunal resources included large game such as elk, bighorn sheep, deer, and antelope, and smaller game such as rabbits, fish, and large-­bodied birds (Table 3.1) (Hudspeth 2000:​231). Although most of these animals could have been hunted year-­round, many of the larger animals would have moved to higher elevations in the summer but would have been available at lower elevations over the winter. The return rates for hunted foods top the list for the highest caloric returns for time invested, easily surpassing all plant foods except for cattail pollen. Larger animals provide the highest postencounter returns, as indicated for elk, deer, and bighorn sheep, with 20,000 calories or more gained for each hour of effort. Although not mentioned by Hudspeth (2000), bison would have also been available in the Rio Grande Valley (Akins 2013; Lang and Harris 1984). Obviously large game animals were preferred food resources, but the number of animals available would have been affected by variations in terrestrial productivity, and thus hunts might not have always been successful. Nonetheless, game would have been generally abundant in these woodland settings in con-



Resistant Foragers

63

Table 3.1. Animal resource return rates for the northern Rio Grande Valley, including encounter rates, pursuit times, and search costs Rank Resource

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Elk Deer/bighorn sheep Antelope Jackrabbit Cottontail rabbit Small mammals Fish Large-bodied birds

Return Rate (cal/hr)

> 20,000 17,971–31,450 15,725–31,450 13,475–15,400 8,983–9,800 2,837–10,780 2,067–6,065 1,975–2,709

Seasonality

Year-round, but primarily fall and winter Year-round, but primarily fall and winter Year-round Year-round Year-round Summer Year-round Spring and fall

Source: Hudspeth 2000:231.

trast to other, more arid regions of the Southwest (e.g., Akins 2013; Cannon 2000). Foragers who were more reliant on animal resources may have been less likely to integrate cultigens into their diet. To examine this idea further, it is instructive to look at the record for the Mogollon, a region with many environmental similarities to the northern Rio Grande. Michael Cannon (2000, 2003; Broughton, Cannon, and Bartelink 2010) has examined faunal use at Pithouse and Classic Mimbres sites along the Mimbres River between ad 400 and 1200. He found that, in accordance with the central-­place forager–prey choice model, large game, primarily deer and pronghorn antelope, were favored. This was particularly true at sites in the higher elevations and in wooded areas, where larger-­ bodied animals could be found nearby. A fall-­off in game availability by the Late Pithouse period, believed to be a result of sustained hunting pressures, eventually led to hunters going farther afield to procure artiodactyls and to an increased use of lagomorphs (primarily cottontails and jack­rabbits). Moreover, Broughton and others (2010) find that the increased use of lago­ morphs at later Mimbres site components is positively correlated with evidence for agricultural intensification. It appears that once wild foods, especially those with high caloric returns, were significantly depleted, people focused on increasing the harvest of farmed foods, a result also found in the Hohokam area (Szuter and Bayham 1989). The northern Rio Grande may have been initially even richer in large-­ bodied animals than the Mimbres Valley. For instance, bison were present in parts of the northern Rio Grande Valley but were never a major

Cattail Prickly pear Yucca Hedgehog cactus Piñon pine Gambel oak Cheno-ams Fourwing saltbush Rocky Mountain Juniper Groundcherry Chokecherry Sunflower Rocky Mountain bee plant Goosefoot Pigweed Bluegrasses Indian ricegrass Dropseed Purslane Mountain muhly

Typha latifolia Opuntia spp. Yucca spp. Echinocereus spp. Pinus edulis Quercus gambelli Cheno-ams Atriplex canescans Juniperus scopulorum Physalis fendleri Prunus virginiana Helianthus annuus Cleome serrulata Chenopodium spp. Amaranthus spp. Poa spp. Oryopsis hymenoides Sporobolus spp. Portulaca oleracea Muhlenbergia montana

Source: Hudspeth 2000:202.

Common Name

Taxon

Perennial Perennial Perennial Perennial Perennial Perennial Annual Perennial Perennial Perennial Perennial Annual Annual Annual Annual Perennial Perennial Perennial Annual Annual

Growth Habit

Pollen Fruits Fruits Fruits Nuts Acorns Greens Seeds Fruits Fruits Fruits Seeds Seeds Seeds Seeds Seeds Seeds Seeds Seeds Seeds

Plant Part

Table 3.2. Plant resources and return rates for the northern Rio Grande Valley

2,750–9,360 1,000–2,000 1,000–2,000 1,000–2,000 841–1,700 800–1,300 500–2,000 1,200 750 750 750 467–504 400–500 400–500 400–500 418–491 301–392 162–294 200 162–294

Return Rate (kcal/hr)

Late spring–early summer Spring–summer July–Aug. Spring–summer Sept. Aug.–early Oct. Late spring–summer Oct.–Apr. Mid-Sept.–Apr. Late summer–fall Late summer–fall Summer–early fall Late summer–early fall Late summer–early fall Late summer Spring Late May–June June–Aug. Midsummer Late Sept.–early Oct.

Seasonality



Resistant Foragers

65

r­ esource in the Mimbres area. Additionally, elk and bighorn sheep were also e­ xploited in the region (Akins 2013; Allen 2004). Therefore, foragers in the northern Rio Grande probably did not seriously begin farming until after they had depleted their hunted resources. As Akins (2013:​226) points out, the northern Rio Grande had “relatively high artiodactyl indexes suggesting that artiodactyl hunting played a larger role in animal subsistence” than in other regions. Timothy Kohler and others (2004) also point out the potential importance of deer hunting for exchange during the later Classic period on the Pajarito Plateau, northwest of Santa Fe. As shown in Table 3.2, plant resources in the northern Rio Grande included cattail, prickly pear and other cactus fruits, piñon, juniper berries, groundcherries and chokecherries, yucca fruits, acorns, greens from cheno­ podium and amaranth, and many seed sources, including sunflower, goosefoot, and pigweed (Hudspeth 2000:​202). These resources offer lower return rates than animal foods but can be found without significant search costs, especially by gatherers familiar with the area. On the downside, these resources are available at various elevations and during different seasons. We can assume that foragers would have planned their yearly rounds to maxi­ mize potential returns, perhaps starting at lower elevations in the spring and moving to higher elevations as greens and seeds became available. They would have visited the highest elevations in the summer, returning to the piñon-­juniper zone in the late summer or early fall (Vierra and Foxx 2009). This zone would have provided juniper berries, cheno-­am seeds, and intermittent but potentially rich piñon harvests (Hudspeth 2000). Zeanah (2002) makes two important points in respect to central-­place foraging and the effect of transport costs on the seasonal exploitation of piñon. First, residential bases should tend to be located in close proximity to crops during good years, whereas logistical trips might be made in bad years. Second, as diet breadth (and resource spatial incongruity) increases, we would expect more logistical trips to resource patches with more portable food items (e.g., piñon nuts), with residences being located near less portable foods (such as maize). Therefore, transport costs can affect residential mobility, whereas spatial incongruities are more likely to affect logistical mobility, and temporal incongruities the use of storage (Binford 1978, 1980). Preliminary archaeological evidence indicates that increasing diet breadth is associated with periods of decreased effective moisture in the Southwest, and that maize was present during periods of increased diet

66

Bradley J. Vierra and Maxine E. McBrinn

Table 3.3. Return rates for cultigens Taxon

Common Return Rate Name (kcal/hr)

Zea mays

Maize

Zea mays Phaseolus vulgaris Cucurbita spp.

Maize Beans Squash

Comments

900–2,300 Higher value (from Diehl and Waters 2006) does not include field prep and planting time. 1,300–1,700 Plant-and-go (Barlow 2002:79) 630–2,744 Not grown in northern Rio Grande Valley (Hudspeth 2000:370)

breadth (Bohrer 2007; Dello-­Russo 1999). Consequently, the increasing use of logistical mobility and the cultivation of maize in upland settings would be expected during periods of decreased effective moisture. In one proposed model (Vierra and Ford 2006, 2007), maize and other cultigens would have initially been slotted into a yearly round already designed to maximize subsistence options. For successful cultivation, maize would have been planted in the spring and harvested in late summer or early fall. Note that the return rate for maize places it near the top of all plant foods, below only cattail and about the same as cactus and yucca fruits (Table 3.3). This return-­rate range is also slightly higher than that of piñon nuts; however, piñon nuts are transportable and easily stored (Simms 1987; Zeanah 2002). These maize values are predicated on a plant-­and-go strategy, in which foragers cleared their fields, planted the maize, and then went on their yearly rounds. Barlow (2002) points out that more intensive farming practices, such as midseason weeding or guarding the crop from birds and animals, would have raised the total yield (bushels harvested per acre) but significantly lowered the return rate. Maize could have also been processed by simply roasting green ears or popping and parching mature kernels with little milling for flour, again increasing the return rate (Mabry and Doolittle 2008). For years archaeologists have postulated that during the Late Archaic period maize was used “casually” (e.g., Irwin-­Williams 1973), that term being used to mean something very like the plant-­and-go strategy described by Barlow (2002); however, this perspective contrasts with that advocated by Wills and Huckell (1994), who suggest that maize cultivation requires an investment for productive crop yields and provides a more predictable outcome at the expense of increased residential stability. On the other hand, residential stability implies greater logistical mobility,



Resistant Foragers

67

which could have been used to increase encounter rates for hunting game, as suggested by Grove (2010). As previously noted, early maize recovered from the Cabezon site on the Puerco River floodplain is less primitive than that found at the higher-­ elevation but roughly contemporaneous Jemez Cave. This suggests that a more productive form of early maize was being cultivated in this lowland context. Based on the botanical and faunal remains at the Cabezon site, early maize was supplemented with cheno-­ams, wild grass seeds, and lagomorphs. A similar suite of plant foods is represented in the preagricultural levels of the site (Bargman et al. 1999; Vierra and Ford 2006). The increased costs of piñon nut transport, the decreased availability of larger game in this grassland setting, and the increased use of logistical mobility from this habitation site may have made maize cultivation a more cost-­effective option, especially given the possibility of high-­water table farming along the Puerco River valley (also see Matson 1991:​212; Railey, this volume). In contrast, the greater availability of game, lower costs for pine nut transport, and higher use of residential mobility would have made maize a less cost-­effective option along the Rio Grande and Chama River valleys to the north. Maize would have been planted near piñon harvest areas, with cheno-­ams also being available in upland settings because seasonal wildfires would have enhanced the productivity of this resource. If this contrast is accurate, then it might explain why people were experimenting with early maize productivity in some lowland settings. As pointed out by Roth and Freeman (2008), maize was more easily integrated into a subsistence economy that was already intensively exploiting grass seeds in floodplain contexts during the maize-­growing season (as, for example, at the Cabezon site; also see Vierra and Ford 2006). Discussion For the past quarter century archaeologists such as Minnis (1985), Wills (1988; Wills and Huckell 1994), Vierra and Ford (2006, 2007), and others have noted the apparent late summer–early autumn scheduling conflict faced by foragers who needed to be near piñon stands to harvest the nuts and at the same time needed to be at the maize fields to harvest corn. Wills (1988) has suggested that maize was planted near piñon stands to minimize this conflict and that spring planting would have allowed foragers to scout piñon stands to determine which would yield a good harvest of nuts (also

68

Bradley J. Vierra and Maxine E. McBrinn

see Minnis 1985). Jemez Cave (Vierra and Ford 2007) and Fresnal Shelter (Bohrer 2007) are found within the piñon-­juniper zone; Tularosa and ­Cordova Caves (Martin et al. 1952) are located in ponderosa-­piñon forests; and Wills (1988:​109) suggests that, based on the botanical remains found at the site, Bat Cave may have been near or located in a piñon-­juniper woodland during the Late Archaic occupation. Furthermore, the hunting of deer and other game animals was also an important late summer and fall activity at these upland sites. Archaeological sites surrounded by piñon and other mid-­elevation resources are not the locations where maize seems to have motivated a profound and relatively quick change in subsistence practices, as it did in the Tucson Basin or at Cerro Juanaqueña. Early sedentism and the construction of labor-­intensive residential and agricultural features appear in places where piñon trees do not grow. Early agricultural people in the Tucson Basin would have had access to mesquite, which is also a vegetable source of protein but does not have the geographic and temporal variability of successful piñon harvests (Wills 1995:​222–223) or the scattered distribution and small seed size of pigweed and goosefoot. Foragers in the Tucson Basin would have been able to add maize to their diet without having to reconcile a scheduling conflict (Doleman 2005). They also had the advantage of living in a relatively dense, predictable, and diverse environment, one that might have supported a subsistence strategy that leaned more toward collecting than foraging (e.g., Binford 1980). Moreover, diverting water into nearby fields might have been a cost-­effective option during periods of decreased effective moisture and low resource productivity within a broad floodplain (Vierra 2009). Both Roth and Whittlesey (this volume) remind us, however, that not all sites within the Tucson Basin were likely to have been used as intensively as others, and that there were probably no year-­round occupants at any site. Hard and Roney (2005) suggest a possible explanation for earlier cultivation of maize in the Rio Casas Grandes Valley than in the Tularosa Basin. The Rio Casas Grandes Valley is characterized by a grassland setting with mostly smaller animals and few seed plants. In this area, maize would have outranked wild grasses, with high-­water-table farming being conducted along the floodplain. The cultivation of amaranth would have provided an alternative source for protein. In contrast, the Tularosa Basin, with nearby Otero Mesa and the foothills of the Sacramento Mountains, would have



Resistant Foragers

69

contained high-­ranking resources such as deer, antelope, and bighorn sheep, as well as mesquite and saltbush seeds in the basin, and pine nuts and acorns in the uplands. Plants such as agave, yucca, and sotol would have outranked grasses in the nearby basin. In contrast to the situation in the Tucson Basin and Rio Casas Grandes Valley, the preliminary evidence from the Phoenix Basin and adjacent foothills may indicate a general paucity of early maize. For example, a Late Archaic (ca. 350 bc–ad 500) site recently excavated in the Mogollon transition zone near Florence Junction and Superior, Arizona, failed to identify any maize (Wegener and Ciolek-­Torello 2011). Although the site contained at least six separate occupation episodes, each with two to four structures that were often associated with middens and burials, only wild plant and animal foods were consumed at the site, including cactus fruit and lagomorphs, with some elk, mountain sheep, deer, and pronghorn. Piñon is plentiful in the northern Rio Grande Valley, much as it is in the Mogollon Highlands (Brown 1994), but it is absent from other areas (Figure 3.2). Depending on the local environment, there were at least two equally sensible responses to the availability of maize in the Southwest. The first is a strategy that might have been used in the Tucson Basin. People there were likely to have already been oriented toward a collector strategy, one that emphasized a diet rich in cheno-­ams, mesquite, cactus fruits, and other desert plant foods, along with some amount of logistical hunting (Doleman 2005; Diehl 1997; Roth 1996, this volume; Roth and Freeman 2008). Relatively high levels of site stability or sedentism would have allowed people in the basin to plant and tend maize without profoundly disrupting their yearly rounds. This would have enabled them to produce higher crop yields, making it worthwhile to invest even more time and effort into farming. Through this process, maize may have quickly become a substantial contributor in their diet. In this manner, foragers who were more reliant on plant resources may have been more likely to integrate cultigens into their diet. Other parts of the Southwest had desert environments with a lower density of resources, perhaps requiring greater mobility (Doleman 2005; Hard and Roney 2005). Maize would not have fit so seamlessly into this cultural adaptation. In addition to large game, upland piñon-­juniper forests provided piñon, chenopodium, and amaranth, all highly nutritious, protein-­rich plant foods well-­suited for storage. These plant resources were harvested in the late summer or early fall, which, as mentioned above,

70

Bradley J. Vierra and Maxine E. McBrinn

Figure 3.2. Distribution of Colorado piñon pine in North America.

might have conflicted with the maize harvest. In these areas, then, proto­ farmers had some hard decisions to make. Did they plant maize and then stay near their fields, tending and guarding them? Or did they plant it and return to harvest whatever survived without interim tending? If they planted maize in or near the piñon zone, they may have been able to do both — ​collect piñon nuts and cheno-­am seeds and harvest any surviving corn. Any chenopodium or amaranth that sprouted in ground disturbed by periodic wildfires or maize farming may have been added to the harvest, further increasing the efficiency of this strategy. In this scenario, people may have chosen to locate fields where a high water table would ensure that crops were well-­watered (Vierra and Ford 2007). From year to year, as different piñon stands produced good harvests, they would have chosen nearby locations to plant maize. The expectation of numerous future residential moves probably would have discouraged heavy investment in residential or agricultural infrastructure, leaving people pre-



Resistant Foragers

71

disposed toward continued mobility. If there were no suitable field locations near the piñon stands they planned to harvest that coming fall, these protofarmers may have chosen to forego planting maize that year. Alternatively, if they expected a poor piñon harvest everywhere, they may have opted to plant more corn and invest some time into tending it while still making logistical trips to harvest piñon nuts or hunt. The fact that both green and ripe maize was recovered from Jemez Cave indicates how flexible this crop could be while it was being integrated into the annual subsistence cycle (Ford 1975). Conclusion The northern Rio Grande Valley is rich in game and wild plant foods, including elk, deer, pronghorn, piñon nuts, and cheno-­am seeds. It encompasses a large patch of piñon-­juniper woodlands bounded by the Rocky Mountains to the north, the San Juan Basin to the west, the Great Plains to the east, and the Chihuahuan Desert to the south. Based on optimal foraging models, we suggest that foragers who were more reliant on animal resources would have been less likely to integrate cultigens into their diet, whereas foragers who were more reliant on plant resources would have been more likely to do so. Foragers in the northern Rio Grande Valley would have ranked maize below other game and wild plant foods, especially because investing the work required to produce higher yields would have greatly disrupted their existing subsistence strategy and reduced the net return rate for this crop. This would have been especially true for areas along the valleys of the Chama and Rio Grande Rivers north of Santa Fe, where maize could have been planted near piñon stands and used as a seasonal backup strategy. In contrast, maize cultivation would have been a better fit where seed plants were already an important food staple, in areas conducive to high-­watertable farming, and where logistical costs to forage in the nearby uplands were greater (e.g., the Puerco River floodplain). The presence of a more developed form of early maize at the Cabezon site supports this contention. Given the increased costs of serious farming for foragers with an established and successful subsistence strategy, the switch away from hunting and gathering probably did not take place until there were no other good options. For example, the period from ca. ad 250 to 500 was one of decreased effective moisture, with a subsequent increase in diet breadth for some r­ esi­dents

72

Bradley J. Vierra and Maxine E. McBrinn

of the Albuquerque area (Dello-­Russo 1999, 2003). The increase in farming along the Puerco River valley during this time appears to have been a ­response to declining foraging returns (Railey, this volume). This period was probably an important turning point for groups who shifted their economy toward an increased reliance on maize cultivation, versus groups residing to the north where foraging was still the primary activity. In fact, farming communities did not expand onto the Pajarito Plateau until the twelfth century, when they encroached onto upland habitats traditionally occupied by hunter-­gatherers. These foragers would have been faced with the dilemma of either incorporating into these villages or moving north or eastward into areas where maize cultivation was not profitable and where farming communities were never established. References Akins, N. A. 2013 Northern Rio Grande Faunal Exploitation: A View from the Pajarito Plateau, the Tewa Basin and Beyond. In From Mountain Top to Valley Bottom: Un­ derstanding Past Land-­Use in the Northern Rio Grande Valley, New Mexico, edited by B. Vierra, pp. 215–229. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Allen, Craig D. 2004 Ecological Patterns and Environmental Change in the Bandelier Landscape. In Archaeology of Bandelier National Monument: Village Formation on the Pajarito Plateau, edited by T. Kohler, pp. 19–68. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Bargman, B. A. C., P. A. Gerow, and J. M. Elyea 1999 LA 110946, San Luis de Cabezon Site. In Data Recovery along the 1995 MAPCO Four Corners Pipeline: Sites in the San Juan Basin/Colorado Plateau, Sandoval, San Juan and McKinley Counties, New Mexico, Vol. 2, edited by K. Brown, pp. 11–46. Office of Contract Archeology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Barlow, K. R. 2002 Predicting Maize Agriculture among the Fremont: An Economic Comparison of Farming and Foraging in the American Southwest. American Antiq­ uity 67:​65–88. 2006 A Formal Model for Predicting Agriculture among the Fremont. In Behav­ ioral Ecology and the Transition to Agriculture, edited by Douglas J. Kennett and Bruce Winterhalder, pp. 87–102. University of California Press, ­Berkeley. Binford, L. R. 1978 Dimensional Analysis of Behavior and Site Structure: Learning from an ­Eskimo Hunting Stand. American Antiquity 43(3):330–361.



Resistant Foragers

73

1980 Willow Smoke and Dogs’ Tails: Hunter-­Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45:​4–20. Bohrer, V. L. 2007 Preceramic Subsistence in Two Rock Shelters in Fresnal Canyon, South Central New Mexico. Archaeological Series No. 199. Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona. Broughton, Jack M., Michael D. Cannon, and Eric J. Bartelink 2010 Evolutionary Ecology, Resource Depletion, and Niche Construction Theory: Applications to Central California Hunter-­Gatherers and Mimbres-­ Mogollon Agriculturists. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 17:​ 371–421. Brown, D. E. (editor) 1994 Biotic Communities of the Southwestern United States and Northwestern Mex­ ico. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Cannon, M. D. 2000 Large Mammal Relative Abundance in Pithouse and Pueblo Period Archaeo­ faunas from Southwestern New Mexico: Resource Depresssion among the Mimbres-­Mogollon. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 19:​317–347. 2003 A Model of Central Place Forager Prey Choice and an Application to Faunal Remains from the Mimbres Valley, New Mexico. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22:​1–25. Cordell, Linda 1979 Cultural Resources Overview: Middle Rio Grande Valley, New Mexico. U.S. Forest Service, Albuquerque. 1997 Archaeology of the Southwest. 2nd ed. Academic Press, New York. Damp, J. E., S. A. Hall, and S. J. Smith 2002 Early Irrigation on the Colorado Plateau near Zuni Pueblo, New Mexico. American Antiquity 67:​665–676. Dello-­Russo, Robert D. 1999 Climatic Stress in the Middle Rio Grande Valley of New Mexico: An Evaluation of Changes in Foraging Behavior during the Late Archaic/Basket­ maker II Period. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. 2003 The Responses of Basketmaker III Foragers to Climatic Stress in the Middle Rio Grande Valley of New Mexico. In Anasazi Archaeology at the Millen­ nium: Proceedings of the Sixth Occasional Anasazi Symposium, edited by P. Reed, pp. 23–28. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson. Dick, Herbert 1965 Bat Cave. Monograph No. 17. School of American Research, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Diehl, M. W. 1997 Rational Behavior, the Adoption of Agriculture, and the Organization of Subsistence during the Late Archaic Period in the Greater Tucson Basin. In Rediscovering Darwin: Evolutionary Theory and Archaeological Explanation,

74

Bradley J. Vierra and Maxine E. McBrinn

edited by C. M. Barton and G. A. Clark, pp. 251–265. Archaeological Papers No. 7. American Anthropological Association, Washington, DC. 2001 Macrobotanical Remains and Land Use: Subsistence and Strategies for Food Acquisition. In Excavations in the Santa Cruz River Floodplain: The Early Agricultural Period Component at Los Pozos, edited by David A. Gregory, pp. 196–208. Anthropological Papers No. 21. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson. Diehl, Michael W., and Jennifer A. Waters 2006 Aspects of Optimization and Risk during the Early Agricultural Period in Southeastern Arizona. In Behavioral Ecology and the Transition to Agricul­ ture, edited by Douglas J. Kennett and Bruce Winterhalder, pp. 63–86. University of California Press, Berkeley. Doleman, W. H. 2005 Environmental Constraints on Forager Mobility and the Use of Cultigens in Southeastern Arizona and Southern New Mexico. In The Late Archaic Across the Borderlands: From Foraging to Farming, edited by Bradley J. Vierra, pp. 113–140. University of Texas Press, Austin. Ezzo, J. A., and W. L Deaver. 1998 Watering the Desert: Late Archaic Farming at the Costello-­King Site. Technical Series 68. Statistical Research, Inc., Tucson. Ford, Richard I. 1975 Re-­excavation of Jemez Cave. Awanyu 3:​13–27. Gregory, David A. (editor) 1999 Excavations in the Santa Cruz River Floodplain: The Middle Archaic Com­ ponent at Los Pozos. Anthropological Papers No. 20. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson. Grove, M. 2010 Logistical Mobility Reduces Subsistence Risk in Hunting Economies. Jour­ nal of Archaeological Science 37:​1913–1921. Hard, R. J., A. C. MacWilliams, J. R. Roney, K. R. Adams, and W. L. Merrill 2006 Early Agriculture in Chihuahua, Mexico. In Histories of Maize: Multidisci­ plinary Approaches to the Prehistory, Linguistics, Biogeography, Domestica­ tion and Evolution of Maize, edited by John E. Staller, Robert H. Tykot, and Bruce F. Benz, pp. 471–485. Academic Press, Boston. Hard, Robert J., and John R. Roney 1998 A Massive Terraced Village Complex in Chihuahua, Mexico, 3000 Years Before Present. Science 279:​1661–1664. 2004 Late Archaic Period Hilltop Settlements in Northwestern Chihuahua, Mexico. In Identity, Feasting, and the Archaeology of the Greater Southwest: Proceedings of the 2002 Southwest Symposium, edited by Barbara Mills, pp. 276–294. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. 2005 The Transition to Farming on the Río Casas Grandes and in the Southern Jornada Mogollon Region. In The Late Archaic Across the Borderlands: From Foraging to Farming, edited by Bradley J. Vierra, pp. 141–186. University of Texas Press, Austin.



Resistant Foragers

75

Hudspeth, W. B. 2000 The Evolutionary Ecology of Behavioral Response to Risk among Prehistoric Agriculturalists of the Lower Rio Chama, New Mexico. PhD dissertation, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Irwin-­Williams, C. 1973 The Oshara Tradition: Origins of Anasazi Culture. Contributions in Anthropology No. 5. Eastern New Mexico University, Portales, New Mexico. Kohler, Timothy, Sarah Herr, and Matthew Root 2004 The Rise and Fall of Towns on the Pajarito Plateau (ad 375–1600). In Archae­ ology of Bandelier National Monument: Village Formation on the Pajarito Plateau, edited by T. Kohler, pp. 215–264. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Lang, R. W., and A. H. Harris 1984 The Faunal Remains from Arroyo Hondo Pueblo, New Mexico. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe. Mabry, J. B. 2005 Changing Knowledge and Ideas about the First Farmers in Southeastern Arizona. In The Late Archaic Across the Borderlands: From Foraging to Farming, edited by Bradley J. Vierra, pp. 41–83. University of Texas Press, Austin. Mabry, Jonathan B., and William E. Doolittle 2008 Modeling the Early Agricultural Frontier in the Desert Borderlands. In Archaeology Without Borders: Contact, Commerce, and Change in the U.S. Southwest and Northwestern Mexico, edited by Laurie D. Webster and Maxine McBrinn, pp. 55–70. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. Martin, Paul S., John B. Rinaldo, Elaine Bluhm, H. Cutler, and R. Grange 1952 Mogollon Cultural Continuity and Change: The Stratigraphic Analysis of ­Tularosa and Cordova Caves. Fieldiana: Anthropology 40. Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago. Matson, R. G. 1991 The Origins of Southwestern Agriculture. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. McBride, Pamela J., and Mollie S. Toll 2010 Flotation and Wood Samples. In 7,000 Years on the Piedmont: Excavation of Fourteen Archaeological Sites along the Northwest Santa Fe Relief Route, Santa Fe County, New Mexico, edited by S. Post, pp. 377–416. Archaeology Notes 357. Office of Archaeological Studies, Museum of New Mexico, Santa Fe. McNutt, C. H. 1969 Early Puebloan Occupations at Tesuque By-­pass and the Upper Rio Grande Valley. Anthropology Papers No. 40. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Minnis, P. E. 1985 Domesticating People and Plants in the Greater Southwest. In Prehistoric Food Production in North America, edited by R. Ford, pp. 309–340. Anthropology Papers No. 75. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

76

Bradley J. Vierra and Maxine E. McBrinn

Roth, Barbara J. 1996 Regional Land Use in the Late Archaic of the Tucson Basin. In Early For­ mative Adaptations in the Southern Southwest, edited by Barbara J. Roth, pp. 37–48. Monographs in World Archaeology No. 25. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin. Roth, Barbara J., and Andrea Freeman 2008 The Middle Archaic Period and the Transition to Agriculture in the Sonoran Desert of Southern Arizona. Kiva 73:​321–353. Scheick, Cherie. L. 2007 The Late Developmental and Early Coalition of the Northern Middle Rio Grande: Time or Process? Kiva 73(2):131–154. Simms, S. R. 1987 Behavioral Ecology and Hunter-­Gatherer Foraging: An Example from the Great Basin. BAR International Series No. 381. Oxford, UK. Szuter, Christine R., and Frank E. Bayham 1989 Sedentism and Prehistoric Animal Procurement among Desert Horticulturalists of the North American Southwest. In Farmers as Hunters: The Implica­ tions of Sedentism, edited by Susan Kent, pp. 80–94. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Vierra, Bradley J. 2008 Early Agriculture on the Southeastern Periphery of the Colorado Plateau. In Archaeology Without Borders: Contact, Commerce, and Change in the U.S. Southwest and Northwestern Mexico, edited by Laurie D. Webster and Maxine E. McBrinn, pp. 71–88. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. 2009 Keystone in Context: A Significant Archaic Period Site in El Paso, Texas. Statistical Research, Inc., Tucson. Vierra, Bradley J., and Richard I. Ford 2006 Early Maize Agriculture in the Northern Rio Grande Valley, New Mexico. In Histories of Maize: Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Prehistory, Linguis­ tics, Biogeography, Domestication and Evolution of Maize, edited by John E. Staller, Robert H. Tykot, and Bruce F. Benz, pp. 497–510. Academic Press, Boston. 2007 Foragers and Farmers in the Northern Rio Grande Valley, New Mexico. Kiva 73:​117–130. Vierra, Bradley J., and Teralene Foxx 2009 Archaic Upland Resource Use: The View from the Pajarito Plateau. In Be­ tween the Mountains, Beyond the Mountains: Papers in Honor of Paul R. Williams, edited by E. Brown, K. Armstrong, D. Brugge, and C. Condie, pp. 154–166. Papers of the Archaeological Society of New Mexico Vol. 35. Albuquerque. Walth, Cherie, and Jim Railey 2011 Data Recovery Excavations at Seven Sites Along Interstate 25 in Sandoval County, New Mexico. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Albuquerque.



Resistant Foragers

77

Wegener, Robert M., and Richard Ciolek-­Torello 2011 Excavations of Prehistoric Sites in the Queen Valley to Queen Creek Area. Vol. 2 of U.S. 60 Archaeological Project: Early Agricultural, Formative, and Historical-­Period Use of the Upper Queen Creek Region. Prepared for the Arizona Department of Transportation, Phoenix. Technical Series 92. Statistical Research, Inc., Tucson. Wills, Wirt H. 1988 Early Prehistoric Agriculture in the American Southwest. School of American Research, Santa Fe, New Mexico. 1995 Archaic Foraging and the Beginning of Food Production in the American Southwest. In Last Hunters–First Farmers: New Perspectives on the Prehis­ toric Transition to Agriculture, edited by T. Douglas Price and Anne Brigitte Gebauer, pp. 215–242. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Wills, Wirt H., and Bruce Huckell 1994 Economic Implications of Changing Land-­Use Patterns in the Late Archaic. In Themes in Southwest Prehistory, edited by G. Gumerman, pp.  33–52. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Zeanah, David W. 2002 Central Place Foraging and Prehistoric Pinyon Utilization. In Beyond For­ aging and Collecting: Evolutionary Change in Hunter-­Gatherer Settlement Systems, edited by B. Fitzhugh and J. Habu, pp.  231–256. Plenum Press, New York.

CHAPTER 4

Deconstructing the Early Agricultural Period in Southern Arizona Stephanie M. Whittlesey

In the US Southwest, few technological innovations were more important than the adoption of domesticated plants from Mesoamerica and the development of food production strategies sometime around 2000 bc, yet few processes have been more controversial. Archaeologists have presented different, often conflicting scenarios to explain the transition from foraging to farming and have jockeyed for position in claiming to have found the earliest maize or irrigation canals. The recent explosion of cultural resource management (CRM) studies in southern Arizona has provided us with a wealth of new data to explore the transition to food production, but the excitement of new discoveries has often led us to overstate their significance. In this chapter I attempt to deconstruct what has been called the Early Agricultural period (EAP) in southern Arizona. This period began with the appearance of the earliest cultigens around 2100 bc and ended with the introduction of ceramic containers at about ad 50. Once called the Late Archaic, this time period witnessed major technological innovations and accompanying changes in human organization. Recent publications stress the importance of farming at EAP settlements, which have been inferred to be year-­round villages, a viewpoint enhanced by the appearance of irrigation ditches in the San Pedro phase. Here I instead emphasize the slow processes over more than two millennia that eventually produced agriculturally dependent village life in the Early Ceramic period. 78



Deconstructing the Early Agricultural Period in Southern Arizona

79

My argument rests on four major points: (1) the EAP label is a mis­ nomer; (2) residents of EAP settlements were not maize dependent; (3) EAP people did not permanently occupy these villages but instead practiced a strategy of considerable residential mobility; and (4) EAP settlements along the Santa Cruz River and in other water-­rich locales are special cases and not representative of contemporary settlements in other environmental  zones. Why take a contrary stand against maize dependence and permanent village life in the EAP? The current EAP perspective diverts our ­attention from understanding the processes and technologies that eventually did produce stable villages supported by farming, namely food-­processing technology, improved varieties of maize, and changes in storage technology. The current model also oversimplifies the transition to food production. I argue these points from the perspective of the Las Capas site (AZ AA:12:1​ 11[ASM]),1 an extensive multicomponent site dating primarily from the late Middle Archaic period through the late San Pedro phase. Ironically, Las Capas figures prominently in the arguments I seek to counter in this chapter. Las Capas Las Capas, meaning “the layers” in Spanish, is located in the Tucson Basin just north of the confluence of the Santa Cruz River and the Cañada del Oro Wash (Figure 4.1). It is one of an almost-­continuous group of preceramic-­ period sites located in the floodplain of the Santa Cruz River. Two major excavations have been carried out at Las Capas under the auspices of CRM archaeology. Desert Archaeology, Inc., (DAI) investigated portions of the site under contract to the Arizona Department of Transportation. The investigated loci were located along Interstate 10 north and east of the portion of the site investigated by SWCA Environmental Consultants, Inc., the second institution conducting major excavations. Under contract to Pima County, SWCA excavated two loci where modifications to the Pima County Wastewater Pollution Control Facility were planned, the Treatment Plant locus and the Warehouse locus (Figure 4.2). Together these e­ xcavations provided extensive, deep exposures of stratified cultural deposits (Mabry, ed. 2008; Whittlesey et al., eds. 2010). Excavated features included pit structures, most of which were habi­ta­ tions. Literally thousands of extramural pits of diverse morphologies were

80

Stephanie M. Whittlesey

Figure 4.1. Location of the Las Capas site in the Tucson Basin.

used for many purposes ranging from food processing to storage, extra­ mural activity surfaces, human and animal burials, midden deposits, water-­conveyance features, and wells. Stratigraphy permitted the grouping of features by strata and smaller units corresponding to the levels where features originated. Cultural deposits dating to the Middle Archaic period, the early San Pedro phase, and the late San Pedro phase were identified, along with less abundant features dating to later periods. Mislabeling the Early Agricultural Period I argue that the EAP is a misnomer not only because it breaks traditional rules of cultural systematics but also because the characteristics inherent in the label do not apply universally. It is clear that a name is not simply a



Deconstructing the Early Agricultural Period in Southern Arizona

81

Figure 4.2. Map of Las Capas showing SWCA and DAI data recovery areas.

name, but the labels we use really do matter because terminology influences archaeological interpretations. The preceramic culture of southern Arizona was originally called the Cochise culture. E. B. Sayles of the Gila Pueblo Archaeological Foundation and his colleague Ernst Antevs investigated several sites in southeastern Arizona, publishing the results in 1941 (Sayles and Antevs 1941). They divided the Cochise culture into three phases: Sulphur Spring (earlier than 8000  bc), Chiricahua (8000–3000 bc), and San Pedro (3000–500 bc). Sayles and Antevs (1941) considered the Cochise culture to represent a stage of cultural development intermediate between the big-­game hunters of the Paleoindian period and the first farmers of southern Arizona in which the exploitation of diverse wild plant resources was emphasized.

82

Stephanie M. Whittlesey

In the 1980s, based on a CRM study of sites in the Santa Rita Mountains south of Tucson, Bruce Huckell (1984:​214) suggested that the Cochise culture label was too restrictive and probably not representative of contemporaneous developments in other areas. He proposed relabeling the Cochise culture as “the Southwestern Archaic” and divided it into three temporal subdivisions: Early, Middle, and Late. Huckell’s (1984) formulation explicitly considered cultural and material similarities across a broad area and emphasized the subsistence framework, borrowing the term Archaic from Willey and Phillips (1958). In the 1990s, terminology shifted again. Huckell excavated the San Pedro phase Milagro site (BB:10:​46), located in the eastern Tucson Basin (Huckell et al. 1995). He also investigated San Pedro phase sites in Matty Canyon in the Empire Ranch–Cienega Creek area of southeastern Arizona. Frank Eddy and Maurice Cooley first studied these sites in the 1950s but did not publish the results until 1983. Huckell (1995) discovered evidence at these sites for maize, relatively substantial architecture, human burials, midden deposits, and capacious intramural and extramural storage pits, indicating what he inferred to be an agriculturally based, sedentary lifestyle. This led Huckell to relabel the Late Archaic period as the Early Agricultural period. The label was intended to highlight recurrent cultural patterns and to characterize more accurately the economic and ecological relationships of the time. Huckell reserved the term Late Archaic for sites that did not show evidence of cultivation. Thus, archaeologists were saddled with the dual label Late Archaic/Early Agricultural period. Huckell also divided the EAP into the San Pedro phase (1500/1200 to 500 bc) and the Cienega phase (500 bc and ad 200). He did not provide a label for the time between the advent of maize around 2100 bc and the early San Pedro phase. Subsequently, the Cienega phase has been subdivided into the early and late Cienega phases. Since then, this awkward dual terminology has been widely adopted by archaeologists working in southern Arizona (e.g., Carpenter et al. 2005; Diehl 2005b; Gregory 2001; Mabry, ed. 2008). Archaeologists working in other areas of the greater Southwest continue to use the Late Archaic label (e.g., Hester 2005; Smiley and Novotny 2012; Vierra 2005). The dual terminology that Huckell (1995) proposed conflates units of time and units of cultural development. The labeling of contemporary



Deconstructing the Early Agricultural Period in Southern Arizona

83

periods differentiated by lifeways is awkward; although Colton (1939) experimented with giving contemporaneous but culturally distinct phases different names, he did not base them upon subsistence strategies. Moreover, the dual label can be applied reliably only to excavated sites; there are no material-­culture diagnostics to distinguish Late Archaic from EAP sites because the latter is defined by the presence of cultigens. Most importantly, the EAP label has had the effect of promoting inferences of sedentism and maize dependence that may not be warranted. For these reasons, I suggested that the terminology should be changed yet again (Whittlesey, Hesse et al. 2010:​21). I proposed that the entire time from the end of the Paleoindian period to the appearance of ceramic containers should be called the Preceramic period, which follows Huckell’s (1995) use (exemplified in the title of his Of Marshes and Maize: Preceramic Agricultural Settlements in the Cienega Valley) and would make the label parallel to the subsequent era now called the Early Ceramic period. I further suggested that the three-­fold division of early, middle, and late sub­ periods should be retained, along with the phase names applied to the EAP (Whittlesey, Hesse et al. 2010:​21). To avoid what is currently called “the unnamed first interval of the Late Archaic–EAP,” I also suggested the name “Silverbell interval” (Whittlesey, Hesse et al. 2010:​25). There appeared to be insufficient evidence at the time of writing to define a phase, but further research may change this. Although I believe this scheme of separating units of time from units of cultural development, as did the Pecos Classification of 1927, is more useful than the cultural systematics in use today, other archaeologists have yet to adopt the terminology. One anonymous reviewer of this chapter observed that this is not a completely effective solution to the terminology problem because it substitutes the presence or absence of ceramics for the presence or absence of cultigens. I agree, but argue that, at a minimum, the new terminology allows us to independently track the introduction of cultigens in time. Maize Dependence It can be argued that EAP peoples were not maize dependent. Certainly, they cultivated maize and even used ditch irrigation in some localities. They continued, however, to collect wild plant foods and hunt game, and some settlements show no evidence of food production whatsoever. I assert that

84

Stephanie M. Whittlesey

archaeologists have used flawed techniques to measure maize dependence, and that maize dependence was forestalled in the EAP by processing and cooking techniques and farming technology. Dietary Composition

At many EAP settlements, maize and other cultigens formed a relatively small part of the diet. This indicates that, contrary to many archaeological views, the introduction of maize was not an immediately transformative event. To study overall diet breadth, paleobotanist Michael Diehl (2005a) developed the concept of plant resource groups. Plants within a group are interchangeable in terms of the techniques used to harvest them and their energetic return. These groups include: (1) cactus and agave, (2) cultigens, (3) tree legumes, (4) high-­density crop weeds, (5) low-­density crop weeds, and (6) wild grasses. Diverse species of cacti were used. Agave and other succulents are included in this group because the plants are harvested in much the same way. Tree legumes include mesquite and screwbean (Prosopis spp.), palo­verde (Cercidium spp.), and ironwood (Olneya tesota). Cultigens at Las Capas included maize and possibly squash. Because pollen of wild and cultivated cucurbits is difficult to differentiate, the pollen recovered at Las Capas may have been from a wild plant or a cultivar. DAI’s investigations yielded charred tobacco seeds, which also could not be identified precisely as wild or cultivated, and a possible common-­bean cotyledon (Mabry 2008a: Table 1.2). High-­density crop weeds such as pigweed (Amaranthus sp.), goosefoot (Chenopodium sp.), and tansy mustard (Descurainia sp.) grow in disturbed contexts and were encouraged in fields as a secondary source of edible seeds. Low-­density crop weeds such as Compositae and Sphaeralcea sp. grow in the same locations and require the same harvesting techniques as Group 5, but they occur in such low densities that their harvesting costs are much higher relative to their energetic returns. Wild grasses rank l­ owest because their energetic return rates are low, and they would not have grown prolifically in fields that were alternately farmed and left fallow (Diehl 2010:327). Archaeologists commonly use ubiquity, the prevalence of a plant taxon among samples, to measure reliance on specific plant taxa. As Table 4.1



Deconstructing the Early Agricultural Period in Southern Arizona

85

Table 4.1. Ubiquities of plant resource groups in flotation samples at Las Capas, Los Pozos, and Coffee Camp Las Capas Plant Resource Group

Cactus Cultigens Desert legumes High-­density weeds Low-­density weeds Gramineae

Los Pozos

Coffee Camp

SWCA SWCA DAI DAI DAI Middle Early San Early Late San Middle DAI San ­Preceramic Pedro San Pedro Pedro Preceramic Late Pedro Period Phase Phase Phase Period a Cienega b Phase

17 17 17

36 40 4

25 83 31

17 88 33

none none 25

50–83 21 75–100 none 38–69 21

60

84

96

97

65

75–97

63

33

40

39

39

none

25–41

54

17

8

34

34

20

35–69

8

Sources: Data for Las Capas from Diehl 2010; for Los Pozos, Diehl 2005b, with Late Cienega ranges derived from 4 fluorine-dated ages; for Coffee Camp, Halbirt et al. 1993: Table 3.13. a In samples producing charred seeds. b Average of all fluorine periods.

shows, there are remarkable differences in resource group ubiquities between loci and sites, and through time. Maize collected from an extramural pit in Stratum 6B, the Middle Preceramic deposit at the Treatment Plant locus at Las Capas, produced a two-­sigma calibrated date of 2195–1939 bc (Whittlesey, Foster et  al. 2010: Table 5.1); however, maize was found in only 17 percent of investigated features at the Middle Preceramic deposit at SWCA’s Treatment Plant locus. The most ubiquitous edible plants were high-­density crop weeds. At the contemporaneous component of Los ­Pozos (AA:12:​91), also located along the Santa Cruz River not far from Las Capas, no cultigens were present (one maize cupule was recovered during testing, but its dating is ambiguous [Gregory 2001:​30]).2 Although equally early maize has been recovered from other sites in the Tucson Basin and in the Gila Mountains (Huckell et al. 1999), it is clear that farming was practiced long before cultigens became the focal point of subsistence strategies, and settlements became more permanent (see Mabry 2005a). Nearly a millennium later, at the San Pedro phase, the percentage of cultigens had risen to 40 percent at the SWCA loci, and high-­density crop weeds remained the most common resource group. Curiously, cultigens

86

Stephanie M. Whittlesey

were more than twice as ubiquitous at DAI’s investigations of Las Capas (see Table 4.1), and the ubiquities of most other plant resource groups also were higher. Coffee Camp (AA:6:​19), which is dated primarily to the San Pedro phase, is located south of the Santa Cruz Flats, a heavily alluviated zone where the Santa Cruz River flows underground. It lies in the Lower Colorado River Valley subdivision of the Sonoran Desertscrub biotic community and at a lower elevation than the Tucson Basin (Halbirt et al. 1993). No cultigens were recovered from this site, which would place it in the Late Archaic period according to Huckell’s (1995) systematics; however, it evidently was a semipermanent or seasonally occupied residential settlement, with pit structures used for habitation, extramural activity surfaces, more than 300 pits, tool caches, human burials, and a possible ritual or communal structure — ​all characteristics thought to indicate some degree of sedentism (see discussion in Young 1996). Crop weeds were most ubiquitous, although in lower percentages than at the floodplain sites; wild grasses were less abundant, and cactus and desert legumes were more or less similar in frequencies found at the floodplain sites (see Table 4.1). The residents of Coffee Camp do not appear to have farmed, yet the density and diversity of their material culture was equal to or greater than that of Las Capas.3 By the late Cienega phase at Las Capas, ubiquities of crop plants had risen further, to as much as 100 percent in fluoride-­dated age 4 samples. In addition to radiocarbon dating, DAI used fluoride dating to identify age differences by elevation horizons. This technique compares the percentages of fluoride in animal bone calibrated to an absolute time scale. All resource group ubiquities were equal to or higher than those from the San Pedro phase, however, and there was great variability among the fluoride-­dated groups. The variability in results between sites, loci, and periods may suggest that factors other than preservation — ​perhaps archaeological sampling techniques — ​are responsible. An alternative interpretation of the Cienega phase results is presented below. Animal protein also was an important part of the diet, as indicated by the abundant faunal remains at SWCA’s loci at Las Capas, where one piece of bone was recovered for every three pieces of flaked stone. Lagomorphs and artiodactyls were the most abundant game, but there was great diversity in species (Chapin-­Pyritz 2010). As is the case for plant taxa ubiquities, there is considerable variability between loci and sites that is not readily ex-



Deconstructing the Early Agricultural Period in Southern Arizona

87

Table 4.2. Faunal Attributes at Las Capas, Los Pozos, and Coffee Camp Las Capas a

Attribute

Percentage artiodactyls Percentage lagomorphs Artiodactyl index Lagomorph index

SWCA SWCA DAI Middle Early San Early San Preceramic Pedro Pedro Period Phase Phase

Los Pozos b DAI Late San Pedro Phase

DAI Middle Preceramic Period

Coffee Camp c

19.6

11.7

—

—

17.6

2.9

41.1

39.4

—

—

75.0

89.3

.32

.23

.04

.05

.19

.03

.09

.21

.32

.24

.20

.16

a

Data from Chapin-Pyritz 2010. Data from Waters 2005. c Data from James 1993. — Data not given. b

plained (Table 4.2).4 Artiodactyls formed a relatively high percentage of the faunal collections at most sites. Waters (2005: Table 4.5) listed the ubiquities of cottontails, jackrabbits, and artiodactyls at DAI’s early San Pedro phase loci of Las Capas as .60, .90, and .28, respectively. In the late San Pedro phase deposits, the indices were .88, .95, and .58, indicating an increase in ubiquity of all taxa groups. The variable lagomorph indices are particularly problematic if they are used to infer plant cover, as archaeologists commonly do. Cottontails require vegetative cover to hide from predators, whereas jackrabbits prefer a more open environment because they run to escape predators. Reduction in vegetative cover as a consequence of ground clearing would favor jackrabbits over cottontails. Adjacent loci in the same environment or the same locus at different times yielded different indices, however, suggesting other processes were at work (see Table 4.2). This also is true of the artiodactyl indices. This index compares the relative abundance of large game to lago­ morphs, indicating general preferences for local versus nonlocal species; however, the two Middle Preceramic period sites in Table 4.2, located in similar environments and presumably used by hunters with similar procurement strategies, have very different artiodactyl indices. Regardless, a comparison of ubiquities reveals that EAP farmers relied on game at least as heavily as on high-­density crop weeds (see Tables 4.1 and 4.2).5

88

Stephanie M. Whittlesey

Maize Processing and Cooking Techniques

The high ubiquities of maize at most EAP sites may be attributable to how this food was processed and cooked. Lacking efficient grinding tools and ceramic containers, it is likely that EAP cooks prepared maize by roasting complete ears in thermal pits. Dried maize cobs also may have been used as fuel in hearths and fire pits. EAP metates are primarily shallow basin or flat/concave types (e.g., Hesse 2010), which would have been well suited to grinding the small, hard seeds of high- and low-­density crop weeds. Trough metates, which are more efficient in grinding the larger, softer kernels of maize, did not become abundant until the Early Ceramic period, concurrent with the appearance of ceramic containers and the introduction of new maize varieties, beans, or both. EAP ceramics were limited to figurines, cornucopia-­shaped objects, and crude, baseball-­sized bowls that could not been used for cooking. Roasting maize and using cobs as fuel would leave carbonized cupules and kernels in all or most of the features where these activities were carried out, thereby elevating maize ubiquities. Roasting features are common at EAP sites and apparently were the primary cooking facilities. At Santa Cruz Bend (AA:12:​746), a Cienega phase site not far from Las Capas, 24 of 25 thermal pits were roasting pits (Wöcherl 1998: Table 7.1). The absence of significant preconsumption energy investment, such as that required for grinding maize, would have increased the net energy returns of early maize varieties under most cultivation techniques (Mabry 2005b:141). With the introduction of ceramic containers and trough metates in the Early Ceramic period, maize cooking techniques shifted radically along with maize ubiquities. Trough metates and ceramic containers suitable for cooking over high heat, as well as improved varieties of flour maize, allowed Early Ceramic period and Hohokam cooks to boil corn kernels, fresh or dried, and prepare various foods from ground cornmeal. Most cooking was accomplished over or in the ashes of fire pits inside houses or in outdoor areas. Roasting pits continued to be used, but vegetable foods other than maize (typically agave) and game were cooked in these features. As Table 4.3 shows, the ubiquities of maize in flotation samples are much lower in Early Ceramic period and Hohokam sites than at most EAP sites. Houghton Road, in the eastern Tucson Basin, is an Early Ceramic period site located in an area favorable for farming (Ciolek-­Torrello 1998). Hawk’s Nest is located in the Avra Valley on the lower alluvial fan near the floodplain of Brawley Wash (Czaplicki and Ravesloot 1989). It is dated primarily



Deconstructing the Early Agricultural Period in Southern Arizona

89

Table 4.3. Maize and agricultural weed ubiquity at selected sites in the Tucson Basin Site or Locus

Tanque Verde Wash (BB:13:68) Valencia (BB:13:15) West Branch (AA:16:3), Cook Avenue locus West Branch (AA:16:3), Irvington Road locus West Branch (AA:16:3), Wyoming Street locus West Branch (AA:16:3), SRI locus Hawk’s Nest (AA:12:484) Houghton Road (BB:13:398)

Maize Ubiquity Agricultural Weed (Flotation) Ubiquity (Flotation)

60.2 59.3 68.8 53.6 39.4 53.1 25.0 64.0

9.1 14.8 24.9 14.3 22.9 22.4 67.0a 64.0

Sources: For Tanque Verde Wash, Valencia, and West Branch loci, Harry 2004: Table 95; for Hawk’s Nest, Kwiatkowski and Gasser 1989: Table 9.2; for Houghton Road, Huckell 1998. a High-density agricultural weeds.

to the Late Pioneer period (ad 700–750). The other sites in Table 4.3 date to the Rincon phase (ad 950–1150). Tanque Verde Wash is in the eastern Tucson Basin (Elson 1986), and Valencia and West Branch are in the southwestern Tucson Basin (Dart and Swartz 1996; Doelle 1985; Huntington 1986; Whittlesey and Harry 2004). Based on ubiquity alone, we might conclude that the Hohokam living at these settlements were not maize dependent; however, Diehl (2005a: Figure 3.4) compiled data showing that diet breadth as measured by taxonomic diversity decreased substantially beginning with the introduction of ceramic containers. Over time the forager-­farmers of the Tucson Basin concentrated on cultivated crops, cacti, and a few wild seed-­crop taxa, such as mesquite, tansy mustard, goosefoot, and amaranth. In addition, it can be argued that maize dependence was not possible until the necessary technology to derive the maximum nutritional benefit from maize was introduced. Alone, maize is not a nutritious food. Data compiled by Snow (1990) show that maize is low in protein and deficient in lysine, tryptophan, niacin, calcium, and iron. Grinding maize into meal multiplies the iron and calcium content of maize by factors of 5 to 25 (Walker 1985:​148). The pericarp, or hull, contains phytate, or phytic acid, a substance that impedes the absorption of calcium (Ivanhoe 1985). Maize also contains a protease inhibitor that reduces the activity of enzymes that break down proteins. Heat is necessary to reduce or eliminate this inhibitor in maize (Arnold 1985: Table 6.1, based on Liener and Kakade 1969). Long, moist cooking over high heat to eliminate toxins was not possible until the advent of ceramic containers in the Early Ceramic period.

90

Stephanie M. Whittlesey

Diehl (2005a:87) suggested that ceramic containers have additional advantages for farmers. Being more secure than storage pits, they reduced losses of stored grains due to pests, moisture, and bacteria (Bala 1997; Bar-­ Yosef and Meadow 1995). Pots also may have increased maize’s energy returns because boiling without grinding is easier than preparing foods from ground meal. Farming Systems and Scale

Maize dependence also was impeded by environmental factors. Ditch irrigation was practical only in certain environmental contexts, and even there the scale of production was limited. Mabry’s (2005b) typology of farming systems makes this point clear. Water-­table farming (Mabry 2005b) is possible where water is typically .25 m to 1.00 m below the field surface (Kirkby 1973). Such conditions obtained at Las Capas, where a high water table was accessed by means of wells (Bernard-­Shaw 1988; Gregory 2001: Figure 3.11; Whittlesey, Hesse et al. 2010:​419–421). Flood farming (Mabry 2005b), also called overbank or recession farming, could have been used for fields located in the floodplains of rivers or streams that were either perennial or seasonally inundated by overbank flooding. This farming strategy was possible in portions of the Tucson Basin where the Santa Cruz River maintained permanent surface flow or where the river and secondary streams, such as the Rillito River and Tanque Verde Wash, flooded seasonally with monsoon rains. This condition also obtained at Las Capas, other sites located in the floodplain or on adjacent terraces, and elsewhere in the Tucson Basin along major streams. Irrigation farming (Mabry 2005b) also could be used in such contexts, as at Las Capas. Mabry (2008b:265) made the important point that reaches of the Santa Cruz River lacking surface flow or deeply incised were not suitable for irrigation farming, flood farming, or water-­table farming: “Therefore, prehistoric settlement and agriculture along the middle Santa Cruz River were limited to unincised reaches with surface flows.” In all other contexts, rain-­fed farming, dry farming, or runoff (akchin) farming (Mabry 2005b:126) would have been necessary. The runoff method harvests water by means of weirs, ditches, or rock alignments (check dams). Historically, Tohono O’odham farmers used this technique with great success (Nabhan 1979, 1986). This method (or perhaps flood farming) may have been used at Milagro along Tanque Verde Creek (Huckell et al. 1995), in the



Deconstructing the Early Agricultural Period in Southern Arizona

91

Cienega Valley (Huckell 1995), and in alluvial fan settings across southern Arizona. Mabry (2005b: Tables 5.7 and 5.8) demonstrated that water-­table farming consistently provides the largest yields, followed by irrigation f­ arming. In terms of risk, reliability, labor, and efficiency, water-­table farming ranks highest. Irrigated farming ranks second or third in risk and efficiency, but only fifth in terms of labor requirements. Runoff farming ranks third to  fifth in all variables; farmers using this method typically must have several fields in different areas to take advantage of the scattered summer monsoon rains, which can drench one area but leave an adjacent one completely dry. Although farming at Las Capas would have been relatively productive and not exceptionally risky, the scale of ditch irrigation was small. The ditches were narrow and short, and potential irrigated areas were small (Mabry et al. 2008). Using a conservative method to estimate population, Mabry and others (2008:​245) estimated that .45 ha of irrigated land per person would support 34–48 people (7–8 families) at Las Capas during the early San Pedro phase and 78–120 people (16–24 families) during the late San Pedro phase. The method assumes that maize provided half of the annual food supply, which is probably too high. Regardless, supportable population densities would have been quite low, not nearly sufficient to produce the permanent villages with hundreds of houses inferred for the Cienega phase (Mabry 1998). Nutrition and Health

A final piece of evidence that EAP populations were not maize dependent is their overall good health. People who are heavily or completely dependent on maize, even though they may use the techniques to increase its ­nutritional value described above, often develop iron-­deficiency anemia and related bone defects, such as rickets, cribra orbitalia, and porotic hyperostosis (El-­Najjar et al. 1976; Ivanhoe 1985). Because of their high carbohydrate content, maize-­dependent diets tend to produce high rates of caries, and dental diseases such as enamel hypoplasia often result from episodes of nutritional stress (Goodman and Rose 1990; Hillson 1996). Walker and others (2009) have argued that lack of iron alone is not sufficient to produce such bone defects. They cite the synergistic effects of nutritionally inadequate diets, poor sanitation, infectious diseases, and cultural practices

92

Stephanie M. Whittlesey

related to pregnancy and breast-­feeding as providing a plausible explanation for the high rates of porotic hyperostosis found in many prehistoric populations. Although this may well be true, such conditions also obtained for agricultural Hohokam populations who lived in large communities and consumed a primarily vegetable diet that likely was deficient in vitamins B12 and C. This likely was not true for EAP populations, who, as I argue below, did not live in villages and continued to be residentially mobile. In a bioarchaeological study of EAP populations, McClelland (2005:​ 167) found that the groups he analyzed did not show the increases in dental caries, episodic nutritional stress, infectious diseases, and decreased body size associated with the transition to agriculture. The lower rates of dental caries and abscesses in San Pedro phase populations compared to Cienega phase groups suggested to McClelland (2005:​167–168) that “The San Pedro phase diet appears to have consisted of fewer carbohydrate-­rich foods than the Cienega phase diet.” This is also indirect evidence that the San Pedro people were not grinding their maize and forming it into sticky, sweet meal-­ based foods. Mobility and Sedentism Huckell (1995; Huckell et al. 1995) and Mabry (1998, 2005b; Mabry, ed. 2008; Mabry et al. 1997) have posited a high degree of sedentism during the EAP, including the permanent occupation of large villages in the Cienega phase. They based this interpretation on the presence of architecture, large storage pits, deep midden deposits, burials, and ditch irrigation systems. Roth (this volume) evaluates these criteria for sedentism in detail. Although that evaluation is not repeated here, I point to some additional factors concerning sedentism that are not included in Roth’s discussion. Both Roth and I demonstrate that the characteristics indicative of sedentism can be well developed within a context of considerable residential mobility, thus mimicking permanently occupied settlements. First, it is important to note that there was no uniform trajectory in the development of architecture during the EAP. This is puzzling if sedentism increased in concert with an emphasis on maize farming. Possibilities that could explain this punctuated trajectory include ethnic differences, settlement pattern variability, and functional variation. As noted by Roth (this volume), during the San Pedro phase there were two types of shallow pit structures: those with floor grooves containing



Deconstructing the Early Agricultural Period in Southern Arizona

93

postholes and those lacking postholes. At SWCA’s locus of Las Capas, most houses were of the floor-­groove type; these were large, fairly well built, and contained fire pits, suggesting that they were used for habitation. By contrast, the houses at DAI’s locus lacked postholes (Ruble et al. 2008). These two house types were distributed differentially by environmental zone (see Roth, this volume). The postless brush structure type has been found at most San Pedro phase sites where architecture was present, including Coffee Camp (Halbirt et al. 1993), sites in the Santa Rita Mountains (Huckell 1984), the Milagro site (Huckell et al. 1995), the Costello-­King site (AA:12:​503) (Ezzo and Deaver 1998), the Wetlands site (AA:12:​90) (Freeman 1998), and elsewhere. The more substantial floor-­groove house type has so far been found only in the Tucson Basin, in the floodplain of the Santa Cruz River. Second, regarding storage facilities, previous research has demonstrated a correlation between residential mobility and storage features (Gilman 1983; Whalen 1994; see Roth, this volume). Residentially mobile people who seasonally abandon their stored food typically use facilities that are secure, can be hidden or camouflaged, and lack means of access (DeBoer 1988; Wills 1988). As Kent (1992:​639) has noted, mobile peoples use storage facilities when they intend to return to a site. Underground storage pits fulfill this function, as do caves and rockshelters (Young 1996). Importantly, these characteristics of storage facilities used by mobile groups apply to the type of EAP structures with posts forming the side walls and set into a floor groove. These construction details would have added an additional layer of security for the resources stored in the bell-­shaped pits dug below the floors. When carefully sealed with mud ­plaster, the resources would have been protected from animals other than burrowing rodents, the walls would have provided additional insulation to maintain consistent temperature and humidity (important to prevent mold), and would have shielded the pits from rain (see Young 1996). Based on ethnographic accounts, maize is likely the only food resource for which such facilities would be required (Smyth 1989). By contrast, sedentary groups need to store resources in easily acces­sible facilities so they can open and close the features repeatedly when they are depending on stored food (Gilman 1983; Young 1996:​42). The hypothesis that Cienega phase floor-­groove structures were specialized storage facilities is supported by a decrease in the number of

94

Stephanie M. Whittlesey

e­ xtramural storage pits during that time. Whereas 138 bell-­shaped pits, the most common form of storage facility, were excavated in San Pedro phase contexts at Las Capas (Lascaux et al. 2010: Table 7.3), only three were excavated at the Santa Cruz Bend site (Wöcherl 1998: Table 7.2). Smyth (1989:​111) noted that exterior storage facilities are often built near fields that are some distance from residences. Under this scenario, storage facilities at Los Pozos, Santa Cruz Bend, and other sites may represent a specialized type of field house used for storage until the contents could be transported to residential areas for processing and consumption. This functional explanation also helps to explain the inferred hundreds of small structures at sites such as Santa Cruz Bend and Los Pozos. Certainly not all of these structures were used contemporaneously (Gregory and Diehl 2002; Schurr and Gregory 2002). If storage structures were torn down seasonally to access stored resources and rebuilt at the end of the harvest season, this would create the myriad structures seen archaeologically. Contemporary Maya in the Puuc region of Yucatan follow this procedure. Maize bins and some cribs are emptied and dismantled on a seasonal basis and then reconstructed and refilled in the same general locations during the next harvest season (Smyth 1989:​112). As did the Maya, the residents of Los Pozos used the “abandoned” structures for disposal of household refuse (Gregory and Diehl 2002:​209). Layers of refuse interspersed with water-­lain sediments indicate the structures were used intermittently. Farming and Mobility Most archaeologists believe that farming necessitates sedentism. Berry (1985:​304), for example, called attention to the all-­or-nothing nature of maize agriculture, writing that “It is impossible to sustain a plant that is not self-­propagating for any length of time without a total commitment to its planting, maintenance and harvesting on a year to year basis.” Mabry (2008b) argued that irrigation, by definition, necessitated communal labor to construct and maintain irrigation features, resulting in the development of relatively long-­term communities, each owning a specific territory. Ethnographic examples, however, demonstrate that farming, even by means of ditch irrigation, can be employed by people who are otherwise highly mobile foragers. Although many examples of mobile farmers can be cited (Mabry 2008b), the Western Apache present the best case (Minnis 1985, 1992) because of their use of ditch irrigation. Cultigens, particularly



Deconstructing the Early Agricultural Period in Southern Arizona

95

maize, constituted 10 to 25 percent of their diet (Buskirk 1986:​112; Goodwin 1969:​61). Most bands relied on rainfall to water fields, but some, such as the White Mountain Apache, irrigated their fields, relying on communal labor to construct and maintain ditches and diversion structures (Goodwin 1969:​ 156). These were much like the San Pedro phase ditches at Las Capas in scale and construction. (I label these water-­conveyance features as ditches rather than canals to emphasize that they are not equivalent to Hohokam canals in scale.) Apache fields were typically irrigated two to four times (Buskirk 1986:​70). Once planted, however, fields were left in the care of a few individuals, typically older men, and most of the family went on to other subsistence-­related tasks, perhaps returning for another irrigation event (Goodwin 1969:​156). During the growing months, mesquite beans and saguaro fruit were important resources that required families to cover long distances to reach the desert areas where these plants grow (Welch 1994: Table 5.5). Families returned to their farm sites for the harvest in September. After the crops were harvested and prepared for storage, the people traveled to their winter camps. Crops were stored in several caches, usually ground caches, scattered around the group’s territory (Goodwin 1943:​73, 102). Crops also were stored at the farm site in the “ripe fruits wickiup,” or nesdangowah, for ­winter use. The parallels between Western Apache and EAP farming systems, architecture, and settlement organization are striking. The Western Apache storage system also provides a model for how food storage may have been accomplished during the Cienega phase. Regional Settlement Systems and Geographic Variability Roth (1989, 1992, 1996) was among the first to underscore that our under­ standing of the EAP is skewed by archaeological coverage. We lack regional survey data for understanding settlement patterns, and intensive investigations along the Santa Cruz River have biased our interpretations. As survey data become available, we are finding that the distribution of Late Archaic and EAP sites is, in large part, environmentally based. The Arizona State Museum’s Tucson Basin Survey found that most sites were located in two environmental zones: the floodplain of the Santa Cruz River and the upper bajada of the Tortolita and Tucson Mountains (Roth 1992). Multiple-­ activity sites, probably camp sites that were occupied seasonally, were found

96

Stephanie M. Whittlesey

near the mouths of canyons where water was available. Surface artifact ­assemblages suggested a focus on resource procurement, and test excavations at AA:12:​84 yielded no remains of cultigens (Roth 1995). Excavations at other bajada sites yielded similar results, although resource collection and processing differed. Some sites apparently were used for exploiting mesquite, whereas others were hunting camps. The site with the most intensive intermittent use was located in an extremely rich environmental area (Roth 1996). The floodplain sites were larger and had diverse artifact assemblages. Test excavations demonstrated the presence of pit structures, bell-­shaped pits, midden deposits, and maize (Roth 1989). This information led Roth (1996) to suggest that the bajada sites were part of a logistically organized system. Groups traveled to the upper bajada from habitation settlements in the riverine zone to hunt and gather bajada resources. Similar results have been documented elsewhere. For example, no cultigens were discovered during investigations of Early, Middle, and Late Preceramic sites in the Santa Rita Mountains (Huckell 1984). When maize remains have been found in upper bajada or piedmont locations, such as the maize pollen on a mano at the La Paloma site (BB:9:​127) on the bajada of the Santa Catalina Mountains, the maize appears to have been brought to the settlement from elsewhere (Dart 1986:​180). Other than indicating that the Late Archaic–EAP terminology is more or less meaningless, this information has implications for settlement strategies. The upper bajada and floodplain zones may reflect two independent settlement systems (Fish et al. 1990). Reliance on rich bajada resources, such as cactus and mesquite along watercourses, may have permitted relatively permanent occupation without farming. The presence of distinctive projectile point styles — ​such as contemporary Empire, San Pedro, and Basket­ maker III points at Las Capas — ​suggests the possibility that these settle­ment patterns may have been correlated with different ethnic or cultural groups. Alternatively, a single group may have exploited the different environmental zones on a seasonal basis, moving between floodplain farming sites and resource procurement locales on the bajadas (Reid and Whittlesey 1997; Roth 1992:​312). In other words, the “Late Archaic period” may represent the upland component of the system, and the “EAP” the floodplain component. The single-­system model is supported by the environmental dichotomy in house types and the presence of specialized storage structures in the floodplain zone during the Cienega phase.



Deconstructing the Early Agricultural Period in Southern Arizona

97

Summary and Conclusions In conclusion, the Las Capas data confirm models of the transition to farming that pose a gradual shift in which cultigens were incorporated into a mobile hunting-­and-gathering lifestyle (e.g., Wills and Huckell 1989). In the southern Basin and Range province, sedentary villages that were dependent on maize farming did not appear immediately after the initial introduction of maize. At Las Capas, nearly a millennium elapsed between the appearance of maize at 2100 bc and the architectural and agricultural innovations of the San Pedro phase at 1200 bc. Even during the San Pedro phase, some populations remained devoted to hunting and gathering and did not farm, while the farmers continued to rely heavily on wild resources, hence Diehl’s (2005b) coining of the term “farmagers.” Smith (2005:​307) has observed that “the initial appearance of domesticates and the transition to food production is not a simple and uniform formulaic process with a single end point but rather a richly complex dialectical drama acted out at the local level [in which] the stage is set in large measure by the environment.” Smith further suggested that archaeologists should explore the middle ground between foraging and farming. The recognition that farming was not an all-­or-nothing process requires us to examine the technological factors that promoted a more sedentary lifestyle and increased dependence on farming. Two of the most important are also traditional female technologies associated with food preparation: the introduction of true ceramic containers and trough metates. Ceramic vessels enabled secure storage and high-­heat, moist cooking of maize and beans. Trough metates permitted efficient processing of maize in quantity and the preparation of cornmeal-­based foods. Boiling and grinding both enhanced maize’s nutritional value. Ceramic containers may have been introduced as early as ad 50 in the Tucson Basin, but trough metates did not appear until some 300 years later. The third important technology was food storage, which shifted from extramural pits to specialized storage facilities to ceramic containers between the San Pedro phase and the Agua Caliente phase, the initial phase of the Early Ceramic period in the Tucson Basin. Not coincidentally, the latter was the time when formal pithouse architecture and relatively permanent settlements appeared. Ethnographic models that offer insight into these processes may come from unexpected places. Mabry (2008b) developed a model of seasonal movement along the Santa Cruz River that incorporates long-­term

98

Stephanie M. Whittlesey

s­ ettlement districts within which households and family clusters moved through what was considered community territory. This model conforms extraordinarily well to that of Western Apache settlement and farming systems, although the Apache territories were much larger. Within the large, territorial units of group and band, local groups and family clusters moved freely. Farming sites were shared within the group or band but defended against encroachment by other groups and bands. Farming sites were considered to be more or less permanent fixtures and the closest to a home place in Western Apache culture (Goodwin 1969:​10). Las Capas may have been one such home place. Finally, it is clear that archaeologists require new, more sophisticated measures of maize dependence and sedentism (Roth 1989). Simple ubiquity of taxa or resource groups should be discarded or at least supplemented by measures of taxonomic richness and diversity. Diversity indices can also be applied to artifact and feature assemblages to assess sedentism (Reid 1982). Schiffer (1975) developed a model to predict the effects of occupation span on material culture content, which he called “the Clarke Effect.” Ezzo and Stiner (2000) developed an innovative approach using stable carbon isotopes derived from the bone gelatin of canid remains from the EAP Costello-­King site (AA:12:​503). The results suggest a diet containing a significant C4 component, likely maize. Assuming that dogs scavenged the settlement and consumed human waste, their diets can serve as a proxy for the human diet. Bone gelatin is synthesized from dietary protein, indicating that both the Costello-­King dog and its human masters had a diet deficient in protein. Clearly, the road to maize dependence and a sedentary lifestyle was long and winding, and a greater appreciation for this fact can only help us to understand the processes that produced these phenomena. Archaeologists have made much progress in understanding the latest interval of Preceramic occupation in the Tucson Basin. This understanding will not be complete, however, until we excavate many more sites in nonfloodplain settings, initiate surveys on a broad scale, and develop adequate measures for variables constituting the prime movers of the transition to settled village life, including maize dependence and relative degrees of mobility and sedentism.



Deconstructing the Early Agricultural Period in Southern Arizona

99

Notes 1. Unless otherwise noted, all sites discussed here are labeled in the Arizona State Museum site survey system. In the remainder of the chapter, the prefix AZ and the suffix ASM are dropped. 2. It should be stressed that this study did not examine differences in sample size or number of samples per feature at the investigated sites. A fuller explication should take such differences into account to determine if the results would be influenced, but this is a task for future research. 3. Despite the name, crop weeds are found in any disturbed environment (today, for example, along roadsides), not just agricultural fields. Clearing land to build dwellings and harvesting plants could also have induced growth of such weeds. Factors of preservation might be responsible for the lack of cultigens, although remains of other plants were found. 4. Problems of sample size and variability may affect the faunal results, as in the case of plant remains. Further variability might be caused by variables of preservation and differential bone density. These factors should be considered in future research. 5. As one reviewer of this chapter pointed out, ubiquities of plant remains and percentages of faunal remains may not be comparable, particularly because the processes by which these remains became part of the archaeological record are different. Nonetheless, the importance of wild game to the ancient diet remains substantial.

References Arnold, Dean E. 1985 Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Bala, B. K. 1997 Drying and Storage of Cereal Grains. Science Publishers Inc., Enfield, New Hampshire. Bar-­Yosef, Ofer, and Richard H. Meadow 1995 The Origins of Agriculture in the Near East. In Last Hunters, First Farmers: New Perspectives on the Prehistoric Transition to Agriculture, edited by T. D. Price and A. B. Gebauer, pp. 39–94. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Bernard-­Shaw, Mary 1988 Hohokam Canal Systems and Late Archaic Wells: The Evidence from the Los Morteros Site. In Recent Research on Tucson Basin Prehistory: Proceedings of the Second Tucson Basin Conference, edited by W. H. Doelle and P. R. Fish, pp. 153–174. Anthropological Papers No. 10. Institute for American Research, Tucson. Berry, Michael S. 1985 The Age of Maize in the Greater Southwest. In Prehistoric Food Production in North America, edited by R. Ford, pp. 279–308. Anthropological Papers

100

Stephanie M. Whittlesey

No. 75. University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. Buskirk, Winfred 1986 The Western Apache: Living with the Land before 1950. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Carpenter, John P., Guadalupe Sánchez, and María Elisa Villalpando C. 2005 The Late Archaic/Early Agricultural Period in Sonora, Mexico. In The Late Archaic across the Borderlands: From Foraging to Farming, edited by B. J. Vierra, pp. 13–40. University of Texas Press, Austin. Chapin-­Pyritz, Regina L. 2010 Faunal Remains and Worked-­bone Artifacts. In Recurrent Sedentism and the Making of Place, edited by S. M. Whittlesey et al., pp. 271–321. Cultural Resources Report No. 07–556. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Inc., Tucson. Ciolek-­Torrello, Richard (editor) 1998 Early Farmers of the Sonoran Desert: Archaeological Investigations at the Houghton Road Site, Tucson, Arizona. Technical Series 72. Statistical Research, Inc., Tucson. Colton, Harold S. 1939 Prehistoric Culture Units and Their Relationships in Northern Arizona. Bulletin No. 17. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff. Czaplicki, Jon S., and John C. Ravesloot (editors) 1989 Hohokam Archaeology along Phase B of the Tucson Aqueduct, Central Ar­ izona Project, Vol. 4: Small Sites and Specialized Reports. Archaeological Series 178. Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson. Dart, Allen 1986 Archaeological Investigations at La Paloma: Archaic and Hohokam Occupa­ tions at Three Sites in the Northeastern Tucson Basin, Arizona. Anthropological Papers No. 4. Institute for American Research, Tucson. Dart, Allen, and Deborah L. Swartz 1996 Archaeological Data Recovery at the Cook Avenue Locus of the West Branch Site, AZ AA:16:​3 (ASM). Technical Report No. 96–8. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson. DeBoer, Warren R. 1988 Subterranean Storage and the Organization of Surplus: The View from Eastern North America. Southeastern Archaeology 7(1):1–20. Diehl, Michael W. 2005a Early Agricultural Period Foraging and Horticulture in Southern Arizona: Implications from Plant Remains. In Subsistence and Resource Use Strate­ gies of Early Agricultural Communities in Southern Arizona, edited by M. W. Diehl, pp. 73–90. Anthropological Papers No. 34. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson. 2005b Epilogue: “Farmaging” during the Early Agricultural Period. In Subsistence



Deconstructing the Early Agricultural Period in Southern Arizona 101

and Resource Use Strategies of Early Agricultural Communities in Southern Arizona, edited by M. W. Diehl, pp. 181–184. Anthropological Papers No. 34. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson. 2010 Macrobotanical Inferences Concerning Subsistence Strategies in the Late Preceramic Period. In Recurrent Sedentism and the Making of Place, edited by S. M. Whittlesey et al., pp. 323–334. Cultural Resources Report No. 07– 556. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Inc., Tucson. Doelle, William H. 1985 Excavations at the Valencia Site, a Preclassic Hohokam Village in the South­ ern Tucson Basin. Anthropological Papers No. 3. Institute for American Research, Tucson. Eddy, Frank W., and Maurice E. Cooley (with sections by Paul S. Martin and Bruce B. Huckell) 1983 Cultural and Environmental History of Cienega Valley, Southeastern Arizona. Anthropological Papers No. 43. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. El-­Najjar, M. Y., D. J. Ryan, C. G. Turner III, and B. Lozoff 1975 The Etiology of Porotic Hyperostosis among the Prehistoric and Historic Anasazi Indians of the Southwestern United States. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 44:​447–488. Elson, Mark D. 1986 Archaeological Investigations at the Tanque Verde Wash Site, a Middle Rincon Settlement in the Eastern Tucson Basin. Anthropological Papers No. 7. Institute for American Research, Tucson. Ezzo, Joseph A., and William L. Deaver 1998 Watering the Desert: Late Archaic Farming at the Costello-­King Site. Technical Series No. 68. Statistical Research, Inc., Tucson. Ezzo, Joseph A., and Mary C. Stiner 2000 A Late Archaic Period Dog Burial from the Tucson Basin, Arizona. Kiva 66:​ 2:291–305. Fish, Suzanne K., Paul R. Fish, and John H. Madsen 1990 Sedentism and Mobility in the Tucson Basin Prior to ad 1000. In Perspec­ tives on Southwestern Prehistory, edited by P. E. Minnis and C. L. Redman, pp. 76–91. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. Freeman, Andrea K. L. 1998 Archaeological Investigations at the Wetlands Site, AZ AA:12:​90 (ASM). Technical Report No. 97–5. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson. Gilman, Patricia A. 1983 Changing Architectural Forms in the Prehistoric Southwest. PhD disser­ tation, Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albu­ querque. Goodman, Alan H., and Jerome C. Rose 1990 Assessment of Systemic Physiological Perturbations from Dental Enamel Hypoplasias and Associated Histological Structures. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 33:​59–110.

102

Stephanie M. Whittlesey

Goodwin, Grenville 1943 Report on the San Carlos Indian Reservation. Ms. on file, Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson. 1969 The Social Organization of the Western Apache. Originally published 1942, University of Arizona Press. New edition with a preface by Keith H. Basso. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Gregory, David A. (editor) 2001 Excavations in the Santa Cruz River Floodplain: The Early Agricultural Period Component at Los Pozos. Anthropological Papers No. 21. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson. Gregory, David A. 2001 A Reconsideration of Chronology, Architectural Variation, and Site Structure at Santa Cruz Bend and Stone Pipe. Appendix F in Excavations in the Santa Cruz River Floodplain: The Early Agricultural Period Component at Los Pozos, edited by D. A. Gregory, pp. 339–350. Anthropological Papers No. 21. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson. Gregory, David A., and Michael W. Diehl 2002 Duration, Continuity, and Intensity of Occupation at a Late Cienega Phase Settlement in the Santa Cruz River Floodplain. In Traditions, Transitions, and Technologies: Themes in Southwestern Archaeology, edited by S. H. ­Schlanger, pp. 200–223. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. Halbirt, Carl D., Annick Kaler, and Kurt E. Dongoske 1993 Pit Features from Coffee Camp: An Evaluation of Form and Function. In Archaic Occupation on the Santa Cruz Flats: The Tator Hills Archaeological Project, edited by C. D. Halbirt and T. K. Henderson, pp. 129–171. Northland Research, Inc., Flagstaff, Arizona. Harry, Karen G. 2004 Data Summary. In Pots, Potters, and Models: Archaeological Investigations at the SRI Locus, West Branch Site, Tucson, Arizona, Volume II: Synthesis and Interpretations, edited by Stephanie Whittlesey, pp. 531–538. Technical Series 80. Statistical Research, Inc., Tucson. Hesse, India S. 2010 Ground Stone Artifacts. In Recurrent Sedentism and the Making of Place, edited by S. M. Whittlesey et al., pp. 223–250. Cultural Resources Report No. 07–556. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Inc., Tucson. Hester, Thomas R. 2005 An Overview of the Late Archaic in Southern Texas. In The Late Archaic across the Borderlands: From Foraging to Farming, edited by B. J. Vierra, pp. 259–278. University of Texas Press, Austin. Hillson, Simon 1996 Dental Anthropology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Huckell, Bruce B. 1984 The Archaic Occupation of the Rosemont Area, Northern Santa Rita Moun­ tains, Southeastern Arizona. Archaeological Series No. 147, Vol. 1. Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson.



Deconstructing the Early Agricultural Period in Southern Arizona 103

1995 Of Marshes and Maize: Preceramic Agricultural Settlements in the Cienega Valley, Southeastern Arizona. Anthropological Papers No. 59. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Huckell, Bruce B., Lisa W. Huckell, and Suzanne K. Fish 1995 Investigations at Milagro, a Late Preceramic Site in the Eastern Tucson Basin. Technical Report No. 94–5. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona. Huckell, Bruce B., Lisa W. Huckell, and M. Steven Shackley 1999 McEuen Cave. Archaeology Southwest 13(1):12. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona. Huckell, Lisa W. 1998 Paleoethnobotany. In Early Farmers of the Sonoran Desert, Archaeological Investigations at the Houghton Road Site, Tucson, Arizona, edited by Richard Ciolek-Torrello, pp. 327–344. Statistical Research Inc. Technical Series 72, Tucson. Huntington, Frederick W. 1986 Archaeological Investigations at the West Branch Site: Early and Middle ­Rincon Occupation in the Southern Tucson Basin. Anthropological Papers No. 5. Institute for American Research, Tucson, Arizona. Ivanhoe, Francis 1985 Elevated Orthograde Skeletal Plasticity of Some Archaeological Populations from Mexico and the American Southwest: Direct Relation to Maize Phytate Nutritional Load. In Health and Disease in the Prehistoric Southwest, edited by C. Merbs and R. Miller, pp. 165–176. Anthropological Research Papers No. 34. Arizona State University, Tempe. Kent, Susan 1992 Studying Variability in the Archaeological Record: An Ethnoarchaeological Model for Distinguishing Mobility Patterns. American Antiquity 57:6​ 35–660. Kirkby, Anne V. T. 1973 The Use of Land and Water Resources in the Past and Present Valley of Oaxaca. Prehistory and Human Ecology of the Valley of Oaxaca No. 1. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology No. 5. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Kwiatkowski, Scott, and Robert E. Gasser 1989 Macrofloral Analysis. In Hohokam Archaeology along Phase B of the Tucson Aqueduct, Central Arizona Project, Volume 4: Small Sites and Specialized Re­ ports, edited by Jon S. Czaplicki and John C. Ravesloot, pp. 105–126. Arizona State Museum Archaeology Series No. 178, Volume 4, Tucson. Lascaux, Annick, Jerry D. Lyon, India S. Hesse, S. Jerome Hesse, and Stephanie M. Whittlesey 2010 Nonarchitectural Feature Descriptions. In Recurrent Sedentism and the Mak­ ing of Place, edited by S. M. Whittlesey et al., pp. 135–159. Cultural Resources Report No. 07–556. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Inc., Tucson. Liener, I. E., and M. L. Kakade 1969 Protease Inhibitors. In Toxic Constituents of Plant Foodstuffs, edited by I. E. Liener, pp. 7–71. Academic Press, New York.

104

Stephanie M. Whittlesey

Mabry, Jonathan B. 1998 Architectural Variability and Site Structures. In Archaeological Investigations of Early Village Sites in the Middle Santa Cruz Valley: Analyses and Synthesis, Pt. 1, edited by J. B. Mabry, pp. 209–243. Anthropological Papers No. 19. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson. 2005a Changing Knowledge and Ideas about the First Farmers in Southeastern Arizona. In The Late Archaic across the Borderlands: From Foraging to Farming, edited by B. J. Vierra, pp. 41–83. University of Texas Press, Austin. 2005b Diversity in Early Southwestern Farming and Optimization Models of Transitions to Agriculture. In Subsistence and Resource Use Strategies of Early Agricultural Communities in Southern Arizona, edited by M. W. Diehl, pp. 113–152. Anthropological Papers No. 34. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona. 2008a Introduction. In Las Capas: Early Irrigation and Sedentism in a Southwestern Floodplain, edited by J. B. Mabry, pp. 1–43. Anthropological Papers No. 28. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona. 2008b Irrigation, Short-­term Sedentism, and Corporate Organization during the San Pedro Phase. In Las Capas: Early Irrigation and Sedentism in a South­ western Floodplain, edited by J. B. Mabry, pp.  256–277. Anthropological Papers No. 28. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona. Mabry, Jonathan B. (editor) 2008 Las Capas: Early Irrigation and Sedentism in a Southwestern Floodplain. Anthropological Papers No. 28. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona. Mabry, Jonathan B., James P. Holmlund, Fred L. Nials, and Manual R. Palacios-­Fest 2008 Modeling Canal Characteristics and Trends. In Las Capas: Early Irrigation and Sedentism in a Southwestern Floodplain, edited by J. B. Mabry, pp. 235– 247. Anthropological Papers No. 28. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona. Mabry, Jonathan B., Deborah L. Swartz, Helga Wöcherl, Jeffery J. Clark, Gavin H. Archer, and Michael W. Lindeman 1997 Archaeological Investigations of Early Village Sites in the Middle Santa Cruz Valley. Anthropological Papers No. 18. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona. McClelland, John A. 2005 Bioarchaeological Analysis of Early Agricultural Period Human Skeletal Remains from Southern Arizona. In Subsistence and Resource Use Strategies of Early Agricultural Communities in Southern Arizona, edited by M. W. Diehl, pp. 153–168. Anthropological Papers No. 34. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona. Minnis, Paul E. 1985 Domesticating People and Plants in the Greater Southwest. In Prehistoric Food Production in North America, edited by R. Ford, pp. 309–340. Anthropological Papers No. 75. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.



Deconstructing the Early Agricultural Period in Southern Arizona 105

1992 Earliest Plant Cultivation in the Desert Borderlands of North America. In The Origins of Agriculture: An International Perspective, edited by C. W. Cowan and P. J. Watson, pp. 121–141. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. Nabhan, Gary P. 1979 The Ecology of Floodwater Farming in Arid Southwestern North America. Agro-­Ecosystems 6:​235–255. 1986 Papago Indian Desert Agriculture and Water Control in the Sonoran Desert, 1697–1934. Applied Geography 6:​43–59. Reid, J. Jefferson 1982 Analytical Procedures for Interassemblage-­Settlement System Analysis. In Cholla Project Archaeology, Vol. 1: Introduction and Special Studies, edited by J. J. Reid, pp. 193–204. Archaeological Series No. 161. Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson. Reid, Jefferson, and Stephanie Whittlesey 1997 The Archaeology of Ancient Arizona. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Roth, Barbara J. 1989 Late Archaic Settlement and Subsistence in the Tucson Basin. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson. 1992 Sedentary Agriculturalists or Mobile Hunter-­Gatherers? Evidence on the Late Archaic Occupation of the Northern Tucson Basin. Kiva 57(4):​ 291–314. 1996 Regional Land Use in the Late Archaic of the Tucson Basin: A View from the Upper Bajada. In Early Formative Adaptations in the Southern Southwest, edited by B. J. Roth, pp. 37–48. Monographs in World Archaeology No. 25. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin. Roth, Barbara J. 1995 Late Archaic Occupations of the Upper Bajada: Excavations at AZ AA:12:​ 84(ASM), Tucson Basin. Kiva 61:189–207. Ruble, Ellen C., Helga Wöcherl, Andrew R. Dutt, and John McClelland 2008 Feature Descriptions. In Las Capas: Early Irrigation and Sedentism in a Southwestern Floodplain, edited by J. B. Mabry, pp. 95–131. Anthropological Papers No. 28. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona. Sayles, E. B., and Ernst Antevs 1941 The Cochise Culture. Medallion Papers No. 29. Gila Pueblo Archaeological Foundation, Globe, Arizona. Schiffer, Michael B. 1975 The Effects of Occupation Span on Site Content. In The Cache River Ar­ cheological Project: An Experiment in Contract Archeology, assembled by M. B. Schiffer and J. H. House, pp. 265–269. Research Series No. 8. Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville. Schurr, Mark R., and David A. Gregory 2002 Fluoride Dating of Faunal Materials by Ion-­Selective Electrode: High Resolution Relative Dating at an Early Agricultural Period Site in the Tucson Basin. American Antiquity 67:​281–299.

106

Stephanie M. Whittlesey

Smiley, Francis E., and Michael J. Novotny 2012 Motisinom: Ancient Peoples from Pleistocene to Pueblo. In Hisat’Sinom: Ancient Peoples in a Land without Water, edited by C. E. Downum, pp. 50–57. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Smith, Bruce G. 2005 Documenting the Transition to Food Production across the Borderlands. In The Late Archaic across the Borderlands: From Foraging to Farming, edited by B. J. Vierra, pp. 300–316. University of Texas Press, Austin. Smyth, Michael P. 1989 Domestic Storage Behavior in Mesoamerica: An Ethnoarchaeological Approach. Archaeological Method and Theory 1:​89–138. Snow, David H. 1990 Tener Comal y Metate: Protohistoric Rio Grande Maize Use and Diet. In Perspectives on Southwestern Prehistory, edited by P. E. Minnis and C. L. Redman, pp. 289–300. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. Vierra, Bradley J. (editor) 2005 The Late Archaic across the Borderlands: From Foraging to Farming. University of Texas Press, Austin. Walker, Philip L. 1985 Anemia among Prehistoric Indians of the American Southwest. In Health and Disease in the Prehistoric Southwest, edited by C. Merbs and R. Miller, pp. 139–164. Anthropological Research Papers No. 34. Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe. Walker, Philip L., Rhonda R. Bathurst, Rebecca Richman, Thor Gjerdrum, and Valerie A. Andrushko 2009 The Causes of Porotic Hyperostosis and Cribra Orbitalia: A Reappraisal of the Iron-­Deficiency-Anemia Hypothesis. American Journal of Physical An­ thropology 139(2):109–125. Waters, Jennifer A. 2005 Vertebrate Faunal Remains and Hunting Patterns during the Early Agricultural Period in Southern Arizona. In Subsistence and Resource Use Strate­ gies of Early Agricultural Communities in Southern Arizona, edited by M. W. Diehl, pp. 91–111. Anthropological Papers No. 34. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona. Welch, John R. 1994 Ethnographic Models for Tonto Basin Land Use. In The Roosevelt Rural Sites Study, Vol. 3: Changing Land Use in the Tonto Basin, edited by R. Ciolek-­ Torrello and J. R. Welch, pp. 79–120. Technical Series No. 28. Statistical Research, Inc., Tucson, Arizona. Whalen, Michael E. 1994 Turquoise Ridge and Late Prehistoric Residential Mobility in the Desert Mo­ gollon Region. Anthropological Papers No. 118. University of Utah, Salt Lake City. Whittlesey, Stephanie M., Michael S. Foster, and Douglas R. Mitchell 2010 Chronology and Cultural Systematics. In Recurrent Sedentism and the



Deconstructing the Early Agricultural Period in Southern Arizona 107

­ aking of Place, edited by S. M. Whittlesey et al., pp. 79–92. Cultural ReM sources Report No. 07–556. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Inc., Tucson, ­Arizona. Whittlesey, Stephanie M., and Karen G. Harry (editors) 2004 Pots, Potters, and Models: Archaeological Investigations at the SRI Locus of the West Branch Site, Tucson, Arizona, Vol. 1: Feature Descriptions, Material Culture, and Specialized Analyses. CD-­ROM. Technical Series No. 80. Statistical Research, Inc., Tucson, Arizona. Whittlesey, Stephanie M., India S. Hesse, Annick Lascaux, S. Jerome Hesse, and Michael S. Foster 2010 Research Design. In Recurrent Sedentism and the Making of Place, edited by S. M. Whittlesey et al., pp. 11–39. Cultural Resources Report No. 7–556. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Inc., Tucson, Arizona. Whittlesey, Stephanie M., S. Jerome Hesse, and Michael S. Foster (editors) 2010 Recurrent Sedentism and the Making of Place: Archaeological Investigations at Las Capas, a Preceramic Period Farming Community in the Tucson Basin, Southern Arizona. Cultural Resources Report No. 7–556. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Inc., Tucson, Arizona. Willey, Gordon R., and Phillip Phillips 1958 Method and Theory in American Archaeology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Wills, Wirt H. 1988 Early Agriculture and Sedentism in the American Southwest: Evidence and Interpretations. Journal of World Prehistory 2:​445–488. Wills, Wirt H., and Bruce B. Huckell 1989 Cultivating Ideas: The Changing Intellectual History of the Introduction of Agriculture in the American Southwest. In Perspectives on Southwestern Prehistory, edited by P. E. Minnis and C. L. Redman, pp. 319–332. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. Wöcherl, Helga 1998 Extramural Pits. In Archaeological Investigations of Early Village Sites in the Middle Santa Cruz Valley: Analyses and Synthesis, Pt. 1, edited by J. B. Mabry, pp. 245–282. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona. Young, Lisa C. 1996 Mobility and Sedentism: Changes in Storage during the Pit House to Pueblo Transition. In River of Change: Prehistory of the Middle Little Colorado River Valley, Arizona, edited by E. C. Adams, pp.  37–51. Archaeological Series No. 185. Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson.

CHAPTER 5

Were They Sedentary and Does It Matter? Early Farmers in the Tucson Basin

Barbara J. Roth

There are few concepts in the archaeological record, especially that of foragers and early farmers, that garner more attention and debate than the concept of sedentism. This is true worldwide, as perusal of the literature on the Natufian, Jomon, and European Mesolithic will attest (Belfer-­Cohen and Bar Yosef 2000; Mithen 2000; Pearson 2006). Sedentism is considered to be the hallmark of agricultural occupations in many regions, and a pre­requisite foundation for many cultural changes observed with the development of later social complexity. This has been true in the southern portion of the US Southwest, where Hohokam groups are thought to have developed in large part from previous Archaic groups who began to farm and eventually became sedentary. In this chapter I examine the concept of sedentism as it applies to the archaeological record of the preceding Late Archaic/Early Agricultural farmer-­foragers on the floodplain of the Santa Cruz River in the Tucson Basin of southern Arizona. These groups are characterized by a suite of traits that have traditionally been tied to sedentary occupations, yet at the same time they retained some level of mobility. As a result, despite using the same archaeological data, researchers have classified them within all ranges of the spectrum of sedentism (Gregory and Diehl 2002; Diehl 2005a; 108



Were They Sedentary and Does It Matter?

109

Huckell 1995; Mabry, ed. 2008; Roth 1992, 1996; Whittlesey et al., ed. 2010). I argue that perhaps researchers are asking the wrong questions of the data, and that instead of concerning ourselves with whether these groups were sedentary or not, we should recognize that these groups used a range of mobility strategies and focus on exploring the parameters that led to some portions of the floodplain and some regions being more intensively and more continuously occupied than others. Background: Approaches to Sedentism Perhaps the most significant obstacle in applying the concepts of sedentism and mobility worldwide has been the lack of standardized definitions for these terms. Early approaches to sedentism often focused on delineating traits associated with sedentary or mobile occupations. Many researchers today use Rafferty’s (1985:​115) definition of sedentism, which emphasizes that “at least part of population remains at the same location throughout the entire year” (see also Rice 1975:​97). Rafferty (1985) has argued that changes in settlement strategies are perhaps the best indicator of a shift to sedentism, with the primary shift seen in the increased exploitation of economically productive zones. Sedentary occupations are also associated with certain material traits, including larger settlement size, more sub­stantial housing, storage, the use of more elaborate technologies (including more large, heavy tools), and greater quantities and diversities of artifacts. Almost from the outset there have been problems with this approach because groups do not always exhibit all of these characteristics and instead may exhibit an array of traits that can be used to argue that they are sedentary using one set of criteria and mobile using another. Definitions of mobility are no less confusing. Most researchers agree that groups who make a series of residential moves throughout the year are mobile (Kelly 1983, 1992). But how many moves per year are necessary for a group to be classified as mobile? How far do they have to go? Rocek (1998:​ 17) has discussed the “multivariate nature of mobility” and has stressed that this must be considered if mobility strategies are going to be adequately investigated and reconstructed. The difficulties in defining sedentism and mobility are related to another issue facing archaeologists: operationalizing these concepts using the archaeological record. The definitions of these concepts provided in the literature are often qualitative, focusing on the presence or absence of certain

110

Barbara J. Roth

traits and characteristics of artifact assemblages. For example, in contrast to the definition of sedentary occupations presented above, mobile occupations are expected to be relatively small, contain portable tool kits with multifunctional tools, have few high-­investment features, and lack middens or high artifact densities. But mobility can be masked if a p ­ alimpsest of materials is present as a result of groups repeatedly occupying resource-­rich zones, resulting in a record that mimics evidence of longer-­term occupations. Mobile groups can also use structures and storage features. However, when quantitative empirical data are presented, such as Kelly’s (1995:​ 111–148) examination of ethnographic mobility patterns, their applicability to the archaeological record is not always clear. For example, the number of moves per year is an important indicator of mobility (Kelly 1983), but it is hard to measure this using archaeological data. We are thus left with more qualitative assessments of mobility and sedentism, such as the presence or lack of structures, trash, and diverse artifact assemblages. Two very different approaches to sedentism and mobility are apparent in the current literature on the subject. These consist of (1) a focus on foraging behavior and the associated correlates of mobility (Binford 1979, 1980, 1982; see also Kelly 1992, 1995); and (2) studies of sedentism and mobility and their relationship to domestication in the Near East (Bar-­Yosef 2002; Belfer-­Cohen and Bar-­Yosef 2000; Edwards 1989). These approaches share a basic concern with how to delineate mobility strategies and the causes and consequences of increased sedentism, but they approach these topics from differing theoretical and methodological perspectives. Binford’s (1980) ethnographic work with the Nunamuit provided insights on mobility and sedentism that have significantly shaped our under­ standing of mobility strategies in the past. He distinguished between logistical and residential mobility for hunter-­gatherers, with residential mobility practiced by “foragers,” who moved across the landscape to different resource clusters, and logistical mobility practiced by “collectors,” who remained in one place and exploited surrounding resource zones with goal-­oriented subsistence forays to procure targeted resources. Storage was crucial to maintain the residential base for groups practicing logistical mobility. These concepts have continued to serve as the framework for examining mobility for forager groups worldwide. Robert Kelly (1983, 1992), working primarily on forager sites in the Great Basin and with ethnographic foragers, identified four variables used to de-



Were They Sedentary and Does It Matter?

111

fine a group as sedentary or mobile: (1) the number of residential moves per year, (2) the total distance moved per year, (3) the average distance per move, and (4) the length of stay at a particular site. He found that resource structure significantly affected mobility strategies and that seasonality of resources was one of the key factors determining mobility responses. Many studies of foragers and mobility have built upon Binford’s and Kelly’s ideas. These have often focused on the correlates of mobility observed in lithic assemblages because chipped stone is often the most common material recovered at prehistoric hunter-­gatherer sites (­Andrefsky 1994; Bamforth 1986, 1991; Kelly 1988; Parry and Kelly 1987; Shott 1986, 1996). More recently, researchers have used theoretical ideas from behavioral ecology to model forager mobility strategies (cf. Metcalfe and Barlow 1992; Perreault and Brantingham 2011; Zeanah 2004). In these studies, mobility is often gleaned from looking at aspects of forager sites including foraging radii, caching behavior, raw material transport, stone tool types, and food procurement and processing activities. These concepts often work well for examining mobility strategies of hunter-­gatherer groups who followed well-­defined seasonal rounds; however, they do not usually address the degree of mobility represented, nor the variability seen in hunter-­gatherer mobility strategies present in a particular area, which can sometimes include some degree of sedentism. In addition, these measures do not necessarily apply to farmer-­foragers who practiced more complex settlement and subsistence strategies. In the Near East, the emergence of sedentism and concomitant reduction in mobility has been a primary topic of consideration by researchers studying early domestication and its relationship to sedentism (Bar-­Yosef 1998; Belfer-­Cohen and Bar-­Yosef 2000; Byrd 1989; Edwards 1989). Instead of focusing on establishing criteria for mobility strategies like those discussed above, Near East scholars often emphasize criteria for defining sedentism because many prehistoric foragers in the region exhibited some level of sedentism. For example, Natufian (10,500–8200 bc) hunter-­gatherers in the Levant and adjacent areas are considered to have been at least semi­ sedentary: they had stone architecture, large quantities of ground stone, and burials associated with habitation sites. Yet little evidence of storage has been found at Natufian sites, and they were not agricultural. They are often surrounded by smaller occupations indicative of logistical mobility strategies, leading some researchers to postulate that they were not

112

Barbara J. Roth

“­classically” sedentary (Edwards 1989). This reflects the conundrum that many ­researchers face in trying to categorize groups as sedentary or mobile. Recent Approaches: Sedentism and Mobility as Fluid Concepts

Most researchers today agree that the concepts of sedentism and ­mobility are more complex than a simple dichotomy of sedentary/mobile allows (Eder 1984; Hard and Merrill 1992; Varien 1999). Instead, sedentism operates on a continuum, and individuals and households may behave differently than “groups” (Eder 1984; Varien 1999). A rise in sedentism in a particular group does not necessarily correlate with a decline in overall mobility, as it may result from a change in the organization of mobility (Eder 1984:​838). Wendrich and Barnard (2008) define mobility based on four dimensions: (1) moment (time, seasons), (2) motion (mobility patterns charted over time), (3) motivation (social, ecological), and (4) segment (part of social group participating). They see mobility as a fluid construct tied to specific social and environmental circumstances rather than as a characteristic defined for a particular group. In other words, groups can be mobile at some times and under some circumstances, but sedentary or less mobile under others. Wendrich and Barnard (2008) have been especially critical of the approaches to sedentism manifest in the archaeological literature, arguing that no group is sedentary, but instead groups are more or less mobile. Kelly (1992) has also argued that sedentism is a relative rather than absolute concept. Kent (1991; Kent and Vierich 1989) has discussed the further complicating factor of “anticipated mobility.” Using cross-­cultural ethnographic data, she documented that many of the parameters used to determine whether a group is sedentary or mobile relate more to their anticipation of being sedentary or mobile than their actual practices. The significance of the ambiguity in defining the terms sedentary and mobile and the differential application of these concepts have far-­reaching effects on our understanding of the true dynamics of occupation exhibited by groups during transitional periods, including the transition from foraging to farming. Despite these caveats and complications, many researchers studying hunter-­gatherers and early farmers focus their research efforts on determining the degree of sedentism practiced by these groups. Other researchers have moved beyond this focus in an attempt to elucidate some of the variability observed in settlement strategies. For example, Byrd (1989)



Were They Sedentary and Does It Matter?

113

has noted regional differences in settlement intensity and subsistence in Natufian occupations and has urged researchers to investigate this variability, arguing that a “mosaic” of adaptations was present during the Natufian period. The approach taken in this chapter is to address some of the variability in settlement strategies that existed across time and space during the Late Archaic period in the southern Southwest and examine how this variability is manifest in differences in the use of the landscape and settlement strategies over time. Approaches to Sedentism in the Southwest

Approaches to sedentism by researchers working with data from the Southwest vary in part based on the groups being studied. In the northern Southwest, issues concerning the degree of sedentism practiced by farmer-­ foragers have been addressed by recognizing that some level of mobility continued after cultigens were adopted (Powell 1983; Varien 1999). Early Basketmaker (BM) II groups (ca. 500 bc–ad 500) on the Colorado Plateau used pit structures, adopted cultigens, and were associated with the initial use of ceramic technology and the use of slab-­lined storage cists (Geib and Spurr 2002; Matson 1991; Reed 2002). Yet despite exhibiting traits that would lead them to be classified as sedentary, most researchers working on BM II sites postulate and accept some degree of mobility for the groups that occupied them (Powell 1983). The same is true for later Basketmaker III groups (ad 4/500–700), who are characterized by larger sites, more formal architecture (including large storage features and communal structures at some sites), and material culture changes that suggest increased sedentism (e.g., trough metates, gray and red ware ceramics) (Reed 2002). BM III groups are considered to be both sedentary and highly agricultural, but many researchers argue that they maintained some level of mobility, at least seasonally (Gilman 1987; Wills 1988, 1991; Wills and Windes 1989; but see Reed 2002). The degree of sedentism is often addressed for Basketmaker groups, with researchers focusing on how mobility strategies varied with environmental and social circumstances. Powell (1983) has argued that full-­time sedentary occupation was not a viable long-­term strategy for Basketmaker groups on the Colorado Plateau. She argues that a mixed horticultural and hunting-­ gathering subsistence strategy necessitates seasonal movements between uplands and lowlands, a pattern observed in the archaeological record of

114

Barbara J. Roth

Basketmaker groups. The shift to above ground storage during the Pueblo I period (ad 500–700) is often considered to be the hallmark of sedentism in this region, with the rationale that groups using above ground storage remained at a site year-­round to guard the stores. Studies in the Jornada Mogollon region in the Chihuahuan Desert of southern New Mexico have shed substantial light on issues of mobility and sedentism associated with Southwestern foragers and farmers (Carmichael 1990; Mauldin 1996; Rocek 1995, 1996; Whalen 1981). For much of prehistory, groups in this region maintained relatively high levels of mobility, with characteristics of sedentary communities occurring quite late (ca. ad 1100). This is visible archaeologically in the fact that pre–ad 1100 sites often contain pit structures, many of which are relatively ephemeral in nature, but lack dense trash deposits and other characteristics of sedentary occupations. These have been interpreted as seasonal occupations, and many Jornada researchers use Gilman’s (1987) pithouse study to argue that sites with more permanent facilities such as pithouses and storage pits were winter residences rather than year-­round occupations. Rocek (1995, 1996) has shown that these groups remained mobile despite heavy agricultural dependence, arguing that the correlation between sedentism and agricultural dependence is not always clear-­cut. In fact, the Jornada Mogollon had both variability and flexibility in residential mobility strategies throughout the occupation of the region (Carmichael 1990). Similar assumptions of flexibility have been proposed for the Fremont in the Great Basin on the northern periphery of the Southwest (Madsen 1989; Madsen and Simms 1998). Debate continues over the degree of agri­ cultural dependence, their cultural affiliation (see chapters in this volume), and the degree of sedentism exhibited at their sites. Most researchers agree that some Fremont were sedentary farmers; some were more mobile and focused on wild resources; and others practiced a mixed strategy of being sedentary during particular periods when resources and cultigens were abundant and reliable, but practicing higher levels of mobility during periods when resources were less abundant and reliable. The presence of wetland resources in portions of the Fremont area enabled some degree of sedentism, at least seasonally, that did not necessitate a focus on agricultural production. It appears that as a result of environmental variation, the Fremont were variably sedentary across the landscape, but the nature and extent of this variation remain topics of debate (Simms 2008). This



Were They Sedentary and Does It Matter?

115

variability is reflected in their settlements (site size, features, trash deposits, burials) and subsistence remains. The Fremont likely retained this flexibility in adaptation largely in response to the need for flexible responses to environmental fluctuations. Thus the interpretation of early farming societies elsewhere in the Southwest has rarely focused on them as living in sedentary villages but has instead focused on the variability and flexibility in mobility practices used by these groups at different times and in different environmental settings. This kind of variability has not generally been addressed for Late Archaic sites in southern Arizona, where research has instead focused on determining if they were sedentary and how sedentary they were. In the following section, I explore the database used to establish that these groups were sedentary and then examine evidence in the archaeological record that suggests the same kinds of variability and flexibility in mobility strategies observed in other early farming groups worldwide. The Late Archaic/Early Agricultural Period in Southern Arizona Our knowledge of the Late Archaic/Early Agricultural period in southern Arizona has exploded in the last two decades as large-­scale contract archaeology projects along the floodplain of the Santa Cruz River have exposed large, deeply buried sites, some with literally thousands of features. These sites span the transition from hunting and gathering through the adoption and integration of cultigens, from ca. 2100 bc through the beginning of the Ceramic period ca. ad 200. This chapter focuses on the San Pedro phase, which dates from ca. 1200–800 bc and represents the initial stage of the integration of maize agriculture into the subsistence regime, with consequent economic and social repercussions. The San Pedro phase is associated with some significant cultural changes, including construction of the first pithouses; the extensive use of large storage pits and a host of other extramural pit features used for a variety of functions; an increase in shell trade (and likely other goods); the manufacture of ceramic figurines and small, cornucopia-­shaped vessels; and the construction of irrigation canal systems (Mabry 2005). These traits represent substantial changes in the intensity of floodplain occupation, and many are tied directly to agricultural production. The presence of several traits — ​structures, storage pits, and irrigation canals — ​is cross-­culturally associated with increased ­sedentism; however,

116

Barbara J. Roth

the degree of sedentism represented by these remains has been debated. It is argued here that a focus on floodplain sedentism may be masking the variability and flexibility exhibited by these early farmer-­foragers. Data from several excavated San Pedro phase sites in the floodplain and the upper bajada (mountain foothills) surrounding the Tucson Basin are used to illustrate this variability in settlement strategies. For this discussion, I focus on three floodplain sites — ​Las Capas, Valley Farms, and Costello King — ​that all date to the same time range, contain similar feature types and material culture, and yet appear to exhibit very different degrees of sedentism. I also include data from San Pedro phase sites in the upper bajada that provide a regional context for examining sedentism and mobility strategies. I first discuss the evidence used to argue that San Pedro phase groups were sedentary, which is based largely on the excavation of Las Capas, and then discuss the different interpretations that can be made when other data are considered. Floodplain Sites

Las Capas is located on the east side of the Santa Cruz River near its junction with two major watercourses, the Cañada del Oro and the Rillito River (Figure 5.1). This setting was apparently particularly attractive to Late Archaic farmer-­foragers because of the reliable water supply, expanse of arable and irrigable land, and lush riparian resources (Gregory and Nials 2005). Two separate areas of the site were excavated by two different CRM firms: SWCA Inc., as part of a project to expand a sewage treatment plant, investigated an area that dated primarily to the early San Pedro phase (1200–​1000 bc) (Whittlesey et al., ed. 2010), and Desert Archaeology Inc. excavated a portion of the site within the Interstate 10 right-­of-way that dated to the late San Pedro phase (1000–800 bc) (Mabry, ed. 2008). The early San Pedro phase component excavated by SWCA was found in Stratum 6A and covered an area of 5,400 m². More than a thousand features were identified in this component, including more than 900 pits (bell-­shaped storage pits, basin pits, cylindrical pits, thermal “bathtub pits,” roasting pits, hearths, and other types), 16 houses (11 of which were excavated), six possible houses, three burials, and two canals (Hesse et al. 2010). None of the structures were superimposed, but many of the pits were. Hesse and others (2010) note that clusters of three to six houses were found in the northern and southern portions of the excavated area and were ­associated



Were They Sedentary and Does It Matter?

117

Figure 5.1. Locations of floodplain sites discussed in text.

with a large number of pits. Large bell-­shaped pits were found spatially clustered in the northeast portion of the excavated area. No middens were present in this portion of the site; instead, trash was found within pit features and scattered throughout the matrix. Although Whittlesey and others (2010) have argued that the structures are all contemporaneous, this assumption is based primarily on their stratigraphic location, as only five of the houses were dated. The structures varied in size and construction methods (see below), and Whittlesey and others (2010) argued that those with hearths represent habitation structures (n = 7), while the other structures may have been used for storage or other functions. The component excavated by Desert Archaeology along Interstate 10 covered an area of approximately 700 m². Three loci were excavated, yielding more than 600 features in three strata. The majority of the features were found in the late San Pedro phase component (Stratum 504) of Locus 1 and included three pithouses, four possible pithouses, hundreds of pits (including a large number of bell-­shaped storage pits), 11 human burials, and one dog burial (Ruble et al. 2008). Locus 2 contained an additional three pithouses, 10 possible pithouses, and numerous pits. Ten prehistoric canals were found in the strata in this portion of the site (Nials 2008). Again, the structures were not superimposed, but many of the extramural pits were. Because of the quantity and density of features, no discrete clusters of

118

Barbara J. Roth

f­ eatures could be identified. Unlike the earlier San Pedro phase component, midden areas were identified in this portion of the site, and the middens contained the largest number of features found in this area, along with trash and fire-­cracked rock. Reports on both excavated components addressed the degree of sedentism at Las Capas, with two different interpretations being derived from the data. Whittlesey (2010) argues that the remains represent “episodic and recurrent use” of the floodplain, with brief episodes of occupation punctuated by movement due to flooding. She uses the term “recurrent sedentism” to denote this type of occupation and ties the sedentary periods to times when the floodplain was stable. She argues that the houses were all contemporaneous and that they represent clusters of family groups, akin to what has been observed among the Yavapai and Havasupai. She sees the commitment to the site locale as a key factor in this repeated use. Mabry (2008a) argues that Las Capas is unique in terms of its duration and continuity of occupation, viewing the site as occupied by sedentary corporate (landholding) groups. He, too, ties the intensity of occupation to the site’s location, arguing that its ideal location enabled long-­term occupation based on irrigation. He sees Las Capas as representing a significant degree of sedentism because of the large number of features (especially houses and storage pits), the presence of canals, the high density and diversity of artifacts found in middens, the presence of burials, and artifact wear management and recycling. Mabry (2008a) argues that flooding caused “­settlement drift” along the floodplain, with sedentary farmers moving their locations in response to regular floods, resulting in the presence of long-­ term “districts” encompassing these shifting settlements. The locations of these settlement districts were tied to irrigation canals, and Mabry (2008a:​ 269, 271) interprets the settlement remains as representing “autonomous irrigation communities” made up of corporate landholding groups. Two other San Pedro phase sites excavated near Las Capas document some of the variability in both archaeological content and interpretations of these early farming sites. The Valley Farms site, located on the east side of the Santa Cruz River north of Las Capas (Figure 5.1), exhibits much less occupational intensity than Las Capas and apparently represents a significant amount of recurrent use (Wellman 2008). Features were found distributed in five study areas along a 2.1 km stretch of the Interstate 10 right-­of-way and included one pithouse, one possible pithouse, bell-­shaped storage pits,



Were They Sedentary and Does It Matter?

119

roasting pits, and a variety of processing pits (Thurtle et al. 2008). The pit structure was small (3 m long) and oval with a central hearth. One inhumation was found; this was a pit containing the remains of two infants. Some of the features occurred in clusters with shared radiocarbon date ranges, suggesting that they were used at the same time. These clusters and individual features were separated both horizontally and vertically. Roth and Wellman (2001) interpret the remains as those of family groups who repeatedly returned to the floodplain to farm and gather. Similar kinds of remains have been found at the Costello-­King site (Ezzo and Deaver 1998). Located east of the Santa Cruz River near Las ­Capas (Figure 5.1), the site is considered by Mabry (2008b) to be part of the settlement drift associated with what he refers to as the “Las Capas Site Complex.” Data recovery within a 3,200 m² area yielded a total of 180 features from the Archaic component, including one small oval pit structure, hearths, storage and processing pits, and two canals. The density of features is significantly lower than that found at Las Capas. The remains from Valley Farms and Costello-­King clearly reflect different degrees of occupational intensity and duration, and attest to the flexibility in the use of the floodplain by San Pedro phase groups. Upper Bajada Occupation

The upper bajada is located at the base of the mountains and slopes toward the Santa Cruz River. Seasonal springs are present throughout this zone. Vegetation is dominated by the paloverde-­mixed cacti community, providing access to a wide range of plant resources including saguaro cacti. Mesquite and other riparian plants are present along the major washes that extend from canyons in the upper bajada, and deer and other fauna are (and likely were prehistorically) abundant in this zone. The upper bajada of the Tortolita and Santa Catalina Mountains are located about 10 km from most floodplain settings, which is just on the edge of the typical foraging range for hunter-­gatherers (Thomas 1973), whereas the upper bajada of the Tucson Mountains is located within 5 km of the floodplain. Thus short-­ term movement into the upper bajada to exploit seasonally available resources such as cacti may have been the best strategy for early farmers on the floodplain. This strategy would have involved task-­specific day trips to gather resources, observed in limited-­activity gathering and hunting sites, and camps that represent repeated seasonal stays for longer periods (Roth

120

Barbara J. Roth

1992, 1995, 1996). The same strategy appears to have been used to gather piñon and agave at higher elevations in the mountains surrounding the basin (cf. Huckell 1984), although these longer-­range movements would have involved longer stays at the procurement sites. Evaluating Evidence for Sedentism in the Archaeological Record of Late Archaic Sites The evidence for sedentism observed at these different localities can be interpreted in several ways, depending on which characteristics are emphasized in reconstructing mobility strategies. When evaluated together, they show that some traits reveal sedentism, while others do not. Structures

One of the strongest indicators that groups were sedentary is the use of structures (Rafferty 1985); however, the mere presence of structures does not constitute a predictor of sedentism. For example, house pits at Archaic period sites in Wyoming are thought to represent repeated, short-­term occupations by residentially mobile foragers (Smith 2003), and ephemeral structures documented at Middle Archaic sites in the Southwest have been associated with mobile foragers (Bayham et al. 1986; Dart 1986; Halbirt and Copus 1993; Huckell 1984; Whalen 1981). Cross-­cultural (Binford 1990; Kent and Vierich 1989) and archaeological studies of house construction (Diehl 1992) have shown that mobility strategies and anticipated length of stay have a significant impact on the materials used to construct structures. These studies have shown that more durable construction materials will be used in houses that are to be occupied for long periods, and more energy will be invested in their construction, while houses constructed for short-­ term use will be less substantial and will be constructed with readily available materials that require minimal preparation (Diehl 1992; Smith 2003). Kent (1992) also found that house size correlated with occupation duration, and smaller houses were not used for long periods. An examination of the structure construction techniques used at San Pedro phase floodplain sites shows, for the most part, relatively low levels of investment in construction materials and methods (Gregory and H ­ uckell 1998). The houses are small, averaging 3 m in diameter, and circular, a characteristic generally associated with short occupation durations and mobility (Binford 1990; Gilman 1987). Evidence of superstructures are not



Were They Sedentary and Does It Matter?

121

commonly recovered, but small postholes sometimes rim the outer edges of the houses. These were likely framed with cottonwood or willow shaped in a dome or cone (Gregory and Huckell 1998). The superstructure was then covered with mud and other organic materials. The structures often contain intramural pits and hearths that generally consist of oxidized areas or shallow basins. These kinds of structures have been recovered in low numbers at Costello-­King (Ezzo and Deaver 1998), Valley Farms (Wellman 2008), the Dairy Site (Jones 2004), Wetlands (Freeman 1998), Milagro (Huckell et al. 1994), and the Solar Wells site (Mabry 1990). The exception to this is Las Capas. Houses from the San Pedro phase component at Las Capas are more substantial than those recovered from the other excavated San Pedro phase sites. Whittlesey et al. (2010) identified three construction methods used for houses in the early San Pedro phase component at Las Capas: one with perimeter posts inside a shallow basin and paired roof supports; a second with perimeter posts outside the basin and paired roof supports; and a third with wall posts braced against the pit walls and then tied at the top (like those seen at other excavated San Pedro phase sites and the late San Pedro phase component at Las Capas). They note that structures made using the first two methods were significantly larger — ​two to three times larger — ​than the more ephemeral structures found at other sites. Specialized storage structures were also found at Las Capas (Mabry, ed. 2008). The early San Pedro phase houses and the presence of specialized storage structures appear to be associated with more-­ sedentary occupations than those represented by the small, oval structures found at other sites, but they are still not substantial houses associated with long-­term occupations (Diehl 1992). No pit structures similar to those recovered at floodplain sites have been found at any upper bajada sites, but several ephemeral “structures” have been recorded. A stone alignment associated with the Late Archaic period component at the La Paloma site, a seasonal campsite on the upper bajada of the Santa Catalina Mountains, has been interpreted as either a structural foundation or a border used to demarcate space (Dart 1986:​ 47). Two small structures were found at AZ AA:12:​84(ASM), a seasonal campsite on the upper bajada of the Tortolita Mountains (Swartz 2008). These features lacked hearths, postholes, or any other evidence of a superstructure and may have been cleared areas or lean-­tos. They date to either the San Pedro phase or Cienega phase, and the associated artifact

122

Barbara J. Roth

assemblage points to seasonal hunting and gathering activities (Roth 1995; Swartz 2008). Storage

Storage is another major characteristic associated with sedentary occupations, although the presence of storage also supports logistically mobile strategies (Binford 1980). Keeley (1988) used a cross-­cultural study of 94 hunter-­gatherer groups to show that sedentism is highly correlated with storage, and Kelly (1983:​292) also found that foragers will only adopt a strategy of reduced residential mobility if storage is present. The presence of large storage pits at many floodplain sites and the absence of storage features at upper bajada sites is one of the best illustrations of differences in mobility strategies practiced in these two zones. The number and size of storage features found at floodplain sites, especially the presence of bell-­shaped pits with large storage capacities, indicate a relatively high degree of investment in storage facilities. However, Diehl and Waters (2006) have argued that pit storage made agriculture risky due to high rates of in-­ground spoilage, infestation, rodent predation, and seed sterility. They estimate up to 30 percent loss rates for pit storage and argue that floods may have occasionally destroyed all stores. The large volumes of storage capacity of some bell-­shaped storage pits may represent a strategy to counteract the risk of loss. Caching behavior, a form of storage, is prevalent in hunter-­gatherers who practice regular seasonal movements (Binford 1980; Morgan 2012). Cached materials are usually placed in subterranean pits that can be covered so they are hidden, and materials generally include large, difficult to transport items such as ground stone, stone tools, and raw material. The presence of cached materials shows an intent to return to a site. Ground stone, stone tools, and lithic raw materials have been found cached in pits at all of the excavated San Pedro phase floodplain sites, including Las Capas. Wöcherl (2005) has argued that intramural storage began during the Cienega phase but may have started as early as the late San Pedro phase. This shift from extramural to intramural storage represents a substantial change in technology. Several researchers have noted the correlation of extramural pit storage with seasonal settlement abandonment (DeBoer 1988; Gilman 1987; Wills 1992), while intramural storage usually correlates with increased sedentism. Wöcherl (2005) has shown that mean pit volume was



Were They Sedentary and Does It Matter?

123

significantly smaller during the San Pedro phase than during the Cienega phase, again suggesting increased sedentism during the Cienega phase. ­Finally, she notes that there is a significant amount of intrasite variability in pit types found at floodplain sites, which appears to be the norm for these occupations. Trash Deposits

Cross-­cultural ethnographic evidence indicates that increased sedentism leads to changes in trash disposal methods. Groups will deposit refuse in defined disposal areas as occupation duration increases (Hitchcock 1982). None of the San Pedro phase sites discussed here, either on the floodplain or upper bajada, contain formal refuse disposal areas, and Gregory (2001) notes that this is typical for later Cienega phase occupations as well. Refuse in the early San Pedro phase component at Las Capas “tended to accumulate where it was created” (Whittlesey 2010:​514) and was generally concentrated in pits and depressions. Denser trash was observed in midden zones in the later San Pedro phase component, but no formal trash deposition areas were found. This lack of formal trash deposition contrasts markedly with that observed during later periods; Whittlesey (2010) remarks on the fact that Hohokam trash disposal occurred in trash mounds located away from habitation areas. Botanical and Faunal Remains

Agriculture is often considered to be a major characteristic associated with sedentism. The presence of maize at all identified San Pedro phase floodplain sites in the Tucson Basin has been used as a proxy for interpreting them as sedentary. Yet despite the presence of extensive irrigation canal systems, the archaeobotanical and faunal data from these sites do not support the inference of heavy maize dependence (see Whittlesey, this volume). Diehl’s (2005b) analysis of botanical remains from San Pedro phase sites has documented a mixed farming/foraging strategy and he refers to these groups as “farmagers.” He notes that there is no evidence for subsistence reorganization during the San Pedro or Cienega phase, arguing instead that diet remained stable for hundreds of years. Maize pollen has also been recovered from a mano associated with the Late Archaic component at La Paloma on the upper bajada; Dart (1986) argues that maize was transported to the site, probably from the floodplain, rather than grown there.

124

Barbara J. Roth

Faunal remains also provide insights into the occupation duration of these Late Archaic sites. Analysis of Southwestern sites cannot rely on the house mouse and house sparrow used to demonstrate sedentism in the Near East (Bar-­Yosef and Belfer-­Cohen 1989), but Dean (2005) has used faunal data to assess the degree of sedentism at early farming sites on the floodplain in the Tucson Basin. She argues that faunal data point to a late shift to high-­intensity site use, well after the introduction of maize agriculture. Dean argues that kangaroo rats (seed eaters) should increase with increased sedentism, storage, and agricultural production, and that ground squirrels should also increase because of their attraction to food remains in middens, while wood rats and pocket gophers should decrease. She documents a dramatic change in faunal species during the Colonial Hohokam period (ad 700–950) and suggests that faunal data indicate that early agricultural groups exhibited a lower degree of sedentism. Burials

The presence of burials at habitation sites is often used as an indicator of sedentism. San Pedro phase burials have been found at several floodplain sites, including Las Capas and Valley Farms, and in the upper bajada at La Paloma. Las Capas has yielded the largest number of burials. Three adult burials were found in the early San Pedro phase component excavated by SWCA, and 11 burials, including both infants and adults, were recovered from the later San Pedro phase component. Most were tightly flexed in pits, and many were buried with red ochre. Grave goods found with the burials included ground stone, bone awls, projectile points, and shell beads. Mabry (2008a) argues that the increased numbers of burials at Las Capas indicates that groups were claiming ancestral ties to agricultural land and marking it with burials. The number of burials clearly increased during the San Pedro phase and into the Cienega phase; however, Whittlesey (2010) notes that the number of burials in the early San Pedro phase component at Las C ­ apas was low for the expected population, especially compared to the large ­number of other features found at the site. This might suggest repeated use of the site instead of long-­term occupation; it is also possible that the burials were used to lay claim to land that was repeatedly returned to, so the mere presence of burials at habitation sites is not definitive evidence of sedentary occupations, as supported by the recovery of an adult burial at La Paloma, a seasonal campsite (Dart 1986).



Were They Sedentary and Does It Matter?

125

Discussion One of the biggest problems with the data sets mentioned above is sorting out contemporaneous features from the plethora of excavated and recorded features at floodplain sites. These sites are palimpsests of occupation, and despite the dating of a large number of features, it is not always possible to sort out discrete occupations. Gregory and Diehl (2002:​204) have argued that radiocarbon dating does not provide adequate temporal resolution to establish feature contemporaneity at these sites because most structures and associated features were used for several years at the most. They have argued, using dating from Los Pozos, a later Cienega phase occupation on the Santa Cruz River floodplain, that these large accumulations of features were created by relatively discrete occupations that varied in population size, continuity, and activities over time. This is a good starting point for addressing earlier San Pedro phase occupational variability as well. This variability is readily apparent when examining the existing database on San Pedro phase occupations in the Tucson Basin. Large floodplain sites such as Las Capas — ​with huge numbers of features, irrigation canals, and large storage pits — ​clearly indicate sedentism, yet the ephemeral nature of the structures, the lack of formal trash deposits, evidence of caching behavior, and superpositioning of pits at these sites all indicate some level of mobility. The data are thus ambiguous in assessing whether these groups were “sedentary” or “mobile” as defined by trait lists. Clearly the integration of maize and storage enabled groups to spend longer periods of time on the floodplain because it was economically feasible (see O’Brien 1987). Not surprisingly, Las Capas, which presents the best evidence of “sedentism” based on the material remains recovered there, is located in a prime portion of the floodplain where it was possible to irrigate, although the dynamics of the floodplain apparently led groups to move repeatedly (what Mabry [2008b] refers to as “settlement drift,” and Whittlesey [2010] refers to as “recurrent sedentism”). Data from other floodplain and upper bajada sites indicate that higher levels of mobility were practiced by some groups in the area. Sites such as Costello King and Valley Farms contain evidence that some groups used the floodplain much less intensively; the archaeological record at these sites points to shorter-­term occupations most likely representing seasonal use by family groups (Roth and Wellman 2001). As several ­Southwestern

126

Barbara J. Roth

r­esearchers have noted, mobility and farming are not incompatible ­concepts (Diehl 2005b; Hard and Merrill 1992; Rocek 1998). Upper bajada sites surrounding the Tucson Basin and in the Santa Rita Mountains to the south of the basin illustrate that some San Pedro groups moved ­seasonally to the u ­ pper bajada to gather cacti and hunt, and to the mountains to gather acorns and piñon as well as hunt. The archaeological record in the Tucson Basin and surrounding areas therefore documents the same kind of variability in mobility strategies practiced by early farmers that has been observed in other portions of the Southwest and worldwide. Were They Sedentary and Does It Matter? The preceding discussion reveals that the question “Were they sedentary?” may mask much of the variable, flexible, and dynamic nature of the occupation of southern Arizona by early farmer-­foragers. So what would happen if instead of asking “Were they sedentary?” we began to instead address the levels of sedentism and mobility that are apparent across time and space. This has been done quite successfully by Patricia Gilman (1997) in the San Simon region to the east of the Tucson Basin, where Pithouse period groups were sometimes quite mobile but sometimes more sedentary, often depending on their environmental circumstances. When viewed in this light, sedentism actually becomes somewhat of a peripheral issue to understanding Late Archaic occupations. It is clear that these early farmers occupied some portions of the floodplain very intensively, at least for certain periods of time, while other portions were either much less intensively occupied or not occupied at all. Certain locations were key areas of occupation during the San Pedro phase, with micro­ environments of dense patches of wild resources and large expanses of arable (and irrigable) land. Las Capas represents an exceptional example of this, primarily because it has been so intensively investigated, but other locations along the floodplain show similar environmental circumstances and similar occupational intensities. These locations changed over time in response to changes on the floodplain (Gregory and Nials 2005), and this occurred throughout prehistory, well into the Hohokam period. The flood­plain where Las Capas is located eventually became uninhabitable — ​or at least not as attractive to Cienega phase farmers as it was to San Pedro phase farmers — ​and groups shifted south to sites such as Los Pozos and Santa Cruz Bend (Gregory 2001; Mabry 1998). In the southern Tucson



Were They Sedentary and Does It Matter?

127

Basin similar scenarios played out. For example, at Rio Nuevo, a Middle Archaic component is present, but very little San Pedro phase material was found; however, this area had substantial occupation during the succeeding Cienega phase, with multiple houses and storage pits (Thiel and Mabry 2006). During the same time periods other portions of the floodplain either contained a few houses and pits, likely representing small family groups, or they were not inhabited at all, perhaps because they were experiencing flooding or other phenomena that made some portions of the floodplain less attractive for occupation (Gregory and Nials 2005). Some groups continued to make seasonal forays into adjacent uplands to gather additional wild plant resources and hunt. Taken together, these data indicate that subsistence strategies, floodplain dynamics, population demographics, and social organization all played important roles in determining if groups were “sedentary” or not, and how long they remained so. Conclusions Were they sedentary? Maybe — ​for at least part of the time and in some places. What is more interesting is that groups were using the floodplain differentially over time. The flexible responses indicated by the remains recovered at these sites apparently involved changing locations and moving up and down the floodplain in response to the dynamics of the environment (both physical and social). This flexibility speaks to their overall organization and provides some insights into their social situation, which most likely incorporated the same kind of flexibility seen in their settlement strategies. It may be time for us to move beyond asking if they were sedentary and begin to explore the more subtle dimensions of these occupations in order to more fully understand their social and economic circumstances, and their role in the cultural changes that occurred as the Ceramic period began to unfold. References Andrefsky, William, Jr. 1994 Raw-­material Availability and the Organization of Technology. American Antiquity 59(1):21–35. Bamforth, Douglas 1986 Technological Efficiency and Tool Curation. American Antiquity 51:​38–50. 1991 Technological Organization and Hunter-­Gatherer Land Use: A California Example. American Antiquity 56(2):216–234.

128

Barbara J. Roth

Bar-­Yosef, Ofer 1998 On the Nature of Transitions: The Middle to Upper Paleolithic and the Neolithic Revolution. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 8:​141–163. 2002 Natufian: A Complex Society of Foragers. In Beyond Foraging and Collecting, edited by B. Fitzhugh and J. Habu, pp. 91–149. Academic/Plenum Press, New York. Bar-­Yosef, Ofer, and Anna Belfer-­Cohen 1989 The Origins of Sedentism and Farming Communities in the Levant. Journal of World Prehistory 3:​447–498. Bayham, Frank E., Donald H. Morris, and M. Steven Shackley 1986 Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers of South Central Arizona: The Picacho Reser­ voir Archaic Project. Anthropological Field Studies No. 13. Department of Anthropology, Office of Cultural Resource Management, Arizona State University, Tempe. Belfer-­Cohen, Anna, and Ofer Bar-­Yosef 2000 Early Sedentism in the Near East: A Bumpy Ride to Village Life. In Life in Neolithic Farming Communities, edited by I. Kuijt, pp. 19–37. Academic/ Plenum Press, New York. Binford, Lewis R. 1979 Organization and Formation Processes: Looking at Curated Technologies. Journal of Anthropological Research 35:​255–273. 1980 Willow Smoke and Dog’s Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45:​4–20. 1982 The Archaeology of Place. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1:​5–31. 1990 Mobility, Housing, and Environment: A Comparative Study. Journal of An­ thropological Research 46:​119–152. Byrd, Brian F. 1989 The Natufian: Settlement Variability and Economic Adaptations in the ­Levant at the End of the Pleistocene. Journal of World Prehistory 3:​159–198. Carmichael, David L. 1990 Patterns of Residential Mobility and Sedentism in the Jornada Mogollon Area. In Perspectives on Southwestern Prehistory, edited by P. R. Minnis and C. L. Redman, pp. 122–134. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. Dart, Allen 1986 Archaeological Investigations at La Paloma: Archaic and Hohokam Occupa­ tions at Three Sites in the Northeastern Tucson Basin, Arizona. Anthropological Papers 4. Institute for American Research, Tucson, Arizona. Dean, Rebecca 2005 Site-­Use Intensity, Cultural Modification of the Environment, and the Development of Agricultural Communities in Southern Arizona. American Antiquity 70:​403–431. DeBoer, Warren R. 1988 Subterranean Storage and the Organization of Surplus: The View from Eastern North America. Southeastern Archaeology 7:​1–20.



Were They Sedentary and Does It Matter?

129

Diehl, Michael W. 1992 Architecture as Material Correlate of Mobility Strategies: Some Implications for Archeological Interpretation. Behavior Science Research 26:​1–35. 2005a Subsistence and Resource Use Strategies of Early Agricultural Communities in Southern Arizona. Anthropological Papers No. 34. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona. 2005b When Corn Was Not Yet King. In Subsistence and Resource Use Strategies of Early Agricultural Communities in Southern Arizona, edited by Michael W. Diehl, pp. 1–18. Anthropological Papers No. 34. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona. Diehl, Michael W., and Jennifer Waters 2006 Aspects of Optimization and Risk during the Early Agricultural Period in Southeastern Arizona. In Behavioral Ecology and the Transition to Agricul­ ture, edited by D. Kennett and B. Winterhalder, pp. 63–86. University of California Press, Berkeley. Eder, James F. 1984 The Impact of Subsistence Change on Mobility and Settlement Pattern in a Tropical Forest Foraging Economy: Some Implications for Archaeology. American Anthropologist 86:​837–853. Edwards, Phillip C. 1989 Problems of Recognizing Earliest Sedentism: The Natufian Example. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 2:​5–48. Ezzo, Joseph A., and William L. Deaver 1998 Watering the Desert: Late Archaic Farming at the Costello-­King Site. Technical Series No. 68. Statistical Research, Tucson, Arizona. Freeman, Andrea K. 1998 Archaeological Investigations at the Wetlands Site, AZ AA:12:​90 (ASM). Technical Report No. 97–5. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona. Geib, Phil R., and Kimberly Spurr 2002 The Basketmaker II–III Transition on the Rainbow Plateau. In Foundations of Anasazi Culture: The Basketmaker-­Pueblo Transition, edited by P. F. Reed, pp. 175–200. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Gilman, Patricia A. 1987 Architecture as Artifact: Pit Structures and Pueblos in the American Southwest. American Antiquity 52:​538–564. 1997 Wandering Villagers: Pit Structures, Mobility and Agriculture in Southeastern Arizona. Anthropological Research Papers No. 49. Arizona State University, Tempe. Gregory, David A. (editor) 2001 Excavations in the Santa Cruz River Floodplain: The Early Agricultural Oc­ cupation at Los Pozos (AZ AA:12:​91, ASM). Anthropological Papers No. 21. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona. Gregory, David A., and Michael W. Diehl 2002 Duration, Continuity, and Intensity of Occupation at a Late Cienega Phase

130

Barbara J. Roth

Settlement in the Santa Cruz River Floodplain. In Traditions, Transitions, and Technologies: Themes in Southwestern Archaeology, edited by Sarah H. Schlanger, pp. 200–223. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. Gregory, David A., and Bruce B. Huckell 1998 Small, Round, and Stable: Early Agricultural Period Pithouse Architecture and Its Implications for the Rise of Long-­term Settlements in Southeastern Arizona. Paper presented at the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Seattle. Gregory, David A., and Fred L. Nials 2005 The Environmental Context of Early Agricultural Period Occupation in the Tucson Basin. In Subsistence and Resource Use Strategies of Early Agricultural Communities in Southern Arizona, edited by Michael W. Diehl, pp. 19–72. Anthropological Papers No. 34. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona. Halbirt, Carl D., and James Copus 1993 Tator Hills (AZ AA:6:​18[ASM]), a Multicomponent Campsite. In Archaic Occupation on the Santa Cruz Flats: The Tator Hills Archaeological Project, edited by C. D. Halbirt and T. K. Henderson, pp. 15–53. Report submitted to the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Arizona Projects Office, Contract No. 3-­PA-30–00740. Northland Research Inc., Flagstaff, Arizona. Hard, Robert J., and William L. Merrill 1992 Mobile Agriculturalists and the Emergence of Sedentism: Perspectives from Northern Mexico. American Anthropologist 94:​601–620. Hesse, S. Jerome, India S. Hesse, and Stephanie M. Whittlesey 2010 Overview of Excavation Results and Site Structure. In Recurrent Sedentism and the Making of Place: Archaeological Investigations at Las Capas, a Pre­ ceramic Farming Community in the Tucson Basin, Southern Arizona, edited by Stephanie M. Whittlesey, S. Jerome Hesse, and Michael S. Foster. Cultural Resources Report No. 7–556. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson, ­Arizona. Hitchcock, Robert 1982 Patterns of Sedentism among the Basarwa of Eastern Botswana. In Politics and History in Band Societies, edited by E. Leacock and R. Lee, pp. 223–267. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Huckell, Bruce B. 1984 The Archaic Occupation of the Rosemont Area, Northern Santa Rita Moun­ tains, Southeastern Arizona. Archaeological Series No. 147, Vol. 1. Arizona State Museum, Tucson. 1995 Of Marshes and Maize: Preceramic Agricultural Settlements in the Cienega Valley, Southeastern Arizona. University of Arizona Anthropological Papers No. 59. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Huckell, Bruce B., Lisa W. Huckell, and Suzanne K. Fish 1994 Investigations at Milagro, a Late Preceramic Site in the Eastern Tucson Basin. Technical Report No. 94–5. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona.



Were They Sedentary and Does It Matter?

131

Jones, Jeffrey T. 2004 Archaeological Investigations at the Cortaro Farms Road Realignment Portion of the Dairy Site, AZ AA:12:​285 (ASM), in Marana, Arizona. Archaeological Report No. 28. Old Pueblo Archaeology Center, Tucson, Arizona. Keeley, L. H. 1988 Hunter-­Gatherer Economic Complexity and “Population Pressure”: A Cross-­Cultural Analysis. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 7:​373–411. Kelly, Robert H. 1983 Hunter Gatherer Mobility Strategies. Journal of Anthropological Research 39:​ 277–306. 1988 The Three Sides of a Biface. American Antiquity 53:​7 17–734. 1992 Mobility/Sedentism: Concepts, Archaeological Measures, and Effects. An­ nual Review of Anthropology 21:​43–66. 1995 The Foraging Spectrum: Diversity in Hunter-­Gatherer Lifeways. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. Kent, Susan 1991 The Relationship between Mobility Strategies and Site Structure. In The In­ terpretation of Archaeological Spatial Patterning, edited by E. M. Kroll and T. D. Price, pp. 33–59. Plenum, New York. 1992 Studying Variability in the Archaeological Record: An Ethnoarchaeological Model for Distinguishing Mobility Patterns. American Antiquity 57:6​ 35–660. Kent, Susan, and Helga Vierich 1989 The Myth of Ecological Determinism: Anticipated Mobility and Site Spatial Organization. In Farmers as Hunters: The Implications of Sedentism, edited by S. Kent, pp. 96–130. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Mabry, Jonathan 1990 A Late Archaic Occupation at AZ AA:12:​105 (ASM). Technical Report No. 90–6. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona. 2005 Changing Knowledge and Ideas about the First Farmers in Southeastern Arizona. In The Late Archaic across the Borderlands: From Foraging to Farming, edited by Bradley J. Vierra, pp. 41–82. University of Texas Press, Austin. 2008a Irrigation, Short-­term Sedentism, and Corporate Organization during the San Pedro Phase. In Las Capas: Early Irrigation and Sedentism in a South­ western Floodplain, edited by J. Mabry, pp. 257–277. Anthropological Papers No. 28. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona. 2008b Introduction. In Las Capas: Early Irrigation and Sedentism in a Southwestern Floodplain, edited by J. Mabry, pp. 1–34. Anthropological Papers No. 28. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona. Mabry, Jonathan (editor) 1998 Archaeological Investigations of Early Village Sites in the Middle Santa Cruz Valley: Analysis and Synthesis. Anthropological Paper No. 19. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona. 2008 Las Capas: Early Irrigation and Sedentism in a Southwestern Floodplain. Anthropological Papers No. 28. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona.

132

Barbara J. Roth

Madsen, David B. 1989 Exploring the Fremont. Utah Museum of Natural History, Salt Lake City. Madsen, David B., and Steven R. Simms 1998 The Fremont Complex: A Behavioral Perspective. Journal of World Prehis­ tory 12:​255–336. Matson, R. G. 1991 The Origins of Southwestern Agriculture. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Mauldin, Raymond 1996 Exploring Patterns in Residential Occupation in the Northern Chihuahuan Desert. In Early Formative Adaptations in the Southern Southwest, edited by B. Roth, pp. 85–97. Monographs in World Archaeology No. 25. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin. Metcalfe, Duncan, and K. Renee Barlow 1992 A Model for Exploring the Optimal Trade-­off between Field Processing and Transport. American Anthropologist 94:​340–356. Mithen, Steven 2000 Mesolithic Sedentism on Oronsay: Chronological Evidence from Adjacent Islands in the Southern Hebrides. Antiquity 74:​298–304. Morgan, Christopher 2012 Modeling Modes of Hunter-­Gatherer Food Storage. American Antiquity 77:​ 714–736. Nials, Fred L. 2008 Geomorphology and Stratigraphy. In Las Capas: Early Irrigation and Sed­ entism in a Southwestern Floodplain, edited by Jonathan Mabry, pp. 35–53. Anthropological Papers No. 28. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona. O’Brien, Michael J. 1987 Sedentism, Population Growth, and Resource Selection in the Woodland Midwest: A Review of Coevolutionary Developments. Current Anthropology 28:​177–197. Parry, William J., and Robert L. Kelly 1987 Expedient Core Technology and Sedentism. In The Organization of Core Technology, edited by J. Johnson and C. A. Morrow, pp. 285–304. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. Pearson, Richard 2006 Jomon Hot Spot: Increasing Sedentism in South-­western Japan in the Incipient Jomon (14,000–9250 cal. bc) and Earliest Jomon (9250–5300 cal. bc) periods. World Archaeology 38:​239–258. Perreault, Charles, and P. Jeffrey Brantingham 2011 Mobility-­driven Cultural Transmission along the Forager-­Collector Continuum. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 30:​62–68. Powell, Shirley 1983 Mobility and Adaptation: The Anasazi of Black Mesa, Arizona. Southern ­Illinois University Press, Carbondale.



Were They Sedentary and Does It Matter?

133

Rafferty, Janet E. 1985 The Archaeological Record of Sedentariness: Recognition, Development and Implications. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 8, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 113–156. Academic Press, New York. Reed, Paul F. 2002 Fundamental Issues in Basketmaker Archaeology. In Foundations of Anasazi Culture: The Basketmaker–Pueblo Transition, edited by P. F. Reed, pp. 3–16. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Rice, Glen E. 1975 A Systemic Explanation of a Change in Mogollon Settlement Patterns. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Washington. Rocek, Thomas R. 1995 Sedentarization and Agricultural Dependence: Perspectives from the Pithouse-­to-Pueblo Transition in the American Southwest. American An­ tiquity 60:​218–239. 1996 Sedentism and Mobility in the Southwest. In Interpreting Southwestern Di­ versity: Underlying Principles and Overarching Patterns, edited by P. R. Fish and J. J. Reid, pp. 17-­22. Anthropological Research Papers No. 48. Arizona State University, Tempe. 1998 Pithouses and Pueblos on Two Continents: Interpretations of Sedentism and Mobility in the Southwestern U.S. and Southwest Asia. In Seasonality and Sedentism: Archaeological Perspectives in Old and New World Sites, edited by T. R. Rocek and O. Bar-­Yosef, pp. 199–216. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Roth, Barbara J. 1992 Sedentary Agriculturalists or Mobile Hunter-Gatherers? Evidence on the Late Archaic Occupation of the Northern Tucson Basin. Kiva 57(4):​ 291–314. 1995 Late Archaic Occupation of the Upper Bajada: Excavations at AZ AA:12:​84 (ASM). Kiva 61(2):189–207. 1996 Regional Land Use in the Late Archaic of the Tucson Basin. In Early For­ mative Adaptations in the Southern Southwest, edited by Barbara J. Roth, pp. 37–48. Monographs in World Archaeology No. 25. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin. Roth, Barbara J., and Kevin Wellman 2001 New Insights into the Early Agricultural Period in the Tucson Basin: Excavations at the Valley Farms Site (AZ AA:12:​736). Kiva 67:​59–79. Ruble, Ellen C., Helga Wöcherl, Andrew Dutt, and John McClelland 2008 Feature Descriptions. In Las Capas: Early Irrigation and Sedentism in a Southwestern Floodplain, edited by J. Mabry, pp. 95–132. Anthropological Papers No. 28. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona. Shott, Michael 1986 Technological Organization and Settlement Mobility: An Ethnographic Examination. Journal of Anthropological Research 42(1):15–55.

134

Barbara J. Roth

1996 An Exegesis of the Curation Concept. Journal of Anthropological Research 52:​259–280. Simms, Steven R. 2008 The Fremont. In Ancient Peoples of the Great Basin and the Colorado Plateau, by Steven R. Simms, pp. 185–228. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, California. Smith, Craig S. 2003 Hunter-­gatherer Mobility, Storage, and Houses in a Marginal Environment: An Example from the Mid-­Holocene of Wyoming. Journal of Anthropolog­ ical Archaeology 22:​162–189. Swartz, Deborah L. (editor) 2008 Life in the Foothills: Archaeological Investigations in the Tortolita Mountains of Southern Arizona. Anthropological Papers No. 46. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona. Thiel, J. Homer, and Jonathan B. Mabry (editors) 2006 Rio Nuevo Archaeology, 2000–2003: Investigations at the San Agustin Mission and Mission Gardens, Tucson Presidio, Tucson Pressed Brick Company, and Clearwater Site. Technical Report No. 2004–11. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson, Arizona. Thomas, David H. 1973 An Empirical Test for Steward’s Model of Great Basin Settlement Patterns. American Antiquity 38:​155–176. Thurtle, Mary Charlotte, Andrea Kayser, and Kevin D. Wellman 2008 Summary of Excavation Results. In The Valley Farms Site: Prehistoric Flood­ plain Agriculture on the Santa Cruz River in Southern Arizona, edited by Kevin D. Wellman, pp.  17–58. Anthropological Research Paper No. 11. SWCA, Tucson, Arizona. Varien, Mark D. 1999 Sedentism and Mobility in a Social Landscape: Mesa Verde and Beyond. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Wellman, Kevin D. (editor) 2008 The Valley Farms Site: Prehistoric Floodplain Agriculture on the Santa Cruz River in Southern Arizona. Anthropological Research Paper No. 11. SWCA, Tucson, Arizona. Wendrich, Willeke, and Hans Barnard 2008 The Archaeology of Mobility: Definitions and Research Approaches. In The Archaeology of Mobility: Old World and New World Nomadism, edited by H. Barnard and W. Wendrich, pp. 1–21. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, UCLA, Los Angeles. Whalen, Michael E. 1981 Cultural-­ecological aspects of the Pithouse-­to-Pueblo Transition in a Portion of the Southwest. American Antiquity 46:​75–92. Whittlesey, Stephanie 2010 Sedentism, Settlement Pattern, and Seasonality: Thoughts on Recurrent Sedentism and the Making of Place. In Recurrent Sedentism and the Mak­



Were They Sedentary and Does It Matter?

135

ing of Place: Archaeological Investigations at Las Capas, a Preceramic Pe­ riod Farming Community in the Tucson Basin, Southern Arizona, edited by S. Whittlesey, S. J. Hesse, and M. S. Foster. Cultural Resources Report No. 7–556. SWCA, Tucson, Arizona. Whittlesey, Stephanie M., S. Jerome Hesse, and Michael S. Foster (editors) 2010 Recurrent Sedentism and the Making of Place: Archaeological Investigations at Las Capas, a Preceramic Period Farming Community in the Tucson Basin, Southern Arizona. Cultural Resources Report No. 7–556. SWCA, Tucson, Arizona. Whittlesey, Stephanie M., Annick Lascaux, Jerry D. Lyon, and Michael S. Foster 2010 The Built Environment of Las Capas. In Recurrent Sedentism and the Mak­ ing of Place: Archaeological Investigations at Las Capas, a Preceramic Pe­ riod Farming Community in the Tucson Basin, Southern Arizona, edited by S. Whittlesey, S. J. Hesse, and M. S. Foster. Cultural Resources Report No. 07–556. SWCA, Tucson, Arizona. Wills, Wirt Henry, III 1988 Early Prehistoric Agriculture in the American Southwest. School of American Research Books, Santa Fe, New Mexico. 1991 Organizational Strategies and the Emergence of Prehistoric Villages in the American Southwest. In Between Bands and States, edited by S. A. Gregg. Occasional Papers No. 9. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 1992 Plant Cultivation and the Evolution of Risk-­Prone Economies in the Prehistoric American Southwest. In Transitions to Agriculture in Prehistory, edited by Anne B. Gebauer and T. Douglas Price, pp. 153–176. Monographs in World Archaeology No. 4. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin. Wills, Wirt H., and Thomas C. Windes 1989 Evidence for Population Aggregation and Dispersal during the Basketmaker III Period in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. American Antiquity 54:​347–369. Wöcherl, Helga 2005 Pits and the Use of Extramural Space in Early Farming Communities. In Material Cultures and Lifeways of Early Agricultural Communities in South­ ern Arizona, edited by R. J. Silva, pp. 19–46. Anthropological Papers No. 35. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona. Zeanah, David W. 2004 Sexual Division of Labor and Central Place Foraging: A Model for the ­Carson Desert of Western Nevada. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23:​1–32.

CHAPTER 6

Farming, Foraging, and Remote Storage in Range Creek Shifting Strategies of Maize Cultivation, Residential Mobility, and Food Storage in Cliff Granaries among the Fremont of the Northern Colorado Plateau

K. Renee Barlow

Petroglyphs; red, blue, white, and yellow pictographs; pithouses; circular stone masonry houses; and masonry and adobe granaries perched high on cliffs are characteristic features of the archaeological record in Range Creek, Utah. A complex array of food storage tactics is indicated by the number and variety of storage features. Of particular interest here is the role of cliff granaries in prehistoric farming and foraging strategies. Remote storage structures are ubiquitous throughout the canyon, and some still contain prehistoric maize. Range Creek is a deep, remote canyon in the Book Cliffs region of eastern Utah (Figure 6.1). It is a tributary of the Green River, with a confluence just below Desolation Canyon, a favorite destination for whitewater rafters. The terrain is rugged and steep, with heavy vegetation along riparian corridors (Figure 6.2). Permanent water sources include a half dozen springs that feed the perennial creek, and the catchment supports a wide variety of indigenous flora and fauna. Previously owned by rancher Waldo Wilcox, the Range Creek study area interfingers with the Desolation Canyon and Turtle Canyon Wilderness Study Areas and includes BLM, state, and private lands. Diverse habitats include aspen, maple, and conifers in mixed 136



Farming, Foraging, and Remote Storage in Range Creek

137

Figure 6.1. Map of the Range Creek Archaeological Project area in the Book Cliffs region of eastern Utah, 2002–2010.

subalpine and riparian communities above 2,400 m (8,000 ft); Douglas-­ fir on steep, north-­facing slopes throughout the upper and middle canyon; piñon-­juniper and juniper woodlands on hillsides and south-­facing benches; dense sagebrush communities as well as willow, sumac, dogbane, and cottonwood in lush tracts of riparian vegetation in the canyon bottom; and greasewood flats, Indian ricegrass–covered sand dunes, and Atriplex communities in the lower canyon. Common animals include deer, elk, bighorn sheep, bear, coyote, rattlesnake, cottontail, packrat, trout, chub, badger, mountain lion, bald eagle, an occasional moose, and recently intro­ duced bison and wild turkey. Fremont foragers and farmers returned to maize fields and storage locations in Range Creek for hundreds of years, planting and harvesting

138

K. Renee Barlow

Figure 6.2. Aerial view from Range Creek, Utah, of the Green River and Colorado (background).

maize, hunting, collecting wild plant foods, and transporting hundreds of bushels of maize up cliffs to storage locations high above habitations and maize fields. In this chapter, Fremont maize farming and storage strategies are modeled within the context of behavioral ecology, and granaries are examined as another dimension of subsistence. The study focuses on the Range Creek granaries and their role in prehistoric farming and foraging strategies, and explores the possibility that these granaries represent the evolution of a unique strategy of passive resource defense ca. ad 930–1000. The sizes, locations, dates, and distributions of storage locations and associated archaeological sites in Range Creek are discussed, and a behavioral ecology model of food caching and hoarding is proposed to address variation in storage strategies. I propose that the prehistoric pattern of caching and hoarding in remote cliff granaries in Range Creek was indicative of a defensive strategy of farming, foraging, and food storage, possibly in response to increasing competition for local farming and foraging territories within the context of persistent residential mobility, band-­level social organization, and fear of raids by neighboring farmers.



Farming, Foraging, and Remote Storage in Range Creek

139

Figure 6.3. Emery Gray Fremont jar with appliqué decoration from Range Creek, Utah.

Range Creek Archaeology Range Creek is situated between the Uinta and San Rafael subregions or “variants” of the Fremont culture region (Figure 6.1). The ceramic and lithic artifacts, architecture, and rock art suggest cultural ties primarily with people from the San Rafael Swell, with significant exchange or interaction with people from the Vernal area during some periods and increased indirect or diffused exchange of goods from the Anasazi (Ancestral Pueblo) region ca. ad 1050. Whereas other Fremont communities in this region exhibit a marked paucity of ceramics, the ceramic artifacts and rock art, in particular, illustrate complex social relationships in Range Creek, as well as economic and possibly political interactions with neighboring farming communities. Most Range Creek ceramics are a local gray ware variety with a crushed basalt and quartzite temper called Emery Gray, a type strongly associated with Fremont sites in the San Rafael region (Figure 6.3). Uinta Gray and, rarely, Snake Valley ceramics are also found in smaller quantities (cf. Colton 1952, 1956; Hill 2002; Johnson and Loosle 2002:​276; Madsen 1977, 1986). Other ceramic types recovered from sites in Range Creek include Ivie Creek

140

K. Renee Barlow

Figure 6.4. Distribution of archaeological sites in the Range Creek Project area.

Black-­on-white, with geometric designs that mimic Sosi, ­Dogoszhi, and Black Mesa style elements from the Kayenta region (Madsen 1986, 1977); incised and appliquéd Fremont gray wares (Figure 6.3); neck-­banded and corrugated wares; and a few Tsegi orange ware and Tusayan polychrome sherds with crushed sherd temper from the Hitsatsinom region to the south (Christenson 2010; Colton 1956; NAU website 2014). Figure 6.4 illustrates the distribution of prehistoric sites in Range Creek Canyon, and Table 6.1 lists the sites by type.1 Most of the sites are clustered along the main, perennial creek and near adjacent springs in locations that appear to favor the relatively rich alluvial sediments of the floodplain.

Table 6.1. Archaeological sites in Range Creek Site Type

Sites

n

Rock art

42CB1703, 42CB1704, 42CB1705, 42CB2177, 42EM11(2876), 42EM1762, 42EM2828, 42EM2839, 42EM2840, 42EM2842, 42EM2843, 42EM2844, 42EM2845, 42EM2851, 42EM2852, 42EM2853. 42EM2854, 42EM2855, 42EM2856, 42EM2857, 42EM2858, 42EM2859, 42EM2860, 42EM2863, 42EM2866, 42EM2868, 42EM2870, 42EM2871, 42EM2877, 42EM2879. 42EM2882, 42EM2883, 42EM2887, 42EM3036, 42EM3041, 42EM3043, 42EM3050, 42EM3071, 42EM3074, 42EM3077, 42EM3078, 42EM3105, 42EM3107, 42EM3109, 42EM3118, 42EM3120, 42EM3169, 42EM3175, 42EM3183, 42EM3194, 42EM3198, 42EM3200, 42EM3203, 42EM3211, 42EM3212, 42EM3216, 42EM3216, 42EM3221, 42EM3226, 42EM3314, 42EM3319, 42EM3326, 42EM3330, 42EM3331, 42EM3334, 42EM3351, 42EM3352, 42EM3412, 42EM3423, 42EM3431, 42EM3442, 42EM3490, 42EM3584, 42EM3639, 42EM3875

75

Small pithouse villages

42CB2316, 42CB2758, 42EM9(2869), 42EM16, 42EM753(3060), 42EM760, 42EM1763, 42EM2829, 42EM2831, 42EM2836, 42EM2862, 42EM2888, 42EM2889, 42EM3039, 42EM3040, 42EM3046, 42EM3051, 42EM3055, 42EM3056, 42EM3061, 42EM3065, 42EM3066, 42EM3067, 42EM3068, 42EM3075, 42EM3076, 42EM3079, 42EM3080, 42EM3111, 42EM3116, 42EM3176, 42EM3180, 42EM3181, 42EM3186, 42EM3187, 42EM3192, 42EM3196, 42EM3207, 42EM3214, 42EM3215, 42EM3218, 42EM3219, 42EM3220, 42EM3222, 42EM3223, 42EM3224, 42EM3225, 42EM3229, 42EM3298, 42EM3300, 42EM3301, 42EM3304, 42EM3308, 42EM3320, 42EM3323, 42EM3360, 42EM3362, 42EM3426, 42EM3432, 42EM3433, 42EM3581

61

Small pithouse villages with on-site granaries

42EM741, 42EM2832, 42EM2849, 42EM3190, 42EM3205, 42EM3636

6

Standing masonry structures, masonry rubble, possible pithouses, and artifact scatters with ­masonry rubble and rock alignments that may be small villages

42CB2175, 42CB2176, 42EM754(2892), 42EM2867, 42EM2886, 42EM3038, 42EM3045, 42EM3092, 42EM3188, 42EM3191, 42EM3199, 42EM3213, 42EM3302, 42EM3310, 42EM3312, 42EM3324, 42EM3391, 42EM3439, 42EM3440, 42EM3489, 42EM3587, 42EM5001

22

(Note: Some pithouse villages, granaries, and rockshelters also have rock art.)

Larger pithouse villages 42EM15(3126), 42EM19(3292), 42EM2861, 42EM3403 4+

Table 6.1. (cont’d.) Archaeological sites in Range Creek Site Type

Sites

n

Artifact scatters (lithics, 42CB2761, 42EM10, 42EM12, 42EM17, 42EM18, 42EM3044, 42EM3062, 42EM3064, 42EM3072, ceramics, ground 42EM3073, 42EM3093, 42EM3094, 42EM3095, stone, beads) 42EM3096, 42EM3097, 42EM3098, 42EM3099, 42EM3100, 42EM3102, 42EM3103, 42EM3119, 42EM3121, 42EM3122, 42EM3123, 42EM3179, 42EM3227, 42EM3228, 42EM3295, 42EM3296, 42EM3299, 42EM3305, 42EM3305, 42EM3311, 42EM3313, 42EM3315, 42EM3317, 42EM3322, 42EM3327, 42EM3333, 42EM3354, 42EM3361, 42EM3409, 42EM3411, 42EM3413, 42EM3414, 42EM3415, 42EM3416, 42EM3417, 42EM3418, 42EM3419, 42EM3422, 42EM3427, 42EM3428, 42EM3430, 42EM3435, 42EM3438, 42EM3443, 42EM4071, 42EM4072

58

42CB2760, 42EM741(1766), 42EM755, 42EM758, 42EM761, 42EM2825, 42EM2826, 42EM2827, 42EM2830, 42EM2833, 42EM2835, 42EM2837, 42EM2838, 42EM2841, 42EM2846, 42EM2847, (Note: Five pithouse vil- 42EM2848, 42EM2850, 42EM2865, 42EM2878, lages also have on-site 42EM2884, 42EM2885, 42EM2891, 42EM3047, 42EM3048, 42EM3049, 42EM3054, 42EM3057, granaries.) 42EM3058, 42EM3059, 42EM3063, 42EM3101, 42EM3106, 42EM3108, 42EM3110, 42EM3117, 42EM3124, 42EM3125, 42EM3167, 42EM3168, 42EM3171, 42EM3172, 42EM3174, 42EM3177, 42EM3178, 42EM3189, 42EM3193, 42EM3195, 42EM3197, 42EM3201, 42EM3202, 42EM3204, 42EM3206, 42EM3293, 42EM3294, 42EM3297, 42EM3303, 42EM3307, 42EM3309, 42EM3316, 42EM3325, 42EM3332, 42EM3355, 42EM3356, 42EM3357, 42EM3358, 42EM3359, 42EM3424, 42EM3425, 42EM3429, 42EM3434, 42EM3436, 42EM3437, 42EM3441, 42EM3444, 42EM3446, 42EM3447, 42EM3448, 42EM3449, 42EM3450, 42EM3451, 42EM3452, 42EM3453, 42EM3488, 42EM3580, 42EM3582, 42EM3582, 42EM3586, 42EM3637, 42EM3832, 42EM4070, 42EM4076, 42EM5000

93

Other storage (e.g., subsurface cists)

42EM2880, 42EM2881, 42EM3052, 42EM3182, 42EM3328, 42EM3329, 42EM3454, 42EM4068

8

Rockshelters (Note: Some have rock alignments, possible storage cists, maize, artifacts, and rock art.)

42CB2759, 42EM14, 42EM752, 42EM756, 42EM757, 42EM759, 42EM3069, 42EM3070, 42EM3104, 42EM3173, 42EM3184, 42EM3185, 42EM3205, 42EM3210, 42EM3353, 42EM3421, 42EM3487, 42EM3583, 42EM3638, 42EM4069, 42EM4073, 42EM4075

22

Granary sites, slab boxes, and slab-lined cists



Farming, Foraging, and Remote Storage in Range Creek

143

Table 6.1. (cont’d.) Archaeological sites in Range Creek Site Type

Sites

n

Basket cache

42EM3170

1

Other prehistoric

42EM2834, 42EM2872, 42EM2890, 42EM3037, 42EM3042, 42EM3053, 42EM3321, 42EM3410, 42EM3420, 42EM344, 42EM3585

11

Historic

42EM2864, 42EM2873, 42EM2874, 42EM2875, 42EM3408, 42EM3486

6

Prehistoric rock art galleries are found along the entire length of Range Creek and include Barrier Canyon Style (BCS); Glen Canyon, San Rafael, and Vernal (Uinta region) Style Fremont designs; abstract figures; several Ute panels (Cole 1990; Kelen and Sucec 1996; Schaafsma 1971, 1980); and possibly one or a few Basketmaker-­like figures (e.g., Manning 2003). More than 120 prehistoric rock art components have been recorded at nearly 100 different sites. Common figures include bighorn sheep; anthropomorphs with bows and arrows, hoops, feathered staffs, or other implements; stylized trapezoidal anthropomorphs adorned with stripes, horns, or headdresses, necklaces or hair knots, and snakes; deer; shields; concentric circles; s­ pirals; arcs; triangles; and handprints. The majority of figures were pecked into patinated sandstone cliffs, but many images in protected alcoves still exhibit vivid red, blue-­green, white, and yellow mineral pigments. Shields, anthropomorphs, spirals, and concentric circles are often located near food storage areas, and shield figures or anthropomorphs were sometimes also painted or pecked onto cliff faces overlooking pithouse villages. Shields, in particular, are common near granaries, with many shields or similar circular motifs placed on rock faces directly above, below, or beside storage locations (Figure 6.5). A rockshelter site in a side canyon of Range Creek was also the home of the elaborate Pilling Figurines, found in 1950 by cowboy Clarence Pilling of Price, Utah, and reported by Noel Morss (Barlow 2012, 2013; Morss 1954). Foraging, Farming, and Food Storage It is a truism that most Native American foragers in the Great Basin stored food in numerous small, discrete caches scattered throughout resource collection territories, whereas most sedentary farmers in the American Southwest had large, often conspicuous granaries or storerooms adjacent

144

K. Renee Barlow

Figure 6.5. Fremont shield figures located near granaries in Range Creek, Utah.

to residences (e.g., Kelly 1976; Hough 1897). There is, however, variation in storage strategies: Southwest farmers sometimes stored food in small, remote caches, and Great Basin foragers sometimes hoarded large quantities of food in caches or granaries next to residences or camps. For example, Yuman maize farmers sometimes hid small caches of food in rockshelters away from residences (e.g., Castetter and Bell 1951,) whereas Western Mono foragers cached large quantities of acorns in conspicuous, elevated ­granaries next to their homes (Gifford 1932), and residentially mobile Great Basin foragers sometimes gathered and stored up to 1,200 pounds of pine nuts per family per year in winter camps near collection areas (e.g., Steward 1938:​27). Previous anthropological studies suggest that food storage provides security for societies that must deal with seasons of scarcity (O’Shea 1981); that food storage in general may indicate less food sharing and egalitarianism, and greater economic disparity between individuals within a society, as well as increased sedentism (Testart 1982); that storage within a context



Farming, Foraging, and Remote Storage in Range Creek

145

of “fixed-­point” nomadic subsistence patterns may actually facilitate mobility among hunter-­gatherers (Ingold 1983); and that the use of pithouses generally implies a pattern of mobility that includes at least two separate residences (Gilman 1987). Caching in slab-­lined cists was a common strategy among some Formative groups throughout the Southwest, especially at Basket­maker sites, and may be associated with the storage of maize in contexts of greater mobility (Wilke and McDonald 1989). These observations are all relevant to understanding likely scenarios of prehistoric storage in Range Creek and are in accord with previous suggestions of relatively high mobility among some Fremont farming populations (e.g., Barlow 1997, 2002a, 2006; Madsen and Simms 1998; Simms 1986), including Fremont foragers and farmers of the Tavaputs Plateau and Nine Mile Canyon (­Spangler 1993, 2000). Food caching is common, and storing behaviors are remarkably flexible and adaptive. These behaviors are generally constrained by the distribution of resources in the natural environment and, in the case of farming, also by the distribution of arable lands and their expected crop yields. Further, the degree to which residential mobility versus residential sedentism is employed by foragers and farmers, and whether or not food caches are actively and vigorously defended are strongly tied to variation in caching strategies. Although food storage is generally quite rare among primates, rodents, birds, and insects often store large quantities of food to provision themselves or offspring, to attract mates, and sometimes to compensate for long periods of scarcity in regions where the abundance of food varies seasonally. There is one characteristic of food hoarding common to all storing animals, including humans: they utilize stored foods during periods of relative or absolute scarcity. The benefits for energy spent storing food are realized at a future time when alternative food is unavailable, unprofitable, or more expensive to collect, or when food collection activities increase the risk of death or injury to the forager. The observed benefits of storing food among animals include increased survivorship of storing individuals, increased foraging efficiency, increased mating opportunities, and increased numbers and survivorship of offspring (Vander Wall 1990). Storing food also involves substantial energetic investments or costs. These include constructing storage facilities, transporting food to the cache

146

K. Renee Barlow

sites or storage facilities, processing resources for storage, maintaining food stores (monitoring or inspection, and sometimes recaching later in the season), and retrieving and/or defending stored food. In general, construction costs increase proportionally to the size of the cache, or the amount of food stored, whereas transportation, maintenance, and retrieval costs increase proportionally to transport distance, or distance from the food collection area to the cache site. Animals that store food in numerous small, concealed caches near procurement areas are generally highly mobile, moving between multiple resource collection areas. Rather than actively defending caches, they hide food items in many small caches that are widely dispersed and even employ secretive behavior to conceal their stores. It is notable that the most common form of loss in this storage strategy is to “robbers” that discover and consume caches while the forager who created them is away. These food store predators are most often conspecifics, and sometimes even mates of the forager. Vander Wall (1990:​89) notes that “Some food hoarders ... strongly prefer consuming food from a conspecific’s larder over foraging... or consuming their own food stores.” In contrast, animals that store food in one large “larder” generally remain nearby and actively and aggressively defend these stores against other foragers. Successful lineages are able to occupy foraging areas for many ­generations, effectively monopolizing the most productive resource ter­ ritories. These two strategies — ​small, scattered hidden caches and large, highly visible and defended larders — ​likely represent two ends of a wide spectrum or continuum of storage behaviors. The evolution of complex, modern caching and hoarding behaviors in human foragers appears to be relatively recent, and the construction of permanent storage facilities and hoarding food in large larders may be tied to increasing competition for food and rich resource territories during the expansion of temperate regions at the Pleistocene/Holocene boundary worldwide. In the archaeological record, food storage facilities became common within the context of Mesolithic or Archaic foraging economies (e.g., Barlow and Heck 2002), which also coincided with the intensive use and subsequent domestication of plants and animals in some regions. In prehistoric farming communities, storage facilities are ubiquitous.



Farming, Foraging, and Remote Storage in Range Creek

147

A Model of Caching versus Hoarding among Human Foragers and Farmers A model of the behavioral ecology of food caching is proposed here to better understand the factors that likely influenced variability in the storage tactics used by prehistoric foragers and farmers in the Fremont region and throughout the Great Basin and Greater Southwest. A continuum of behavioral strategies is expected, with caching in numerous small, cryptic stashes near resource collection patches within the context of high residential mobility and foraging at one end, and “larder hoarding” of large quantities of food in a conspicuous storage facility that is vigorously defended by families or communities at the other. Food-­caching strategies that include small, low-­investment storage facilities in or adjacent to resource procurement areas have been observed historically among indigenous peoples of the Great Basin and American Southwest, notably among groups that maintained a high degree of residential mobility and stored wild foods and/or maize in numerous caches near procurement areas for winter use. Communities usually consisted of small foraging groups that generally did not live in extended families or communal settings, and who foraged and/or farmed in small, band-­sized groups or nuclear families during much of the growing season (e.g., Steward 1938). Each household used numerous wild resource collection areas and sometimes also cultivated wild plant resources and/or cultigens at some of these locations. The number, size, and location of storage facilities reported for Great Basin foragers appear to have been highly variable and tied to the availability of wild and/or cultivated foods at each collection/storage location. For example, Kelly (1932) reports that the Surprise Valley Paiute were very mobile, spending only up to a week per collection area in the summer. Caches of seeds and tubers were buried near collection areas in skin bags, and animals and fish were sometimes pounded (occasionally with tubers), shaped into rolls, and buried in skin, tule, or sagebrush bags. These foragers returned to their caches during the winter, residing temporarily at each location until stores were depleted before moving on to the next. Similarly, in the Lower Colorado drainage, some Cocopa farmers cultivated small plots of maize, panic grass, foxtail millet, crowfoot grass, and dock, and collected wild pine nuts, cacti, agave, ironwood, barnyard

148

K. Renee Barlow

grass, “wild rice” seeds, fish, shellfish, quail, rabbits, packrats, and doves (e.g., Castetter and Bell 1951). They did not have permanent homes and “anciently” always stored their crops in caches dug in the ground far away from dwellings. This caching strategy, however, is in sharp contrast with the apparently more common Cocopa, Maricopa, and Yuman strategy of storing cultivated maize and other foods in conspicuous larders consisting of large basket granaries on platforms near residences (Castetter and Bell 1951; Gifford 1933; Spier 1933). Apparently, larder hoarding was the preferred storage strategy except when raiding by other farmers was expected. For example, Gifford (1933) reports an incident of Papagos going from residence to residence in the Yuman area and collecting tributes of maize and other foods, apparently annually around harvest time, and Castetter and Bell (1951) report farmers hiding harvested food in the brush or caves in the hills surrounding residences when they anticipated raids on food stores from neighboring groups. To summarize, caching is generally expected within a context of higher residential mobility, small bands or household foraging and farming groups, or in response to raids by neighboring foraging and farming people. Caching strategies should be indicated by the presence of numerous small, low-­cost, dispersed, and hidden caches of food near resource collection areas, but generally away from permanent or semipermanent residences. In contrast, larder-­hoarding strategies have been observed among sedentary Puebloan farmers in the American Southwest. Hopi farmers, for example, traditionally stored vast quantities of husked maize in specialized storage and processing rooms within the pueblo, “stacked like cord wood,” and traditionally stored an extra year’s supply; both men and women worked in the fields, commencing agricultural labor as early as February (Whiting 1938). Hopi lineages are relatively sedentary, and many clans and families have maintained and defended their present territory on the Hopi Mesas, sometimes aggressively, for hundreds of years (Levy 1992; Whiteley 2008). In general, this type of larder hoarding is expected among farmers and foragers who live in lineages or extended family groups near agricultural fields or rich territories for collecting wild foods. Greater sedentism and larger communities are expected than among residentially mobile, caching foragers, with multiple clan or family members contributing to communal larders. Communities should actively defend resource territories and food



Farming, Foraging, and Remote Storage in Range Creek

149

Figure 6.6. Utility of stored food for foragers, farmers, and food hoarders.

stores, and storage facilities should be large, relatively conspicuous, and located adjacent to residences. This type of food storage should be attractive to other farmers and foragers, and may allow successful lineages to keep more productive family members around, as well as attracting additional foragers, farmers, or mates who will also contribute to and defend large conspicuous food stores. As a consequence, I expect large prehistoric ­larders to be associated with land tenure by extended family groups, likely indicative of social groups composed of clans or multigenerational tribes rather than bands, nuclear families, or individual foragers. I predict that successful prehistoric larders were most often located in resource-­rich territories within spatially and temporally “patchy” or coarse-­grained en­ vironments. Figure 6.6 illustrates several functions modeling the anticipated value or utility of stored resources in order to develop expectations about the costs and benefits of different food storage strategies. The diagonal line indicates a constant increase in the value of stored food. This would describe an ideal storage situation, where there is no loss of stored food to rodents or insects, no theft of cached food by other people, food does not deteriorate or lose nutritional value over time, and each unit of food has equal utility to the one before and after it (i.e., having additional food cached in a particular location does not provide an additional advantage to the forager beyond its caloric value). This is an idealized value relationship for accumulating and

150

K. Renee Barlow

storing resources, and may be accurate for preserved foods in stable storage facilities, nonperishable commodities, or storing money or other valuables in a location that maintains value but does not accumulate interest or other benefits. However, because of the nature of grain storage in general, climate and environmental conditions in the Great Basin and Southwest in particular, and the likelihood that additional stored food may also allow a forager or farmer to gain additional benefits associated with occupying a resource-­rich territory, it is unlikely that this function accurately describes the value of maize or wild seeds stored in granaries or remote subsurface caches in Range Creek. It is proposed that a diminishing returns curve S Cacher = X * (1−PX) may best represent the expected value of food stored in remote, scattered caches away from residences, as the probability of losing all or some ­proportion of the cache due to accidental discovery or intentional theft by other foragers, insects, or rodents likely increases with cache size. Where: SCacher = the utility of the cache to the caching forager/farmer; X = the value of the food the forager-­farmer places in the cache (e.g., Kcalories); and P(X) = the probability of loss, theft, or deterioration of food stores due to nature, animals, or other raiding forager-­farmers, or the expected or measured proportion of cached food that the caching forager-­farmer will likely lose. The larger the size of the cache and the less time a forager-­farmer spends in a particular food collection or farming area, and concomitantly the greater the number of resource territories or distance between food collection areas utilized by the forager, the greater the potential of losing the undefended cache. As a result, the less time forager-­farmers spend in a particular storage location, the greater the likelihood that they will realize the potential caloric benefits of the stored food by using smaller, more dispersed, hidden caches. This is likely the case when mobile forager-­farmers use multiple resource collection territories during the growing season, as the food cannot be actively defended. Given even moderate expectations of loss to predation, it would benefit the forager to cache food in multiple small, hidden, dispersed food stores rather than a single, conspicuous ­larder.



Farming, Foraging, and Remote Storage in Range Creek

151

In contrast, the increasing returns curve SHoarder = X *(1 + QX) represents the expected increasing value of stored food when it can be converted to durable goods, or when it increases the expected survivorship of the forager, closely related family members, and the expected number of offspring, or offspring who survive to reproductive age. Particularly when increased quantities of food allow the forager or farmer not only to survive a season of scarcity, but also to retain and defend a superior food collection or farming area and support additional mates, close family members, and/or offspring, resulting in increased success for hoarding foragers and farmers and their offspring, better mate retention, and so on, over multiple generations. Where: S Hoarder = the utility of the larder to the hoarding forager or farmer; X = the value of food the forager-­farmer places in the larder (e.g., Kcal); and Q (X) = the expected increase in the survivorship and inclusive fitness of the hoarding forager-­farmer, or increase in the number of offspring expected to survive to adulthood, with increases in larder size. The increasing curve is due to the increased probability that an extended family or lineage will be able to retain a rich resource territory throughout sequential years or growing seasons (which probability increases with larder size) and successfully defend the food stores associated with the higher-­quality resource territory. This strategy assumes inherent spatial or temporal patchiness in the distribution of resources, variation in the quantity or quality of resources in different patches, and active defense and maintenance of food stores by the hoarding forager-­farmer family or lineage such that the expected or average proportion of food that the hoarding forager-­farmer will lose to deterioration, loss to other animals, or theft by raiding forager-­farmers (PX) approaches zero. In other words, the hoarder expects to consume or benefit from nearly all the food stored. Consequently, the greater the expected benefit (S Hoarder), the more aggressively they are expected to maintain and defend the storage larder. It is expected that the utility of or benefits associated with storing food in larders at residences approximates the increasing curve shown in Figure 6.6, with greater amounts of food in large storage granaries or rooms adjacent to residences facilitating greater survivorship and increasing numbers

152

K. Renee Barlow

of foragers, farmers, and their offspring over several generations. I propose that this curve likely also describes the value of stored food to prehistoric maize farmers living in a highly variable environment such as Range Creek, where yields in some food collection and farming areas were likely quite high relative to farming and food collection areas in nearby canyons, even though overall farming and foraging efficiency, as well as total crop yields, would likely have decreased significantly with intensive field investments, sedentism, and resource defense at a single location. Consequently, I propose that in Range Creek a third, very rare storage strategy developed that included a unique set of resource defense tactics. Large quantities of maize were transported away from farming areas and residences and stored in remote larders to protect food from conspecific “robbers.” This remote larder-­caching strategy is proposed as an analog for the Fremont cliff granaries in Range Creek ca. ad 930–1050 and perhaps other large, remote granaries found on cliffs in similar deep-­canyon environments in the American Southwest circa ad 1170. I propose that this strategy emerged first in Range Creek because a farmer or forager could obtain higher farming and foraging returns overall by maintaining multiple residences and storing large quantities of maize in multiple locations (e.g., Barlow 1997, 2002a, 2006), yet the spatial distribution of high-­quality farming/foraging areas was patchy enough to provide a successful niche for raiding or increase the probability of theft by conspecifics (e.g., Phillips and Barlow 2012). Like caching, the food hoarder using this strategy did not actively defend the food stores. ­However, unlike either caching or larder-­hoarding strategies, in Range Creek large quantities of resources were transported to storage locations away from relatively rich procurement areas and residences that would attract thieves or raiders. This type of storage strategy is rare among human foragers but well documented among corvids, which store large quantities of pine nuts in remote locations away from productive collection areas. Vander Wall (1990) presents this tactic as a specialized variant or dimension of caching — ​that is, as an alternative to active defense of large communal larders within collection areas. Several elements make the Fremont larder-­caching strategy unique ca. ad 930–1050 compared with those used by farmers in other parts of the Great Basin and Southwest, who increasingly stored maize in larders adjacent to residences:



Farming, Foraging, and Remote Storage in Range Creek

153

1. The use of distance from maize fields and residences, and the use of risk — ​rather than camouflage and dispersion of small caches — ​to deter theft, including both the risk of falling from cliffs during theft and the risk of being detected while climbing up and down cliffs to steal maize stores; 2. The increased cost of constructing large storage facilities on cliffs rather than adjacent to residences; and 3. The increased cost of transporting large quantities of maize away from fields and residences and up multiple cliff bands to store it in granaries, in addition to the energetic costs and risks associated with climbing the cliffs again to retrieve the maize for consumption. Although quite rare, one possible ethnographic reference to this type of food storage may be found among subsistence maize farmers in the Sierra Tarahumara, who were pushed deep into the canyons — ​first by colonial Spaniards who used natives as slaves for mining and brick-­making in the 1600s and 1700s, and subsequently by Mexican colonization policies (Fontana and Schaefer 1997). As late as 1994–1999, I observed Raramurí-­ speaking people in the Copper Canyon region still using wood cribs and granaries of masonry, adobe, or wood to store maize. They generally located these facilities near habitations or in rockshelters or caves near maize fields (Barlow 1994, 2000). However, several hundred years ago they are reported to have built smaller masonry structures “high on the face of cliffs overhanging streamways” to store maize grown in isolated plots along streams (Pennington 1963). This suggests that the Raramurí-­speaking Tara­humara also transported maize away from maize fields to remote storage locations, at least for a brief period, perhaps with storage tactics broadly similar to those used by the Fremont of Range Creek. Foraging, Horticulture, and Scatter‑Caching: Archaic to ad 400–800 Table 6.2 presents data on 41 prehistoric dates from archaeological sites in Range Creek (see Towner et al. 2009 and Barlow et al. 2008 for additional discussion). The use of Range Creek by Archaic period hunter-­gatherers prior to Fremont maize farmers is suggested by occasional dart points found among lithic scatters, including a Humboldt concave-­base and several Elko corner-­notched projectile points, and a handful of Archaic period

Horizontal log Horizontal log Loose/detached timber Granary roof and collar Probable granary roof Granary wall Ladder below ­granary Masonry structure doorway Probable platform beam Deteriorated ­platform/granary Granary roof Granary roof Masonry structure, vertical post Granary roof Platform support and granary base Granary roof Granary Horizontal platform support Ladder below ­granary Platform support Horizontal log

42Em2826 42Em3177 42Em2826 42Em3058 42Em2841 42Em3117 42Em3359 42Em3213 42Em3108 42Em3108 42Em3205 42Em3449 42Em3391 42Em3057 42Em2835 42Em2841 42Em3190
 42Em3359
 42Em2835
 42Em2826 42Em2826


609p 691 855p 845 868p 863p 890 893p 864p 892p 887p 901 839 881p 925p 887p 955p 872p 842p 787 997p

Inside Ring

708++vv 859++vv 911LB comp 930+B comp 930+vv 932vv 934vv 939+vv 944++vv 957++vv 960B comp 961vv 995+vv 999++B comp 1000++vv 1001++vv 1018B inc 1027vv 1035++vv 1063++vv 1126vv

Outside Ring

DF DF DF DF DF DF DF DF JUN PNN DF DF DF DF DF DF DF DF

DF DF

Taxa

Yes

Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Yes

Maize?

Note: Dates calculated by the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, reported in Barlow et al. 2008 and Towner et al. 2009.

Material Dated

Site

Table 6.2. Prehistoric tree-ring, radiocarbon, and OSL dates from Range Creek, Utah.

RD-107 RD-141 RD-37 RD-235 RD-204 RD-5 RD-243 RD-9 RD-228 RD-226 RD-179 RD-99 RD-10 RD-133 RD-246 RD-202 RD-261 RD-27 RD-151 RD-254 RD-108

Sample No.

Charcoal Lens Basket Fragment Maize Wood Charcoal Wood Charcoal Wood Charcoal Wood Charcoal Maize Wood from platform Maize
 Wood charcoal Maize Wood from granary Maize
 Parched seeds Maize Maize
 Wood from pithouse Maize

Cutbank
 42Em3170
 42Em3446
 42Em15 42Cb2316 42Em15 42Cb2316
 42Em2881
 42Em3359
 42Em2849
 42Cb2316 42Em3117
 42Em741
 42Em3355
 42Em761 42Em2837 42Em2885 42Em3213 42Em760

1990 ± 50 bp 1660 ± 40 bp 1360 ± 40 bp 1290 ± 15 bp 1275 ± 15 bp 1255 ± 20 bp 1198 ± 37 bp 1130 ± 40 bp 1040 ± 50 bp 1000 ± 40 bp 995 ± 15 bp 980 ± 40 bp 980 ± 40 bp 970 ± 40 bp 950 ± 40 bp 950 ± 40 bp 940 ± 50 bp 930 ± 40 bp 890 ± 40 bp

Conventional Age

ad 20 ad 400 ad 660 — — — ad 800
 ad 900
 ad 1000 ad 1020 — ad 1030 ad 1030 ad 1030 ad 1040 ad 1040 ad 1040 ad 1050, 1100, 1140 ad 1170

Intercept

bc 150–ad 125 ad 260–530 ad 600–770 ad 670–770 ad 680–770 ad 670–850 ad 780–880 ad 780–990 ad 890–1150 ad 975–1155 ad 990–1195 ad 990–1160 ad 990–1160 ad 995–1160 ad 1020–1180 ad 1030–1150 ad 1020–1210 ad 1020–1210 ad 1035–1220

Calibrated 2s

Material Dated

Sediments in elderberry flute

Site

42Em3832

ad 1340

OSL Intercept

ad 769–1911

Calibrated 2s

USU-553

Sample No.

*Two-sigma range calculated by Calib Program (M. Stuiver and P. J. Reimer, Radiocarbon (1993) 35: 215–230).

Material Dated

Site

−22.5 −26.0 −9.3 − 22.7 − 21.1 − 22.2 − 20.7 − 10.9 − 21.9 − 8.9 − 27.4 − 9.5 − 21.7 − 10.6 − 21.2 − 8.7 − 9.1 − 22.9 − 10.6

Beta202192 Beta202187 Beta217472 PRI1018124 PRI1018336 PRI1018264 AA84958 Beta175754 Beta208116 Beta203630 PRI1018245 Beta202188 Beta202191 Beta217471 Beta202189 Beta175753 Beta175755 Beta202191 Beta217470

C13/C12 Sample No.

156

K. Renee Barlow

rock art sites. Barrier Canyon Style (BCS) pictographs in the middle portion of Range Creek indicate a link to Archaic hunter-­gatherers of the San Rafael Swell and Canyonlands regions ca. 1900 bc–ad 300 (Tipps 1995; Kelen and Sucec 1996), although the Range Creek BCS panels and figures are generally small and may be associated with the latter portion of this date range. In addition, several Glen Canyon Linear Style petroglyphs with “ladder-­style” anthropomorphs were found in the lower portion of the canyon near the confluence with the Green River, perhaps also suggesting links to Archaic people farther south in the Colorado River drainage system (Schaafsma 1980:​62–65). It appears that Fremont foragers began cultivating and storing maize in Range Creek between ad 400 and 800. Sites associated with this period are rare, and early farmers may have occupied Range Creek only seasonally, probably hunting mainly with bow and arrow, collecting wild plant foods, and husbanding maize in small horticultural plots. Dated artifacts include a burden basket cached under a ledge in the lower part of the canyon (42Em3170) and maize from a nearby rockshelter site on the opposite side of the canyon (42Em3446), in association with charcoal, juniper mats, 17 additional maize cobs, rock alignments, the remains of semi-­subterranean slab-­lined storage cists, and a possible small masonry feature. Approximately a dozen similar sites are likely associated with this period, located primarily on benches in the lower third of the canyon and in rockshelters on the first rise above the floodplain. These sites often contain slab-­lined cists, possible unlined subterranean storage cists, and maize. One granary in the upper portion of the canyon yielded an early tree-­ring date of approximately ad 708 (42Em2826), but this likely represents old wood collected and used in construction at a later time since two other dendro samples from the same site dated to ad 1126 and approximately ad 1063 (Table 6.2). At this time it appears that the first Fremont horticulturists in Range Creek used the canyon seasonally for foraging and horticulture, and mainly stored maize in relatively small, scattered, hidden, semi-­subterranean slab-­ lined cists in shallow rockshelters just above the Range Creek floodplain, probably close to small, scattered horticultural plots. Early Fremont Farms in Range Creek: Circa ad 800 By approximately ad 800, foragers and farmers in Range Creek had acquired all the hallmarks of Fremont material culture (e.g., Barlow 1997, 2002a, 2002b, 2006). They occupied small, seasonal household farms with



Farming, Foraging, and Remote Storage in Range Creek

157

shallow pithouses on benches and knolls overlooking Range Creek. Dates for sites of this period are tentative because of the potential use of old wood, but include four radiocarbon dates from the lowest excavated levels of Fremont habitation sites in the middle and upper portions of the canyon (42Em15 and 42Cb2316; Tables 6.1, 6.2). Little Village (42Cb2316) is located on a steep slope overlooking a broad, rich, alluvial floodplain at the confluence of Range Creek and a major side canyon near the north end of the project area (Figure 6.4). At least three habitation structures were built in the main portion of the site, with two or three additional structures located in another cluster of features to the east. The pithouse village is located at approximately 2,075 m (6,800 ft) above sea level, and periodic flooding below the site is common during the summer monsoon, even in relatively dry years. During 2008–2009, College of Eastern Utah Prehistoric Museum excavations at a large, circular habitation structure resulted in the identification of two separate occupation floors separated by approximately 20 to 60 cm of colluvial sediments, partially oxidized adobe roof fall, charcoal, and occasional artifacts. Two radiocarbon assays of charcoal from the lowest floor dated to between ad 680 and 880 (Table 6.2). Floor features included several hearths (one slab-­lined) and artifacts include Emery Gray and Uinta Gray Fremont ceramics, lithic debitage, slate pendants, a metate fragment, a chert hammerstone, and a Fremont stone ball. Faunal remains include elk (Cervus canadensis) and jackrabbit (Lepus sp.). A single charred maize kernel was also recovered from the lowest floor, but no maize pollen was recovered from floor samples or floor features. In a small cliff band ­approximately a kilometer away at the top of the steep slope above the site, College of Eastern Utah Prehistoric Museum survey crews found the remains of small storage features. Approximately 14 km from Little Village is the Burnout site (42Em15, Table 6.1), the largest farming settlement in Range Creek, with 13 probable habitation features and midden deposits. The site is one of a group of a habitation sites and remote storage locations in the middle of Range Creek, near the confluence with a major drainage that likely served as an important travel route through the Roan Cliffs, possibly linking Range Creek to Nine Mile Canyon (Figure 6.4). Most structures appear to be shallow pithouses, but the remains of several circular surface structures with habitation assemblages and rubble from coursed masonry walls several meters high are also present on the site. During initial excavations in 2009–2010 we recovered

158

K. Renee Barlow

hundreds of artifacts in a 1 × 2 m excavation unit in a dense, black, 20 cm thick cultural level capped by a layer of hardened and oxidized adobe roof fall in a rock ring, which is likely the remains of a shallow p ­ ithouse. Two radiocarbon dates were obtained from charcoal at the base of the dark black, artifact-­laden level — ​in contact with the top of a gray, sandy level with fewer artifacts — ​indicating a date between ad 670 and 850 for the base of that level (Table 6.2). The black level above the radiocarbon samples yielded dense cultural material in every screen, with beads, microliths and other debitage, a heavily reworked dart point, a Parowan Basal-­notch point, hematite, polished stone, and Emery Gray, Ivie Creek Black-­on-white, and Snake Valley Black-­on-gray Fremont ceramics. Faunal remains included bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis), jackrabbit (Lepus sp.), cottontail (Sylvila­ gus sp.), fragments of small artiodactyl, and large mammal bones. No maize or maize pollen was recovered. No cliff granaries have been securely dated to this early farming period in Range Creek, and although four small pithouse sites have storage facilities on-­site, no evidence has yet been identified that supports on-­site storage of maize at either excavated site. It is suspected that during this period maize was transported to other locations or perhaps small, scattered caches above maize fields were still being used for storage. In addition, all pollen samples from habitation structures and associated features have been negative for maize or other cultigens. Range Creek Fremont, Circa ad 1000 A dramatic change in farming and storage practices in Range Creek and a marked increase in population are indicated throughout the canyon ca. ad 930–1050. More than 75 residential sites likely date to this time period, including dozens of small farming hamlets with one to three habita­ tions each. Most are located on knolls and ridges just above the alluvial floodplain, sometimes densely clustered near the confluences of major side drainages (Figure 6.4), but six of these communities are located on top of plateaus or ridges above cliff bands up to 550 m (1,800 ft) above the valley floor. Most residential sites have a few rock rings and/or pithouses and sparse artifacts, but a few have one or two structures with standing masonry walls and dark, ashy middens with relatively dense concentrations of ceramics, ground stone, lithic tools, beads, an occasional hoe, and enigmatic incised



Farming, Foraging, and Remote Storage in Range Creek

159

or polished stones (e.g. the Burnout site, 42Em15). Artifacts on these resi­ dential sites include mostly undecorated Fremont gray ware jar sherds, with a few painted, incised, banded, or corrugated sherds. The upper floor of Little Village (42Cb2316) dates to this time period. A charcoal sample taken in contact with the floor dated to approximately ad 1020 (Table 6.2). Associated artifacts include a loaf-­shaped mano, Bear River and Uinta side-­notch Fremont projectile points, a bone awl, polished turquoise, a ceramic pendant, and Emery Gray, Ivie Creek Black-­on-white, Uinta Gray, and appliqué Fremont ceramics, including a partial appliqué gray ware jar in a subfloor pit. Faunal remains include cougar (Felis con­ color), jackrabbit (Lepus sp.), and cottontail (Sylvilagus sp.). Throughout the Southwest, sedentism, more intensive agricultural practices, and residential storage units appear to have increased at this time (e.g., Gilman 1987; Young 1996), including at many sites in the Fremont region (Talbot 2002; Yoder 2005). However, the archaeology of Range Creek suggests continued reliance on hunting and residential mobility, with both maize agriculture and wild seed collection, and more intensive use of remote maize storage (Table 6.2). The Range Creek pattern is somewhat consistent with evidence of remote storage and the diversified use of wild resources and maize agriculture ca. ad 1000 documented by Gardner and others (2005) along the Purgatoire River of southeastern Colorado, and the use of small, remote, upland granaries in the Red Canyon sites of the Uinta area (Johnson and Loosle 2002; Nash 2010), but with an interesting twist. A local strategy of farming and foraging that included occasional agricultural hamlets spread throughout the middle and upper portions of Range Creek along with the occupation of small, shallow pithouses above the floodplain near springs and at the confluences of major side drainages appears to have begun ca. ad 800. Subsistence practices likely included farming; hunting bighorn sheep, elk, and other animals; possibly fishing; and collecting wild plant foods. But by the mid-­ad 900s–1000s the Range Creek Fremont appear to have been farming extensively at more than 75 locations along more than 20 km of the Range Creek floodplain (Barlow 1997, 2002a, 2002b, 2006) and storing tens of thousands of liters of maize in granaries. The granaries in Range Creek suggest an apparent increase in remote storage rather than on-­site storage at habitation sites, especially ca. ad 1000, including more and markedly larger storage facilities placed in locations

160

K. Renee Barlow

Figure 6.7. The author and David Yoder recording cliff granaries in Range Creek.

that were increasingly dangerous and difficult to access (Figures 6.7, 6.8). Rock art associated with these granaries commonly includes spirals, concentric circles, and simple shield motifs (Figure 6.5) (Schaafsma 2000; Le­ Blanc 1999). In addition, a new type of architectural feature appeared in Range Creek at this time, possibly in association with this shift in farming and storage strategies. These are tall, circular, aboveground, single-­room, tower­ like structures with coursed masonry walls. The masonry appears to have been painted with adobe and chinked in some cases, and the “towers” to have been roofed with support timbers, withes, and adobe. Some consist of ­rubble mounds that are the remains of circular surface structures with masonry walls 15–25 courses high, and several still have standing 3–5 ft high wall remnants, with adobe and/or wood sometimes found in situ in standing walls or among masonry debris. Several appear to have had framed windows or doors. These structures are generally located on prominent rises above the floodplain, usually as a single structure, though sometimes



Farming, Foraging, and Remote Storage in Range Creek

161

Figure 6.8. Aerial view of a typical group of accretional CAM granaries on cliff ledge.

occurring in pairs. Several dozen have been documented in Range Creek. Most of these structures have assemblages that suggest they were used as residences, but they appear to have been placed in defensible locations overlooking maize fields and, sometimes, agricultural villages, often with a view both up and down the canyon to one or more other Fremont villages. Only six of the nearly 400 recorded sites have both habitation structures and storage facilities on the same site (Tables 6.1, 6.3); however, most of these sites are located above cliffs, so accessing the granaries from the resi­ dences would have still required climbing a cliff. The Nelson Washout site (42Em741) is a small pithouse village above a cliff band, and access to the granaries requires rappelling or climbing down the cliff (Figure 6.8). The granaries at Locomotive Rock (42Em2833) and Snake Rock (42Em3190) require climbing a cliff above the habitation structures, and Budge’s Arch (42Em2849), the Fortress (42Em3403), and David’s Granary (42Em3636) all require a substantial and difficult climb up steep terrain for a kilometer or more, and sometimes negotiating several cliffs as well. Only the Pendant

162

K. Renee Barlow

Figure 6.9. Typical rectangular masonry and adobe granary.

Granary (42Em3205) is relatively easy to access and has both habitation and storage. It is located in the lower portion of Range Creek, on a ledge protected by a shallow overhang. Range Creek Post–ad 1100 By the ad 1100s, agriculture in Range Creek was waning. The latest Fremont occupation of Range Creek occurred ca. ad 1140–1200 and may have included only a handful of larger habitation villages in the middle portion of the canyon (Figure 6.4), as well as one known granary dating to this period in the upper portion of Range Creek. The dating and interpretation of this late occupation are tenuous, and based on only a few dates, including ca. ad 1170 for maize from a pithouse, ca. ad 1100 for wood from a pithouse, and ca. ad 1126 for wood from a granary (Table 6.2). In addition, the presence of Tsegi orange ware and Tusayan polychrome ceramics in habitation assemblages, including several of the larger pithouse villages clustered in



Farming, Foraging, and Remote Storage in Range Creek

163

the middle part of Range Creek, likely indicates indirect exchange between the Fremont of Range Creek and people with ties to the Kayenta region or Black Mesa Province ca. ad 1100–1200 (NAU website 2014; Plog 1979). The Range Creek Granaries The ubiquity of well-­preserved, remote granaries and caches in cliffs and rockshelters is one of the most compelling characteristics of Range Creek archaeology. This is particularly true for the large masonry and adobe structures placed precariously on cliffs, including many with large ­timbers used as primary roof beams and to construct support platforms (see Figures 6.7, 6.8, 6.9). These granaries preceded the use of granaries and cliff structures elsewhere in the Fremont region and Greater Southwest by up to approximately 170 years and appear to be indicative of a unique Fremont farming, foraging, and food storage strategy that developed ca. ad 930–​1050 in Range Creek. Many of these features are surprisingly large, with volumes of 30 to more than 100 native basket loads (approximately 32 liters each) (Barlow et al. 1993). To date, the remains of more than 150 storage features have been recorded and assessed — ​including slab-­lined cists, masonry and adobe granaries, and slab and adobe storage boxes (Table 6.3) — ​and there were likely more when prehistoric farmers inhabited the canyon a thousand years ago. These storage features represent a substantial investment of time, energy, and materials. Maize cobs have been found in about 50 storage features, in addition to a few well-­preserved maize kernels, husks, and stalks. Maize comprises the majority of the food remains found in granaries, although several cists and granaries have also yielded the remains of wild foods, ­including pine nuts (Pinus edulis), Great Basin wildrye (Elymus cinereus), and Indian ricegrass (Stipa or Oryzopsis hymenoides) (one granary at site 42Em761 was filled with parched Indian ricegrass and Great Basin wildrye, and radiocarbon dated to ca. ad 1040). Data from these features indicate that between ad 930 and 1000, Range Creek foragers and farmers began storing large quantities of maize and sometimes wild plants in granaries located on precarious cliffs and ledges on steep canyon walls. They were often placed in view of farming areas and pithouse villages, but in remote locations that were dangerous to access. Some are a kilometer or more from the nearest farming communities or maize fields, and access requires negotiating heavily vegetated, steep

Rappel Rappel Rappel Rappel Rappel Rappel Rappel Ledge Rappel Rappel Rappel Rappel Ledge Ledge Ledge Ledge Ledge Ledge Rappel *est. Climb Climb Climb *est. Rappel

Site Number Access

42Em741 42Em741 42Em741 42Em741 42Em741 Claflin-Emerson Granary (NGS) 42Em761 42Em761 Grass stash
 42Em761 Dry Canyon Granary 42Em2826 42Em2826 Donna’s Granary 42Em2827 42Em2827 North Rock Art Alcove 42Em2828 42Em2828 42Em2828 Locomotive Toehold Group 42Em2830 42Em2830 42Em2830 Locomotive Rock 42Em2832 42Em2832 42Em2832 Locomotive Coursed Granary
 42Em2833 Blue Shield Granaries 42Em2835

Nelson Washout (SAR)

Site Name

Table 6.3. Range Creek granaries.

3

5

1 4

Pi, Ro, Ti, Ar

Ro, Ma, Ti, La, Ar

Ro

To, Ma

1 2

Se, Ti Ro, Ti 2 (maybe 3) 3

2

Ma, Ti, Ar

Ro, Ti, Ar

5

Granary 1 Granary 2 Granary 3 Granary 1 Granary 2 Granary 3 Granary 1 Timber

Granary 1 Granary 2 Granary 3 Granary 4 Granary 5 South chamber North chamber Seed granary Granary 1 Granary 2 Granary 1 Granary 2

Total Features Granary

Pi, Ro, Ma, Ti, Ar

Associations

CAM CAM CAM CAM UNK REC REC CAM UNK UNK CAM UNK UNK UNK UNK UNK CAM CAM REC UNK UNK REC IRR

Type

159 2520

942 79 1050

565

273 792 248

1487 954 661 212

Volume (liters)

Calf Canyon (NGS, SAR)

Big Jug Shelter Budge’s Arch

Bonnie’s Granary

Billy Slope 1

Wedgy Site (SAR)

Barton Rifle Granary (SAR)

Opposite Barton

42Em2835 42Em2835 42Em2837 42Em2837 42Em2838 42Em2838 42Em2841 42Em2841 42Em2841 42Em2841 42Em2841 42Em2841 42Em2846 42Em2846 42Em2847 42Em2847 42Em2848 42Em2849 42Em2849 42Em2849 42Em2849 42Em2849 42Em2850 42Em2850 42Em2850 42Em2850 Ledge Ledge Hike Hike Hike Hike Hike Hike Rappel Rappel Rappel Rappel

Rappel *est. Rappel *est. Hike Hike *est. Rappel Rappel Rappel Rappel Rappel Rappel Rappel Rappel

Ro, Ti

Ro, Ar Pi, Ro, Ma, Ti, Ar

Ti

Ro, Ti, To, Po, Ar

Ma, Sheep Horn

Ma

4

1 5

2

2

6

2

2

(maybe 5)

Granary platform Ledge granary Granary 1 Granary 2 Granary 1 Granary 2 Granary A Granary B Granary C Granary 4 Granary 5 Granary 6 Granary 1 Granary 2 Granary 1 Granary 2 Granary 1 Granary 1 Granary 2 Granary 3 Granary 4 Granary 5 Granary 1 Granary 2 Granary 3 Granary 4

CAM CAM CAM CAM CAM OTH CAM CAM CAM IRR UNK
 UNK 
REC UNK
 BOX CIS CIS
 CAM REC CAM UNK
 BOX CAM UNK CAM CAM 260 2062 1139 29 64

1746 257 201

39

650

318 232 829 751 140 55 476 1193 797

Hidden Cist Window Granary

Joel’s Pole Granary (SAR) Dry Canyon South Dry Canyon South Rope Granary Mouth Lost Cow

Jerry’s Juniper Granary Nick and Pat’s Granary Big Log

Yellow Shield (NGS) Little Man Granary Joe Wing Granary Sheep Shit Alcove

Ma, Ti Ti

Rappel Ledge Hike Hike Hike Rappel Rappel Rappel Rappel Ti, Se Ti, Po

Ti

Ti Ro, Ma Ma, Ti, Ar Cists

Ro, Ma, Ti, Ju, Wa, Ar Ro, Ma Ro Ro

Associations

Rappel

Rappel Hike Ledge

Rappel

Climb

Site Number Access

42Em2860 42Em2865 42Em2878 42Em2880
 42Em2880 42Em2884 42Em2885 42Em2891 42Em3047
 42Em3047 42Em3048 42Em3049 42Em3054
 42Em3057 42Em3058 42Em3058 42Em3058 42Em3059 42Em3063 42Em3063 42Em3063 42Em3063

Site Name

Table 6.3. (cont’d.) Range Creek granaries.

1 9

1 1 1 1 3

1 1 (1) 2

1 1 1 (2) Granary 1 Granary Bin 1 Bin 2 Granary 1 Granary 1 Granary 1 Cist 1 Cist 2 Granary 1 Granary1 Feature 2 Granary 1 Feature A Possible cist B-1 Possible cist B-2 Cist 1 1 2 3 4

Total Features Granary

UNK CAM 
CAM CIS CIS IRR CAM UNK CIS CIS CAM UNK
 CAM CAM CAM CIS CIS CIS CAM REC IRR REC

Type

230 107 8 180 300

1385 4185 262

693

605 93

841

Volume (liters)

Easter Basket Reluctant First Climb Cracked Rock Granary

Hole-in-the-Rock Granary

Lost Cow Granary

Southeast Dilly North Nelson 2 East Nelson Platform North Nelson Platform Nina’s Granary Row (BYU)

42Em3063 42Em3063 42Em3063 42Em3063 42Em3063 42Em3101 42Em3106 42Em3108 42Em3110 42Em3117 42Em3117 42Em3117 42Em3117 42Em3117 42Em3117 42Em3117 42Em3124 42Em3124 42Em3124 42Em3125 42Em3125 42Em3125 42Em3167 42Em3168 42Em3174 42Em3174 *Rappel Rappel *Rappel Rappel Rappel Ledge Ledge Ledge Rappel Rappel Climb Climb Climb Climb Climb Climb Walk Climb Walk Walk

Rappel Rappel Rappel *Rappel *Rappel

Ti, Ar

Ti

Ma, Ti

Ma, Ti, To

Ma, Ju Ti, Ar Ti, To Ti 
Ro, Ma, Ti, Ar

1 2 1

3

2 (maybe 3)

1 1 1 1 7

North chamber South chamber?

Granary 1 Granary 2 Granary 3 Granary 4 Granary 5 Granary 6 Granary 7 
Granary 1 Granary 2 Granary 3 Granary 1 Granary 2 Granary 3 Granary 1

5 6 7 8 9 Cist 1 Granary 1 Granary 1

IRR
 IRR IRR UNK UNK CIS UNK UNK UNK CAM CAM CAM CAM CAM CAM BOX CAM IRR UNK
 REC REC IRR
 CAM CAM IRR UNK 126

51

2520 108

667

217

1348 408 352 212

226 2394

Walk Walk Walk Walk Rappel Rappel Walk Walk Walk Walk
 Walk
 Walk
 Climb Hike Ledge Ledge Rappel Walk Walk Walk Walk

42Em3325 42Em3331 42Em3331 42Em3331

Broken Cist Broom Handle Twin Pantry

Behind the Ugly

Rainbow Platform Granary  (SAR) CEU Face Shield The Big Ugly Granary

Pendant Granary Twin Granaries

Seven Granaries

Snake House Granaries

Site Number Access

42Em3177 42Em3178 42Em3189 42Em3189 42Em3190 42Em3190 42Em3197 42Em3197 42Em3197 42Em3197 42Em3197 42Em3197 42Em3202 42Em3205 42Em3206 42Em3206 42Em3217

Site Name

Table 6.3. (cont’d.) Range Creek granaries.

Ti

Ro, Ma, Ti Ti

Ro, Ti

1 4

1

1 1 2

Ma Pi, Ro, Ti, Ar Ti

Ro

2 (maybe 3) 7

1 1 2

The Ugly The Ugly box Behind Ugly

North South Granary 1

Feature 1 Feature 2 Feature 4 Feature 5 Feature 6 Feature 7 Granary 1

Granary 1 Cist Feature A Feature B Granary 1

Total Features Granary

Pi, Ro, Ti, Ar

Ti

Associations

IRR IRR BOX CAM

CIS CIS CAM CAM CAM UNK CAM IRR UNK IRR CIS UNK UNK REC BOX BOX CAM

Type

528 786 194 308

620 127 208 142

165 60

70

288 179 268 88 441

Volume (liters)

Disassembled Granary Arlene’s Granary Opposite Arch

Bryan’s Granary

Joel’s Hole (SE of ranch) Beehive Granary (SAR) Granary near shield Turtle Canyon Shelter Room with a View Brent Hole Brent’s Corn Row

Fortress Granaries (NGS)

Hummingbird Granary Lighthouse Granary Rudy’s Li’l Precious 3-Fingered Men Catwalk Granaries (NGS)

42Em3331 42Em3355 42Em3356 42Em3357 42Em3358 42Em3359 42Em3359 42Em3403 42Em3403 42Em3437 42Em3441 42Em3444 42Em3446 42Em3447 42Em3448 42Em3449 42Em3449 42Em3449 42Em3449 
42Em3451 42Em3451 
42Em3452 42Em3453 42Em3488 42Em3488

Walk Walk Ma Walk Ti Ledge Ti Hike Ro Rappel Ti, La Rappel
 Rappel/climb *est. Pi, Ti, Ar Rappel/climb *est.
 Walk Ti Rappel Ti, La Hike Ar Walk Ma, Ju, Ar Climb Ti, Ju Walk Ti Hike Ma, Ti Hike Hike
 Hike
 Walk Ti? Walk
 Walk Ti Rappel Ti Hike Hike 1 1 2

2

1 1 1 2 1 1 4

2

1 1 1 1 2

Granary 1 Granary 1 Granary 1 Granary 2 Granary 3 Granary 4 Granary 1 Granary 2 Granary 1 Granary Roof fall, granary slab cist

Other 1 or 2 Granary 1 Granary 1 Granary 1 Granary 1 Granary 1 Granary 2 Granary 1 Granary 2 Granary 1 Granary 1

UNK CAM UNK CAM UNK CAM CAM REC REC CAM CAM CAM CIS BOX CAM CAM CAM CAM CAM CIS CIS UNK CAM UNK CIS 212

288 239 1274 658 565 322 120

759 295 56 1781 197 125 64 177 426

Ma, Ti Ti

Pi, Ar Ti, Ar Ro, Ma, Ti, Ar Ar Ti

Associations

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 152

Granary 1 Granary 2 Granary Slab cist Granary Granary Granary Granary

Total Features Granary

BOX BOX UNK CIS CAM CAM UNK CAM

Type

817 56,145

511 261 2640 416 382 388

Volume (liters)

Abbreviations: Pi = pithouse, Ro = rock art, Ma = maize, Ti = timbers, Se = seeds, Ju = juniper mat, To = toeholds, La = ladder pole, Wa = water diversion feature, Po = postholes, Ar = artifacts. Granary types: CAM = cylindrical, oval, D-shaped, and beehive-shaped adobe and masonry granaries; REC = rectangular adobe and masonry granaries; CIS = slab and ­adobe-lined semi-subterranean cists; BOX = small rectangular slab and adobe granaries; IRR = irregular, often mixed construction; UNK = unknown. *est.: One or more of the interior dimensions was estimated rather than measured with a metric tape.

Climb Climb *est. Hike/Ledge Hike/Climb Hike/Climb Hike Rappel Rappel *est.

Site Number Access

42Em3636 42Em3637 42Em3832 42Em4068 42Em4069 Little Red Granary 42Cb2760 Lagartita Ledge 42Em4076 Unnamed Granary Above Road UNK Totals

David’s Granary David’s Other Granary Flute Site

Site Name

Table 6.3. (cont’d.) Range Creek granaries.



Farming, Foraging, and Remote Storage in Range Creek

171

t­ alus slopes and multiple cliff bands up to more than 500 m above the canyon floor. None of the cliff granaries predates ad 930. All of the in situ structural timbers date to between ad 930 and ad 1063, and all of the radiocarbon-­ dated maize from granaries and in situ structural wood from granaries date to between ad 1000 and ad 1040 (Table 6.2). None of the granary timbers with evidence of harvesting live trees, such as axe marks or burning at the base, predate ad 930 (Barlow et al. 2008). The Range Creek granaries vary in shape, size, and structural design: from small, single-­chambered, slab-­lined caches to large, coursed masonry and adobe structures roofed with multiple layers of timbers, willow withes, sandstone slabs, and adobe. The most common types are cylindrical, D-­ shaped, or beehive-­shaped adobe and masonry granaries (CAM); rectangular masonry granaries (REC); upright-­slab- and adobe-­lined cists (CIS); and small slab boxes (BOX). Cliff Granaries

Cylindrical adobe and masonry granaries that open from the top are usually found on narrow ledges or in shallow alcoves in cliffs (e.g., Figure 6.8). These structures are generally built directly on bedrock and often into the back wall of alcoves, with thick, curved masonry walls of unshaped, tabular sandstone and layers of wet-­laid mud or adobe, and sometimes adobe brick or wet-­laid, coursed adobe. Walls are generally 9 to 12 courses and 1.5 to 2 m (5–6.5 ft) high. Tan, gray, pink, and occasionally dark red adobe suggest that sometimes multiple basket loads of mud were needed to ­complete a single structure, or perhaps that older granaries were sometimes repaired and reused. D-­shaped granaries are essentially identical to cylindrical granaries except that the natural wall of the alcove is incorporated into the back wall. These are the most common types of storage facility in Range Creek. The roofs of these structures vary but generally consist of multiple layers of support beams and coverings. Primary supports are formed by two to six beams laid parallel across the top course of masonry, framing a rectangular opening in the top of the granary. The next layer of support is formed by two to eight additional beams laid perpendicular to the primary beams. This layer of rafters is usually overlain by a layer of narrow withes, followed by a layer of adobe, a layer of horizontal sandstone slabs, and a final layer of adobe capping the granary. Smaller structures may have only a few small

172

K. Renee Barlow

limbs in the support frame, or a collar formed by a wreath of willow withes, but large structures often have eight or more timbers up to 12 cm in diameter. As a result, granary roofs are often substantial, measuring up to 50 cm (1.7 ft) thick. Occasionally the granary is somewhat broader at the base, and the roof thickest where the support beams intersect at the collar, giving the granary a domed appearance and beehive shape. The construction of the granaries was a remarkable accomplishment. These storage units are often much larger than they appear from the canyon floor, ranging in volume from approximately 8 to well over 1,000 liters of grain per chamber (Table 6.3). An estimated three to five loads of construction materials — ​including adobe, sandstone slabs, timbers, and withes — ​were generally required per cliff granary. Most of these materials could be hauled with burden baskets, but some Douglas-­fir timbers used in roofs and support platforms were up to 15 m long and would have been difficult to transport up and down cliff faces to the granary locations. The average load of maize transported to these granaries was probably about the size of a typical burden basket (approximately 32 liters) (see Barlow et al. 1993), which is nearly one bushel. Additional trips would have been required to retrieve the maize. Often two to five granaries of this type are clustered together on ledges or cliffs, although sometimes a single, isolated structure is located in the middle of a cliff on a narrow ledge or man-­made platform. Groups of cliff granaries are sometimes spread out across several ledges; others are clustered on a single ledge, with later structures added that share a common wall with the original granary. At least 53 cylindrical and D-­shaped granaries have been found, with volumes ranging from 29 to more than 4,000 ­liters, with an average of 623 liters, or approximately 20 native burden basket loads (approximately one bushel each) (Barlow et al. 1993). Rectangular masonry granaries are rare in Range Creek. They are generally larger than cylindrical and D-­shaped granaries, although the construction methods are similar (Figure 6.9). They usually have m ­ ultiple chambers or bins that appear to have been part of the original design of a single structure, in contrast with the accretional and somewhat hap­hazard arrangements of groups of cylindrical and D-­shaped granaries on cliff ledges. Rectangular granaries are generally 2–3 m (6–10 ft) wide by 1.5 m (4–​5 ft) tall, representing an investment of time and materials exceeding that of typical cylindrical or D-­shaped granaries. A few of the masonry granaries resemble Puebloan granaries in overall appearance, with small rectangular



Farming, Foraging, and Remote Storage in Range Creek

173

openings on the side rather than the top. These granaries are usually inside alcoves or rockshelters rather than on cliff faces and were constructed so that they wall off a portion of an alcove or rockshelter from roof to floor, leaving no room for a top opening. Accessing these cliff granaries; hauling the loads of stone slabs, adobe, and timbers up the cliff faces to build them; and then hauling basket loads of maize to store in them probably posed a significant risk to prehistoric farmers. Prehistoric climbing aids have been recorded at several dozen sites, including pecked toeholds above or below granaries, wooden timbers and sticks jammed into crevices on cliff faces to form handholds or support platforms, and a few Douglas-­fir tree boles up to 10 m long that were apparently used as ladders. Several of these were probably hauled significant distances from Douglas-­fir forests to the sites and set at the base of a cliff below a granary. They were debarked, stripped of limbs, and leaned against the cliff. Several yielded tree-­ring dates consistent with the age of timbers used in the construction of granaries or platforms above them (Table 6.2; see discussion in Barlow et al. 2008). Sometimes pecked toeholds, jammed sticks or timbers, and natural handholds are found above these logs and directly below granaries, and sometimes they are simply found on the cliff face about 4–5 m above the ground surface on cliffs below granary ledges, where a ladder tree may have been during prehistoric times. At one site a possible Fremont “ladder” had been pulled up onto the ledge above the cliff and left beside the granary. Storage Cists and Slab-­Lined Chambers

In contrast to the cliff granaries, most smaller storage chambers are situated relatively close to potential prehistoric field locations, often in an alcove or low overhang on the first bench above the Range Creek floodplain, at the base of the lowest cliff band. They are often hidden or camouflaged, but access is not particularly difficult. These storage chambers appear to be caches. Upright-­ slab- and adobe-­ lined cists are subterranean or semi-­ subterranean, with an opening at ground level. This is the second most common type of storage facility in Range Creek (Table 6.3). Because they are more readily accessed, most have been broken into and partially dis­ assembled by modern vandals. Even so, these features can be difficult to find. They are often well-­hidden, and some have been intentionally camouflaged. These structures are generally circular to semicircular and made of large upright slabs of sandstone with a pressed adobe lining in the interior

174

K. Renee Barlow

of an excavated chamber. Several also have an additional partial masonry exterior wall along the mouth of the alcove. They are generally smaller than cylindrical or rectangular masonry granaries, but many cannot be measured because they have been damaged or have not been excavated. Estimated volumes from measured chambers range from 4 to 13 basket loads (Table 6.3). The roofs of these chambers are less substantial than those on cliff granaries, usually constructed of small tree limbs, sandstone slabs or rocks, and adobe. Some were lined with shredded juniper bark. Maize cobs have been found in some, and several yielded wild grass seeds. Most are isolated, single structures, although several occur in pairs. Small upright-­slab and adobe box granaries are rare, but are usually located on ledges or small alcoves high above the canyon floor. They are usually approximately 50 cm across by 50 cm high and appear to have required less construction time and material than masonry granaries. The storage box was constructed of four to six large, unmodified sandstone slabs built into the back wall of the cliff or overhang with pressed adobe, and sometimes smaller rocks were used for chinking or to fill in the base or sides of the box. The roof usually included a framework of several small limbs covered with sandstone slabs. Unlike the larger masonry and adobe granaries, most of the materials used to construct these granaries can be found on or near the site, and in most cases the materials could have been hauled in a single trip. Like slab-­lined cists, these chambers were sometimes lined with shredded juniper bark. Unlike cists, however, several were added onto groups of cylindrical or D-­shaped masonry structures that were apparently constructed earlier. It is likely that many of these were built later than the masonry/adobe granaries. Other Storage in Range Creek

Some of the granaries found in Range Creek are unique and do not clearly fit into any of these types, while others have attributes associated with several categories. Construction styles are sometimes mixed, and in some cases there appears to have been no overall architectural design at all, just the expedient use of construction materials to create a storage chamber in a natural cavity, corridor, or crevice, or to secure an irregular-­shaped storage space between several other granaries. Adobe and/or mud was used liberally in these chambers, and often the construction techniques are quite



Farming, Foraging, and Remote Storage in Range Creek

175

unusual. Wood was sometimes used in horizontal or vertical elements in walls and roof supports, and irregular-­shaped rocks were sometimes used as fillers in an atypical fashion rather than arranged as courses of masonry or upright slabs. Granary Distribution, Storage Capacity, and Prehistoric Maize Cultivation in Range Creek Overall, the Range Creek granaries suggest that Fremont farmers spent a substantial amount of time both farming maize in the canyon and transporting crops from fields to storage locations, particularly to fill the granaries located on cliff faces. The quantities of maize that could have been stored in these facilities would have supported a substantial prehistoric population, and filling them would have required cultivation of relatively large areas, likely at the confluences of major side drainages. Granary groups on cliffs have cumulative volumes of approximately 30 to more than 100 native basket loads each, whereas the volume of isolated storage chambers near the canyon floor range from about 1 to 16 basket loads (Table 6.3). An estimated storage capacity of approximately 90,600 liters of maize, or 2,830 burden baskets, to fill the recorded granaries in Range Creek is probably modest given expected preservation issues. Also, it is likely that these granaries represent only a fraction of those constructed and used by the Fremont. Even if only half were in use ca. ad 1000, an estimated storage capacity of approximately 1,400 basket loads of maize per annum would require the cultivation of large tracts of land and a significant time investment in agricultural activities. Estimates of likely prehistoric maize yields in this area suggest an expected prehistoric harvest for Fremont farmers of approximately 3 to 12 bushels per acre (see Barlow 1997 and Burns 1983 for data and discussion). To produce enough maize to fill approximately half of the recorded granaries would thus require the cultivation of approximately 100 to 400 acres of canyon bottomland along the creek and springs. This suggests prehistoric farming by Fremont in Range Creek ca. ad 1000 on a scale rivaling ­nineteenth- and twentieth-­century historic farming and ranching in the region. Conservative estimates of labor requirements for prehistoric maize cultivation on that scale, using the technology available to the Fremont, indicate a minimum of approximately 25 hours per acre for planting and

176

K. Renee Barlow

25 hours per acre for harvesting (Barlow 1997:​95–114). In addition, maize farmers usually prepared fields prior to planting, often exceeding 80 hours per acre for cultivating or clearing fields of heavy brush, and then an additional 40 to 100 hours for weeding and cultivating plants during the growing season (Barlow 1997). A conservative estimate of 100 hours per acre total field investment multiplied by the lowest estimate of acreage results in an expectation of about a thousand 10-­hour person-­days farming in Range Creek. This level of agricultural investment is less than typical traditional slash and burn agriculture in Latin America, but double the amount of time spent in low-­investment “plant and harvest” horticulture (Barlow 1997). In addition, processing 1,400 basket loads of maize using manos and metates would require approximately 30 to 40 hours per bushel (Barlow 1997). This suggests that during the peak of maize production in Range Creek, ca. ad 1000, small communities of Fremont men and women probably worked in maize fields for one to several months per year in addition to hunting and gathering wild foods, and women likely also spent an average of three to six hours per day grinding maize. On the other hand, 1,400 basket loads of maize would provide more than 100,000,000 kilocalories (Barlow 1997: 25.2 kg/bu × 3550 Kcal/kg = 89,460 Kcal/bu) — ​enough food to support approximately 160 people for a year at a rate of 1,800 Kcal/day. Part of the success of Fremont farmers in Range Creek was likely due to an extensive, rather than intensive, strategy of maize cultivation. Instead of making heavy investments in one or a few locations, producing diminishing returns for labor invested, traditional maize farmers who maintain multiple residences and invest less labor per acre but cultivate across larger areas generally have significantly higher crop yields (Barlow 1997). This strategy, however, facilitated by continuing to live in smaller, scattered seasonal farming villages, may have put relatively successful Range Creek farmers at greater risk for theft or raids by neighbors. Fremont Model of Larder Caching, with Cliff Granaries as a Defensive Strategy of Food Hoarding The archaeological record of Range Creek suggests variability in storage and overall land use during the Fremont period, with a unique, local adaptive strategy of foraging, farming, storage, and possible passive resource defense ca. ad 930 to 1050. These Fremont were clearly successful farmers, with the capacity to store enough maize to support a substantial community,



Farming, Foraging, and Remote Storage in Range Creek

177

and also successful hunters of bighorn sheep, deer, elk, jackrabbits, and cottontails. They probably farmed along the Green River and nearby tributaries such as Florence and Rock Creeks, and perhaps visited the Price River Canyon or Nine Mile Canyon. They likely also hunted and foraged high on the Tavaputs Plateau above the Roan Cliffs. They certainly had contact and exchange with neighboring Fremont communities in the Uinta and San Rafael areas, and may have been part of an even larger exchange network that extended south into the Kayenta region or the northern San Juan. The earliest storage components, ca. ad 400–860, appear to be associated with a strategy of contingency caching similar to traditional Great Basin foragers and Southern Paiute horticulturists. This suggests that the canyon was used by small household groups of highly mobile foragers who engaged in maize horticulture at multiple locations, storing food in dispersed caches near collection areas and revisiting cache locations later in the season to consume or retrieve food items. Farming may have been important, but likely consisted mainly of planting and harvesting, with low-­level investments in field activities, rather than sedentism and replanting, weeding, and watering fields during the growing season (Barlow 2002a, 2006). Between ad 930 and 1050, people in nearby Fremont and Hitsatsinom regions were intensifying their farming efforts and becoming more sedentary — ​and likely experiencing population increase and greater nutritional stress concomitant with these shifts. During this time, people in Range Creek mainly occupied many small seasonal settlements of one to three pithouses; stored their food in hidden caches and large, remote cliff granaries; and also continued hunting and collecting and storing wild seeds. The presence of rich alluvial sediments, perennial water, and the proximity of relatively lush riparian and montane resources suggest that the Fremont of Range Creek had better farming and foraging opportunities than many other people in different areas of the Great Basin and Southwest ca. ad 1000. Many of the maize cobs from Range Creek are quite large, and given even moderate estimates of the storage capacities of granaries and prehistoric harvest yields, these Fremont probably had a relatively secure existence. Yet they maintained a comparably high degree of residential mobility, and game animals and other wild foods continued to be important components of subsistence. Range Creek likely remained a refugium of higher residential mobility and overall greater foraging and farming

178

K. Renee Barlow

e­ fficiency than some neighboring areas, possibly also resulting in more food stores than in communities with greater sedentism. The use of cliff granaries likely contributed to the success of this farming/foraging strategy, allowing the Range Creek Fremont to engage primarily in high-­ranked farming activities and foraging pursuits associated with a more extensive farming and foraging system, rather than engaging in intensive investments in field activities for increasingly lower economic returns (Barlow 1997, 2002a, 2006.) The remote cliff granaries of Range Creek likely represent a form of passive resource defense that is an adaptation to the increased probability of raids and/or theft of food caches ca. ad 930–1050. Even if rates of theft were relatively low or raiding was rare (e.g., Phillips and Barlow 2012), the risk associated with the loss of important food stores would have made investing in these granaries beneficial, particularly if increased sedentism and active resource defense would have resulted in an overall decrease in farming and foraging efficiency. The proposed threat of theft or raids likely was associated with neighbors who were aware of both the potential of Range Creek for relatively high maize yields and the relatively mobile residential tactics of the people who foraged and farmed there. Although, for the most part, this unique storage strategy was probably a passive form of defense against stealth, or against people coming into the canyon and raiding food stores while the hoarders were away, the appearance of high-­elevation, defensive villages at approximately the same time also suggests the possibility of conflict, at least at some sites. Several small communities located on high, defensible ridges and ­mesas up to 500 m above the floodplain, overlooking the canyon in both directions, have been recorded. The best example is Waldo Wilcox’s “Fortress,” located approximately 450 m above the Range Creek floodplain (Figure 6.10). It was strategically placed on an isolated mesa above seven major cliff bands and has a commanding view of the entire canyon to the north and south. Once above the major cliff bands, access to the community still required climbing up a natural chimney through a smaller cliff, and a large, upright slab faces the place of emergence onto the mesa top, as if providing a blind. The site has five pithouses, midden deposits, granaries, and three rock alignments along the edge of the mesa, notably above cliffs that face up and down the canyon, and facing the route to the chimney. The site has



Farming, Foraging, and Remote Storage in Range Creek

179

Figure 6.10. Location of the Fortress site on top of the plateau in Range Creek, Utah.

not yet been excavated, but the artifact assemblage appears consistent with others in the canyon dating to approximately ad 1000. Even after climbing to the site, accessing the granaries is still difficult. Storage facilities include a two-­chambered, rectangular masonry granary in a shallow overhang on a cliff below the village. They are hidden from the pithouse ­community, “hanging” on a ledge on the side of the mesa that must be accessed by climbing down a second natural chimney/passage from the top. Circular masonry surface structures were also common in Range Creek ca. ad 1000. Located on prominent knolls or ridges overlooking pithouse villages and probable farming areas, these features may also be associated with defense. Most have remarkable views up and down the canyon. They appear to have been used primarily for habitation but may also have been locations where people could observe maize fields and approaches to pithouse villages. The prominent display of shields in rock art in Range Creek, especially in locations adjacent to granaries and overlooking habitations and probable maize field locations, also suggests defense of resources (Figure 6.5; cf. Wormington 1955). In nearby Nine Mile Canyon, a well-­known Fremont site with dozens of shield-­bearing anthropomorphs appears to illustrate battle scenes, and rock art sites in the Vernal area often depict anthropomorphs with shields, decapitated heads, and/or scalps (Cole 1990; Schaafsma 1971).

180

K. Renee Barlow

These latter motifs are generally associated with the Uinta Fremont, and possibly with ritual warfare or a Fremont warrior cult (e.g., Wormington 1955). The Range Creek shield motifs may have been placed near granaries as a symbol of protection, and possibly to indicate o ­ wnership. One of the most dramatic examples of symbolic defense is a large yellow and white shield painted on a cliff face approximately 150 m above the confluence of a major side drainage and a cluster of five habitation sites. The “ghosts” of two or three older, faded shields are still visible, but the most recent motif is still vibrant and measures approximately .7 m (2 ft) in diameter (Figure 6.5, lower right). Access to the small, narrow ledge requires a lengthy hike up an adjacent side canyon and then the expertise of a professional rock climber to cross a precarious broken, narrow ledge that winds along a 50 m cliff. On the narrow ledge below the shield are the remains of a large granary, a well-­worn trough metate, a hammerstone, lithic debitage from several different sources, and a discarded, broken projectile point sourced to the Wild Horse Canyon obsidian locality in the Mineral Mountains, approximately 150 km (93 miles) to the west. The site overlooks five farming villages, and the ledge is large enough for a single adult to sit or lie prone beside the granary — ​but just. This suggests that someone likely stayed at the location for some time, prepared food or pigment, and repaired and manufactured lithic tools or weapons while watching over the several communities and maize fields below. Placed on a small shelf just below the shield, and protected by rock fall, was an offering: a fetish consisting of a bundle of juniper bark wrapped around maize husks and a maize cob. By the ad 1100s, Fremont farmers in Range Creek likely occupied only three to five farming villages and may have begun living in fewer, larger communities. This proposed occupation is tentative, but supported somewhat by the distribution of late Puebloan ceramic artifact types at several of the largest sites in the middle of the canyon (including one below the yellow shield site discussed above), and several sites dated to the ad 1100s (Table 6.2). These include a dendro sample from a granary site in the upper portion of the canyon (42Em2828), a radiocarbon assay on maize from a habitation and storage site in the lower canyon (42Em760), and a radiocarbon assay from a habitation in the middle portion of the canyon with the remains of several masonry structures with window or doorway lintels (42Em2131). In addition, several of the largest village sites in the middle part of the canyon include multiple pithouses and midden deposits (Figure 6.4)



Farming, Foraging, and Remote Storage in Range Creek

181

and may be associated with an increase in sedentism, residential storage, and perhaps a more active strategy of resource defense. All sites dating to this period are located on the lowest rise above the floodplain, and several have 8 to 14 probable habitation features. The range of storage tactics used at this time are unknown, but if farmers employed logistical foraging and collection trips rather than resi­ dential mobility, we would expect to see the use of large, labor-­intensive cliff caches and larders to diminish, and a concomitant increase in large residential storage rooms associated with the typical larder-­hoarding strategy modeled in Figure 6.6. This appears to be the last Fremont occupation in Range Creek, followed by local abandonment and a shift to residences in nearby canyons, or perhaps simply a return to greater mobility and reliance on foraging rather than farming. At any rate, it appears that the construction of masonry habitation and storage facilities ceased in Range Creek by ca. ad 1200. The pattern of hoarding in large cliff granaries that developed in Range Creek after ad 930 was likely highly adaptive, with seasonal and interannual flexibility in the relative importance of maize versus wild foods, as well as the amount of time spent at the various farming and foraging areas used by Fremont households or bands. To the extent that it provided significant protection of food stores, however, this strategy likely resulted in larger populations in Range Creek and the surrounding area, and perhaps increasing competition for local resources. Ironically, this may have contributed to the likelihood of theft or raids if residential mobility persisted. The number and sizes of cliff larders that remain, presumably only a fraction of those built by the Fremont, certainly suggest that people feared the loss of food stores; however, a marked decrease in the use of remote cliff granaries in the ad 1100s indicates that this strategy was no longer used. The larger Range Creek settlements are likely indicative of moderate population aggregation and possibly an increase in sedentism associated with increases in the intensity of agricultural practices. Rather than increased stability, however, the intensive use of one or few agricultural fields may have increased the risk of agricultural shortfall, while simultaneously decreasing access to previously used wild food collection areas. Ultimately, a shift to greater sedentism and more intensive farming practices may not have been the most successful adaptation in the Range Creek drainage, and may have ultimately led to the abandonment of this remote desert canyon.

182

K. Renee Barlow

Acknowledgments I wrote the first draft of this storage model in a graduate seminar in 1992 but began systematic, intensive field investigations of Fremont storage when I began working in Range Creek in 2002. I presented an early version of this chapter and the initial results of Range Creek granary research at the 28th Great Basin Anthropological Conference in Elko, Nevada, in 2002 and continued to present and circulate additional drafts at Utah Statewide Archaeological Society (USAS), Utah Professional Archaeological Council (UPAC), Great Basin, Pecos Conference, and SAA meetings for several years. I am very grateful to numerous colleagues, mentors, and students for patient and insightful comments on many papers and presentations about Range Creek granaries throughout the years while I collected these data. I am particularly indebted to Ron Towner of the Laboratory of Tree Ring Research at the University of Arizona, Tucson, for suggesting tree-­ring research in Range Creek and for support, training, good advice, and many significant contributions to this research. This research was supported in part by grants from the National Geographic Society (CRE-­7859-05) in 2005–2006 and the National Science Foundation (BCS 0523995) in 2005–2007, by funding from the Bureau of Land Management in 2003– 2004, and by a small grant from the Utah Rock Art Research Association (URARA) in 2004. I am grateful for support in my research from the Prehistoric Museum in eastern Utah, and for the help of students and volunteers from the College of Eastern Utah, Utah Valley University, Salt Lake Community College, Weber State University, UC Davis, UCLA, USAS, and URARA. Discussions with Byron Loosle and Robert Nash about Fremont farming, hunting, and storage strategies in the Uinta region provided important insights, as did discussions about storage with Dudley Gardner. Rock art “lessons” from David Sucec and discussions with many rock art experts and enthusiasts, including David Sucec and Polly Schaafsma, have helped me to better understand and identify different types and elements of rock art, and discussions with Hopi elders have helped me to better understand their importance and meaning. Most of all, I owe a debt of gratitude to Mr. Waldo Wilcox, who cared so deeply about the canyon and all her treasures, who showed me the locations of many sites, and who generously shared his time, advice, and knowledge about the archaeology of Range Creek.

Notes 1. The archaeological data presented here were collected from 2002 to 2010 during intuitive reconnaissance, systematic surveys, excavations, and an intensive granary recording project funded in part by the National Geographic Society (CRE-­7859-05) and the National Science Foundation (BCS 0523995). Field crews included researchers, staff, students, and volunteers from the Utah Rock Art Research Association, the Utah Statewide Archaeological Society, the Utah Museum of Natural History, Salt Lake Community College, some students from the University of Utah field school, the Utah Valley University Honors Program, the College of Eastern Utah, and the Prehistoric Museum of Eastern Utah. Robert Nash and Elizabeth Seymour from UC Davis, BYU



Farming, Foraging, and Remote Storage in Range Creek

183

graduate student Dave Yoder, UCLA grad student Christine Zuhlsdorf, and Utah State BLM Archaeologist Byron Loosle and four BLM interns also helped collect granary data and tree-­ring samples. Ron Towner and Jeff Dean of the University of Arizona Laboratory of Tree-­Ring Research collaborated in the tree-­ring research and processed the tree-­ring data, including the collection of samples from live stands, historic sites, and prehistoric sites in Range Creek. KUED associate producer Nancy Green, Utah Valley Search and Rescue teams led by State Senator John Valentine, and National Geographic Society teams that included professional rock climber Greg Child and writer David Roberts assisted in the collection of granary data from cliff sites.

References Barlow, K. Renee 1994 Analysis of the Costs and Benefits of Corn Farming Among the Tarahumara. Submitted to the National Science Foundation. Manuscript in possession of the author. 1997 Foragers that Farm: A Behavioral Ecology Approach to the Economics of Corn Farming for the Fremont Case. PhD dissertation, University of Utah, Salt Lake City. University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 2000 The Tarahumara Agricultural Project. Submitted to the National Science Foundation. Manuscript in possession of the author. 2002a Predicting Maize Agriculture among the Fremont: An Economic Comparison of Farming and Foraging in the American Southwest. American Antiq­ uity 67:​65–88. 2002b Storage Strategies, Caching and the Economy of a Variable Environment. In The Archaeological and Historic Treasures of Range Creek, Utah. 28th Great Basin Anthropological Conference, Elko, Nevada. 2006 A Formal Model for Predicting Maize Agriculture among the Fremont. In Behavioral Ecology and the Transition to Agriculture, edited by Douglas J. Kennett and Bruce Winterhalder, pp. 87–102. University of California Press, Berkeley. 2012 Investigating the Pilling Site: The Pilling Family Picnic. Invited paper in Reuniting the 40-­Years Lost Pilling Fremont Figurine with His Mates: Human Intrigue, Cutting-­Edge Science, and Ethical Challenges, symposium chair: Bonnie Pitblado, 33rd Great Basin Anthropological Conference, Lake Tahoe, California. 2013 The Pilling Site. Section in a coauthored paper with Bonnie Pitblado and others about the return of a stolen artifact from the Pilling figurine collection, submitted to American Antiquity. Barlow, K. Renee, and Melissa D. Heck 2002 More on Acorn Eating During the Natufian: Expected Patterning in Macrofossil Assemblages and Site Locations. In Hunter-­Gatherer Archaeobotany, edited by Sarah Mason and Jon G. Hather, pp. 128–145. Institute of Archaeology, University College, London.

184

K. Renee Barlow

Barlow, K. Renee, Penny R. Henriksen, and Duncan Metcalfe 1993 Estimating Load Size in the Great Basin: Data from Conical Burden Baskets. Utah Archaeology 1993:​27–37. Barlow, K. Renee, Ronald Towner, and Matt Salzer 2008 The Fremont Granaries of Range Creek: Defensive Maize Storage on the Northern Colorado Plateau. Manuscript in possession of authors. Burns, Barney T. 1983 Simulated Anasazi Storage Behavior Using Crop Yields Reconstructed from Tree Rings: ad 652–1968. PhD dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson. University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Castetter, Edward F., and Willis H. Bell 1951 Yuman Indian Agriculture: Primitive Subsistence on the Lower Colorado and Gila Rivers. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Christenson, Andrew L. 2010 On the Reincorporation of Sherds into Pots. Pottery Southwest 28(4):2–14. Cole, Sally J. 1990 Legacy on Stone: Rock Art of the Colorado Plateau and Four Corners Region. Johnson Printing, Boulder, Colorado. Colton, Harold S. 1952 Pottery Types of the Arizona Strip and Adjacent Areas in Utah and Nevada. Ceramic Series 1. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff. 1956 Pottery Types of the Southwest. Ceramic Series No. 3C. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff. Fontana, Bernard L., and John P. Schaefer 1997 Tarahumara: Where Night Is the Day of the Moon. 2nd ed. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Gardner, Dudley, Michelle Stevens, Laura Pasacreta, and Glade Hadden 2005 The Apishipa and the Use of Cheno-­ams and Maize: The Results of Excavations along the Purgatoire River in Southeastern Colorado. Draft manuscript in possession of the authors. Gifford, Edward W. 1932 The North Fork Mono. Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 31(2):15–65. University of California, Berkeley. 1933 The Cocopa. Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 34(4):​ 257–334. University of California, Berkeley. Gilman, Patricia A. 1987 Architecture as Artifact: Pit Structures and Pueblos in the American Southwest. American Antiquity 52:​538–564. Hill, David V. 2002 Petrographic Analysis of Selected Ceramics and Limestone from 42Da791, 42Da545, and 42Dc749. Appendix 2:A in Prehistoric Uinta Mountain Oc­ cupations, by Clay Johnson and Byron Loosle. USFS Heritage Report 2–0/2002, pp. A2:​1–7.



Farming, Foraging, and Remote Storage in Range Creek

185

Hough, Walter 1897 The Hopi in Relation to Their Plant Environment. American Anthropologist 10(2):33–44. Ingold, Tim 1983 The Significance of Storage in Hunting Societies. Man 18:​553–571. Johnson, Clay, and Byron Loosle 2002 Prehistoric Uinta Mountain Occupations. USFS Heritage Report 2-­0/2002. Ashley National Forest, Utah. Kelen, Leslie, and David Sucec 1996 Sacred Images: A Vision of Native American Rock Art. 3rd ed. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Kelly, Isabel 1932 Ethnography of the Surprise Valley Paiute. Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 31(3):67–210. University of California, Berkeley. 1976 Southern Paiute Ethnography. In Paiute Indians I, pp. 11–224. Garland, New York. LeBlanc, Steven A. 1999 Prehistoric Warfare in the American Southwest. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Levy, J. 1992 Orayvi Revisited: Social Stratification in an “Egalitarian” Society. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Madsen, David B. 1986 Prehistoric Ceramics. In Great Basin, edited by W. L. D’Azevedo, pp. 206– 214. Handbook of North American Indians Vol. 11. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Madsen, David B., and Steven R. Simms 1998 The Fremont Complex: A Behavioral Perspective. Journal of World Prehis­ tory 12:​255–336. Madsen, Rex E. 1977 Prehistoric Ceramics of the Fremont. Ceramic Series No. 6. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff. Manning, Steven J. 2003 The Fugitive-­Pigment Anthropomorphs of Eastern Utah: A Shared Cultural Trait Indicating a Temporal Relationship. Utah Rock Art 23:​61–177. Morss, Noel 1954 Clay Figurines of the American Southwest. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 49(1). Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Nash, Robert B. 2010 Maize Storage and Hunting among Northern Periphery Fremont Groups. Paper presented at the 75th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, St. Louis, Missouri. .

186

K. Renee Barlow

Northern Arizona University (NAU) 2014 Anthropology Laboratories Website. http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/ d-­antlab/Pre​ historic%20Pottery/index.htm O’Shea, John 1981 Coping with Scarcity: Exchange and Social Storage. In Economic Archaeol­ ogy: Towards an Integration of Ecological and Social Approaches, edited by A. Sheridan and G. Bailey. BAR International Series 96:​167–183. Oxford, UK. Pennington, Campbell W. 1963 The Tarahumar of Mexico: Their Environment and Material Culture. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Phillips, Kerk L., and K. Renee Barlow 2012 Simple Financial Economic Models of Prehistoric Fremont Maize Storage and an Assessment of External Threat. In Political Economy, Neoliberalism, and the Prehistoric Economies of Latin America, edited by Ty Matejowsky and Donald C. Wood. Research in Economic Anthropology 32:​109–129. Plog, Fred 1979 Prehistory: Western Anasazi. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 9: Southwest, edited by Alfonso Ortiz, pp. 108–130. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Schaafsma, Polly 1971 The Rock Art of Utah. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 1980 Indian Rock Art of the Southwest. Edited by Douglas Schwartz. School of American Research, Santa Fe, New Mexico. 2000 Warrior, Shield and Star: Imagery and Ideology of Pueblo Warfare. Western Edge Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Simms, Steven R. 1986 New Evidence for Fremont Adaptive Diversity. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 8:​204–216. Spangler, Jerry D. 1993 Site Distribution and Settlement Patterns in Lower Nine Mile Canyon: The Brigham Young University Surveys of 1989–91. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. 2000 One-­Pot Pithouses and Fremont Paradoxes. In Intermountain Archaeol­ ogy, edited by D. B. Madsen and M. D. Metcalf, pp. 48–68. Anthropological Papers 122. University of Utah, Salt Lake City. Spier, Leslie 1933 Yuman Tribes of the Gila River. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Steward, Julian 1938 Great Basin Aboriginal Sociopolitical Groups. Smithsonian Institution Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 120. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Talbot, Richard 2002 Fremont Farmers: The Search for Context. In The Archaeology of Regional Interaction: Religion, Warfare, and Exchange Across the American Southwest



Farming, Foraging, and Remote Storage in Range Creek

187

and Beyond, edited by Michelle Hegmon, pp. 275–294. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. Testart, Alain 1982 The Significance of Food Storage among Hunter-­Gatherers: Residence Patterns, Population Densities, and Social Inequalities. Current Anthropology 23:​523–537. Tipps, Betsy L. 1995 Barrier Canyon Rock Art Dating. In Holocene Archaeology near Squaw Butte, Canyonlands National Park, Utah: Selections from the Division of Cul­ tural Resources (7), National Park Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Denver. Towner, Ronald H., Mathew W. Salzer, James A. Parks, and K. Renee Barlow 2009 Assessing the Importance of Past Human Behavior in Dendroarchaeological Research: Examples from Range Creek Canyon, Utah USA. Tree-­ring Research 65(2):117–128. Vander Wall, Stephen B. 1990 Food Hoarding in Animals. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Whiting, Alfred F. 1938 Ethnobotany of the Hopi. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff. Whiteley, Peter M. 2008 The Orayvi Split: A Hopi Transformation. Anthropological Papers No. 87. American Museum of Natural History, New York. Wilke, Philip J., and Meg McDonald 1989 Prehistoric Use of Rock-­Lined Cache Pits: California Deserts and Southwest. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 11:​50–73. Wormington, H. Marie 1955 A Reappraisal of the Fremont Culture: With a Summary of the Archaeology of the Northern Periphery. Denver Museum of Natural History Proceedings No. 1. Yoder, David T. 2005 Storage and Mobility among the Fremont: Changing Forms Through Time. Master’s thesis, Brigham Young University, Department of Anthropology, Provo, Utah. Young, Lisa C. 1996 Pits, Rooms, Baskets, Pots: Storage among Southwestern Farmers. In In­ terpreting Southwestern Diversity: Underlying Principles and Overarching Patterns, edited by Paul R. Fish and J. Jefferson Reid, pp. 201–210. Anthropological Papers No. 48. Arizona State University, Tempe.

CHAPTER 7

Fremont Farming The Nature of Cultivation in Northwestern Colorado, 2000–500 bp

A. Dudley Gardner and William R. Gardner

In northwest Colorado, Fremont residents grew crops and foraged for a variety of plant resources (Burgh and Scoggin 1948; Creasman 1981a, 1981b, 1982; Reed and Metcalf 1999; Wenger 1956). Initially the Fremont were defined by their distinctive material culture, structures, and rock art. Beginning in the early 1980s and continuing until the present, investigators shifted from looking at the specifics of Fremont material culture to examining their behavioral strategies as cultural markers (Madsen and Lindsay 1977; Madsen and Simms 1998). For the people living in northwest Colorado from ad 1 to 1450, this behavioral strategy involved the transition from full-­time foraging to part-­time cultivating. However, it is clear that the Fremont in this area relied less on domestic plants than other Fremont groups and Southwestern farmers. This chapter discusses the diversity of plant resources exploited by the Fremont in northwest Colorado and examines whether plants other than maize were cultivated to meet nutritional needs. To accomplish this, we include a discussion of plant use gleaned from excavation data from several rockshelters in the region, an evaluation of maize storage strategies, and an examination of possible field locations. Until now, maize has been considered the primary cultigen in the area. If this was the case, then it is important to know the potential limits of the 188



Fremont Farming

189

area that was cultivated. We examine this by using granary locations as a proxy for where maize was potentially grown. We then use data on plant use and potential field locations to consider the possibility that plants other than maize were cultivated in an effort to determine if the cultivation of wild plants along with maize led to a distinct subsistence strategy among the Fremont in northwestern Colorado. One basis for this study is the idea that most prehistoric peoples in western North America did not rely completely on domesticated plants for their subsistence base. The transition from gathering wild seeds to growing and harvesting seeds has been portrayed as a giant leap in human social evolution (Harris and Hillman 1989), but in reality it may have been a smaller step (Harlan and de Wet 1965:​19) — ​and one that is closer to foraging systems than we once thought. Transitioning to Agriculture Jacob Freeman (2012:​3008) has proposed two hypotheses to explain why people transition from foraging to agriculture. The first suggests that maize horticulture was initially incorporated into extant systems as a casual subsistence activity that complemented foraging efforts and reduced the risk of food shortages (e.g., Ford 1981; Minnis 1992). The second hypothesis proposes that “a minimum threshold of surplus maize production is necessary in order for maize cultivation to persist as a viable economic strategy” (Freeman 2012:​3008). Freeman (also see Vierra and McBrinn, and Railey, this volume) asks a critical question that has relevance to our study: Why did some “prehistoric foragers initially incorporate domesticated plants into their existing foraging systems [while other] foragers secondarily adopted such plants?” In northwest Colorado, it is possible that foragers cultivated domesticates to enhance their foraging strategies. The region has pockets of rich biodiversity where hunting and gathering would have been an optimal strategy. Freeman (2012:​3009) argues that groups that do not rely totally on cultivation but practice both farming and foraging are following an “ancillary cultivation strategy.” For this strategy to work, two “sociological conditions” must exist. First, “foragers must have access to sufficient wild resources to meet their needs in any particular season, thereby decreasing the negative consequences of crop failure in any particular year” (Freeman 2012:​3009). Second, forgers have to have “social ties established

190

A. Dudley Gardner and William R. Gardner

with ­cultivators who produce surpluses of crop germ plasm [seeds] that are available for exchange.” These conditions allowed foragers to incorporate farming as a supplement to their subsistence base without sacrificing time spent foraging. There are ways to hedge against needing seed storage. Weedy plants often produce excess seeds to ensure continuation of the species even under severe conditions. Thus if foragers cultivated a naturally occurring plant such as chenopodium, then they may not have needed to store seeds from year to year because of excess seed production by these weedy plants. The question then becomes: When does a forager cross the line from being a forager to being a cultivator? Freeman’s (2012) concept of an “ancillary cultivation strategy” may be useful for understanding Fremont subsistence strategies in northwest Colorado. Fremont Subsistence Strategies As noted above, investigators have begun to examine Fremont behavioral strategies as cultural markers, often using settlement and subsistence patterns and their relationship to the environment (Coltrain and Leavitt 2002; Madsen and Schmitt 2005). As an outgrowth of this emphasis, many researchers began to challenge long-­held notions about the Fremont, including their subsistence strategies. Simms (1986) has argued that Fremont groups exhibited fluid subsistence strategies tied to local conditions. According to Madsen (1982:​218), Fremont subsistence and settlement patterns “ranged from sedentary groups dependent on both domesticated and locally procured wild resources, to sedentary groups that relied primarily on local wild resources, to nomadic groups that depended on resources from a variety of ecological zones.” Debate continues over whether groups who relied primarily on local wild resources, especially wetland resources, were sedentary (Simms 2008; see Roth, this volume), but for the most part researchers agree that Fremont subsistence strategies usually included a mix of wild and domesticated resources, with the emphasis varying over time and space. It appears that some Fremont groups were dependent on maize. Coltrain and Leavitt (2002:​454) used stable isotope studies from residential sites outside the Great Salt Lake Basin to argue that “Fremont i­ ndividuals relied as heavily on maize as aboriginal farmers at Mesa Verde, Pecos Pueblo, or Grasshopper Pueblo.” Simms (2008:​214) also used stable ­isotope



Fremont Farming

191

data to show that some groups “ate as much corn as many Anasazi.” But Simms (2008:​215) also found a high degree of variation in subsistence strategies among Fremont groups living in the Great Salt Lake Basin, documenting that some remained focused on foraging for wild plants while others were farmers. Efforts to understand the nature of and variation within Fremont culture led Madsen and others (Madsen 1979; Madsen and Lindsay 1977; Simms 2008) to propose additional regional distinctions for the Fremont based on their adaptability to varying environments, including cold, dry, high-­elevation environments, and the consequent differences in settlement and subsistence strategies. They differentiate between Fremont populations located east of the Wasatch Range (the Uinta and San Rafael Fremont) and those located west of the Wasatch Range (the Sevier Fremont). Despite this variability, throughout the Fremont areas in northwest Colorado and northeast Utah there are consistent similarities in rock art, ceramics, baskets, and granaries (Creasman 1981b; Madsen and Simms 1998; Reed and Metcalf 1999; Janetski et al. 2000; Janetski and Talbot 1997, 2000a, 2000b; Gardner 2009; Gunnerson 2009; see Barlow, this volume). This similarity in cultural material persists despite variability in subsistence strategies, which illustrates a degree of cultural coherency among this diverse group of people (see Searcy and Talbot, this volume). It is not the intent of this study to argue for or against regional distinctions. The important factor highlighted here is that the Fremont were able to adopt and implement subsistence strategies that best fit the environmental niche they occupied. Here we follow Janetski and Talbot (2014:​118) in focusing on dietary differences, “which [are] explained as behavioral responses to temporal and spatial shifts in ecological factors favorable or unfavorable to farming” (see Barlow 2002; Madsen and Simms 1998). Project Area Northwest Colorado is drained by tributaries of the Colorado River. Depending on how the boundaries are defined, the area encompasses two physiographic regions: the Central Rocky Mountains and the Colorado Plateau (Figure 7.1). The region exceeds 5,000 ft (1,524 m) in elevation, ­rising in places to higher than 12,000 ft (3,657.6 m), and it is marked by mesas, canyons, valleys, parks, basins, and peaks. This diversity has created uneven soil quality. Moreover, snow and rainfall are not uniform across the area,

192

A. Dudley Gardner and William R. Gardner

Figure 7.1. Area discussed in text and the major granary clusters in northwestern Colorado.

and because of elevation differences, the length of the growing season varies from place to place. This geographical diversity has fostered biodiversity. Piñon nuts, acorns, chenopodium, grasses, and sunflowers grow where water reaches the soil in sufficient quantities. The rich plant life supports abundant fauna. Throughout the area, deer, mountain sheep, bear, wolves, rabbits, and small mammals thrived. While high elevations and uneven precipitation were variables that made agriculture problematic, maize cultivation emerged in the region about 1,900 years ago along the western reaches of tributaries of the Upper Colorado River (Figure 7.1). The project area was occupied by the Uinta Fremont, who also occupied areas within eastern Utah, northwest Colorado, and, to a lesser extent, southwest Wyoming. It includes three topographical areas: the Uinta Basin, the Douglas Creek/White River drainage system, and Dinosaur National Monument/Green River Arch. The dates of Fremont occupation of this region are still being defined but probably span from about ad 1 to 1500 (Creasman and Scott 1987; Gardner and Clarke 2002a; Gardner et al. 2008a; Liestman 1985; Metcalf and Reed 2011; Reed and Metcalf 1999:​114; Truesdale 1993).



Fremont Farming

193

John Marwitt (1980) first described the Uinta Fremont as inhabiting small hamlets or rancherías consisting of four to six small, shallow pithouses. The cultural deposits associated with these sites are usually thin, suggesting short-­term, possibly seasonal occupations. Marwitt noted that habitation sites were located on knolls, buttes, or hill slopes above floodplains. Anthropomorphic figurines and “Utah” metates (characteristic of western Wasatch Fremont) are generally absent from Uinta sites. Although Marwitt described only small hamlets, more recent work has documented some large villages in the Uinta Basin, including Caldwell Village, White­ rocks, and Steinaker Gap (Talbot and Richens 1996). Marwitt’s description of the Uinta Fremont works reasonably well south and east of Dinosaur National Monument but is not an accurate description overall. Marwitt (1970:​145) noted that the nearby San Rafael Fremont (which Creasman [1981b:300] considers to include the Douglas Creek Fremont) relied heavily on small caves and rockshelters for both storage and habitation. He interpreted these as representing temporary or intermittent occupations associated with seasonal hunting and gathering. The Kuck site in the Douglas Creek drainage, however, contains an elaborate two-­room wooden structure and stone-­walled structures, indicating a more intensive occupation (Creasman 1981a, 1981b; Gardner et. al. 2004). Fremont Plant Use in Northwest Colorado The northwest Colorado Fremont have long been considered maize cultivators (e.g. Creasman 1981b; Hadden 1999; Wenger 1956). Maize was used in this area as early as ad 1 (Cummings, Puseman, and Yost 2008, 2010; Gardner et al. 2008a, 2008b; Truesdale 1993:​9) and as late as ad 1450 (Creasman and Scott 1987; Gardner et.al. 2008a, 2008b; Reed and Metcalf 1999). A corn kernel recovered at Eagle Point Rock Shelter, adjacent to the Gunnison River in west-­central Colorado, dated to ad 57 ± 44 (1940 ± 40 bp) (Gardner 2014), representing the earliest maize in this region. Maize is viewed as the iconic symbol of plant domestication in the area  and the sole diagnostic marker of agriculture. The possibility that other plants might have been cultivated has received little consideration outside of Hadden’s (1999) early argument for Chenopodium cultivation in the Douglas Creek drainage. We argue here that the possibility that other crops might have been cultivated by these Fremont groups should be ­considered.

194

A. Dudley Gardner and William R. Gardner

As early as the 1970s, data from a number of sites began to indicate that a range of plants were significant to the Fremont. Helianthus (sunflowers), Chenopodium, Typha angustifolia (cattails), and Pinus edulis (piñon) were identified in the pollen and macrofloral records at Fremont sites in northwest Colorado (Creasman 1977, 1981a, 1981b; Creasman and Scott 1987; Creasman et al. 1977; LaPoint et al. 1981). Some of these early studies found elevated chenopodium and Pinus pollen in conjunction with maize pollen (LaPoint et al. 1981: Appendix D: 5RB748:​2). Chenopodium was identified as a significant part of the diet at the Edge site (5RB748) (LaPoint et al. 1981). Later studies continued to identify these plant pollens in excavated contexts (Gardner et al. 2004, 2008a; Cummings and Puseman 2006b). While the pollen data show that a variety of plants were used by the Fremont in this region during the Formative period, other data sets that pointed to consumption or planting of diverse plant resources were lacking. Excavations conducted in the last two decades are beginning to enlarge the data set so that now we can consider what other plants might have been cultivated in the region (Madsen and Simms 1998; Gardner et al. 2008a, 2008b; Reed and Metcalf 2009). From 1999 to the present, excavations at White Coyote Draw (Gardner and Clarke 2002b), the Kuck site (Gardner, Lammers, and Gardner 2008), “the granary”, Hammond Draw (Gardner and Lammers 2012), and Eagle Point (Gardner et al. 2007, 2008a, 2008b) have generated macrofloral, phytolith, and pollen results that shed light on the diversity of diet and nature of plant use by the Fremont in northwest Colorado. Eagle Point Rockshelter Located in northwest Colorado’s Piceance Valley, Eagle Point is a multicomponent rockshelter site that lies on the west side of Piceance Creek. Sandstone cliffs line the northward-­flowing creek that gives the valley its name. The cliffs contain rockshelters that provided prehistoric habitation sites (Grady 1980; Hauck 2003). Piceance Creek was a year-­round water source that not only watered farm fields but provided ideal conditions for growing cattails (Typha). The Piceance Valley shows evidence of a Fremont occupation. Fremont sites in this valley differ slightly from those along Douglas Creek, 21 miles to the west. For example, no masonry granaries have yet been found in the



Fremont Farming

195

Piceance Valley. Within the rockshelters in this canyon, the Fremont used brush shelters and storage pits. The Piceance Valley also contains rock art panels that have been attributed to the Fremont (e.g., 5RB5848, elements of 5RB5450, and 5RB297). We consider the Formative period occupants in the area to share cultural similarities with the Uinta Fremont, noting, however, that Eagle Point rockshelter provides evidence of the variability present within the Fremont tradition. Fourteen occupation horizons were identified at Eagle Point, nine of which date to the Formative period (Table 7.1). During excavation, we took multiple macrofloral samples from all occupation horizons, the vast majority of which came from the Formative period horizons. Moreover, most of the macrofloral samples examined from Eagle Point were from cultural levels rather than thermal features (Cummings, Puseman, and Yost 2008:​57). The Formative period horizons contained abundant evidence of cheno­ podium. In the case of the occupation horizon that dates to ad 309 ± 53 (1730 ± 40 bp), 9 of 10 macrofloral samples contained charred cheno-­ams. In all, 792 charred fragments and seeds were found in this occupation level. In the occupation level dating to ad 475 ± 41 (1590 ± 15BP), one macro­ floral sample (35M) produced 4,748 charred cheno-­am seeds and fragments (Cummings, Puseman, and Yost 2008:​70–71). However, the greatest number of cheno-­am seeds came from the horizon that dates to ad 996 ± 27 (1030 ± 40 bp). In sample 49M alone, 1,030 charred cheno-­am and 16,734 charred Atriplex seeds and fragments were found (Cummings, Puseman, and Yost 2008:​85–86). In fact, only one of the 26 processed macrofloral samples did not have burned cheno-­am seeds. Sites in the nearby Douglas Creek valley, west of Eagle Point, also have Formative period horizons with evidence of chenopodium p ­ rocessing. These include Talus Shelter, with a Formative period occupation date of ad 685 ± 96 (1360 ± 100 bp), and the Edge site (5RB748), which had a horizon that dated to ad 1000 and yielded a pollen sample containing Zea mays (7 percent) and a high percentage of cheno-­ams (40 percent) (LaPoint et al.1981: Appendix D). Cattail pollen has been found in most of the major Fremont sites we have excavated in the area (Gardner et al. 2007; Gardner, Lammers, and Gardner 2008). Cattail stands would have been important because they fulfill a variety of nutritional needs, and parts of the plant are relatively high

18309 220163 222043 222044 222045 212282 211888 207904 Paleo 263863 192799 192798 243059 Paleo 18310 216425 207905 192800 222404 Paleo 207906 Paleo 211370 212970 18308 18307

Hauck AS 6 AS 78 AS 77 AS 80 AS 149 FS 47 AS 42 77 2009.b AS 8 AS7

Paleo Hauck As 1 AS 43 AS 9 AS 98 561 AS 44 74 AS 138 AS 150 Hauck Hauck

Beta #

FS/AS

380 ± 70 bp 400 ± 40 bp 560 ± 40 bp 570 ± 40 bp 930 ± 40 bp 1010 ± 40 bp 1030 ± 40 bp 1060 ± 50 bp 1240 ± 15 bp 1400 ± 60 bp 1420 ± 40 bp 1480 ± 60 bp 1560 ± 40 bp 1590 ± 15 bp 1600 ± 60 bp 1730 ± 40 bp 1730 ± 100 bp 1760 ± 60 bp 1810 ± 40 bp 1865 ± 25 bp 1940 ± 40 bp 1980 ± 20 bp 2050 ± 50 bp 2510 ± 40 bp 4130 ± 70 bp 4350 ± 90 bp

Charcoal Charred material Charred material Charcoal Juniper charcoal Charred material Artemisia charcoal Charcoal Charcoal

Wood carbon Grass Leaf Grass Grass Grass mat fragment Hide fragment Wood Corn cob on a stick Digging stick Charred material Charred material Canary grass Strata containing Zea pollen

Conventional Sample ­Radiocarbon Age Identification

Table 7.1. Radiocarbon dates from Eagle Point (5RB4662)

14 14 13 13 12 12 12 12 11 10 10 10 9 9 9 8 8 8 7 6 5 5 4 3 2 1 −2.21 −0.63 −1.11 −1.515 −2.14 −.77 −.97 to 1.13 −1.95 to 1.97 isolate

−1.12 −1.10 −1.38

−1.46 to 1.48 −1.75 −1.83 −1.93 −.96 −1.15 −2.7 −1.41

5.20S to 5.32S   2W 10.60S 3.00W 0.19N 1.07W 6.12S 2.08W 2N 1W 10.63S 2.60W 10S 3W 8.15S 3.57W Cut bank

unknown 1.31N to 1.51N   1.56 W 1.76N 1.72W 1.99N 1.52W 2.08N 1.72W 7.70S 3.28w 7.38S 2.85W 11.51S 3.02W 4.74S 2.15W (Cummings 2005) Found in monitor by Hauck 0.89N 1.05W 0.06N 1.10W 5.72S 2.88W (Cummings 2005)

Cultural Elevation (bVCP, Horizon in meters) Provenience

10 6 6 6 7 7 7 8

4 4 4 5

1 2 2 3 3 3 3 3

7 12

14

5

15 16 17 16 8 9

Excavation Feature Level Number



Fremont Farming

197

in calories (Barlow 2006). Cummings (2012:​1) notes that “Typha might have been protected and stands might have been owned, but since they propagate via roots, they are less likely to have been sown.” One of the more significant finds at Eagle Point was a storage pit that had been reused as a refuse pit (Feature 5). This feature dated to ad 745 ± 31 (1240 ± 15 bp) and has been the focus of extensive analysis (Gardner 2009; Gardner et al. 2007, 2008a, 2008b). The pit contained maize cobs and dent corn kernels, cordage, possible wooden projectile points, and coprolites. Feature 5 was sealed by a roof collapse dated to ad 745 that formed an almost perfect seal over the deposits, such that there were no intrusions into the feature afterward. While the site may have been briefly abandoned after the roof fell, people did return to live there; occupation continued on and off for another 800 years until 1522 ± 72 (400 ± 40 bp). Pollen and macrofloral remains from the coprolites in Feature 5 and pollen washes of ground stone that date to the Formative period all indicate that corn was grown and processed adjacent to the site. The coprolites show that while the inhabitants grew corn, they also consumed chenopodium, sunflowers, piñon nuts, a variety of grasses, and cattail (Cummings and Puseman 2006a, 2006b, 2007, 2008). Similarly, pollen washes from ground stone indicate that these plants were processed at the site. Thus, at Eagle Point we may have what Barlow (2006) calls a maximization of “the marginal rate at which people produced food.” Six coprolites (four human, two Canid) were analyzed from Eagle Point Rockshelter. All four human coprolites date to the Formative period and came from Feature 5. The samples were analyzed for macrofloral remains, starch, parasites, pollen, and phytoliths (Table 7.2). The coprolites were all deposited within a short period of time, so the similarities and differences in the samples show the consistency and breadth of diet of the individuals inhabiting the site around ad 795 (1240 bp). Evidence of grass seed consumption was found in all human coprolites, represented by elevated levels of Poaceaea pollen (Table 7.2; Cummings, Puseman, and Yost 2008). The phytolith record was dominated by dendriform phytoliths, which are produced in the bracts surrounding the seeds of many wild and domesticated cool-­season grasses such as fescue barley, wild rye, needle grass, and ricegrass (Cummings, Puseman, and Yost 2008:​ 1–2). The significance of chenopodium in the diet of individuals at Eagle Point and the consumption of cattails, sunflower, and piñon nuts is also documented in the coprolite data (Table 7.2). Sample FS 20 was the only

198

A. Dudley Gardner and William R. Gardner

Table 7.2. Macrofloral samples and phytolith and starch summary from ­coprolites from the 2008 excavations at Eagle Point ChenoPinus podium Sample edulis Seeds and Helianthus Number (Piñon) Fragments (­Sunflower)

FS90 FS105 FS106 758B

348

48 1 10 0

12

Poaceae Phytolith

Dendriforms Dendriforms Dendriforms Dendriforms

Atriplex Typha ChenoSeeds and Starch podium Fragments Granules Pollen

11 33 101 0

Present Present Present Present Present Present

coprolite that contained evidence for the consumption of maize (Table 7.2), but the recovery of stored maize in Feature 5 indicates that it was consumed at the site. One outlier in the pollen record was from Sample FS 106, which contained Gossypiun-­type pollen. Cummings argues that this pollen could suggest “the possibility that cottonseed oil was consumed or perhaps cotton was worked by the person represented” (Cummings, Puseman, and Yost 2008:​3–4). The nonfloral remains also depict diversity in the diet, and include bone and feather fragments, rodent claws, and insect fragments. Hair from humans, rabbits, raccoon, chipmunk, mountain sheep, and bobcat was also found. Evidence of parasites was found in only one individual who had an abundance of Trichuris (whipworm) parasite eggs (Cummings, Puseman, and Varney 2008:​4). The Canid coprolites provide comparative data. One found in the stratum directly above Feature 5 contained rabbit and mountain sheep hair. This animal probably also ate human fecal material (based on the antiserum analysis) and chewed cool-­season grasses. “The dog probably also had parasites, as an unidentified type of parasite egg was observed in great abundance” (Cummings, Puseman, and Varney 2008:​5). The other canid sample came from within Feature 5. It contained feather fragments from an unidentified bird. The animal also ate ground squirrel and exhibited no evidence of parasites (Cummings et al. 2010:​14–17). Kuck Shelter Excavations conducted at another site, Kuck Shelter (5RB3157), provide further evidence of plant use in the area (Gardner et al. 2004). The rockshelter is located in an upland area with piñon, juniper, and a few ponderosa pines.



Fremont Farming

199

Several seeps are present, and the site inhabitants would have had access to a variety of plants and wildlife. Radiocarbon dates indicate that the site was occupied from 1350 bc to ad 1050 (3500 to 1000 bp) (Table 7.3). Sometime between ad 940 and 1020 (1100 and 1000 bp), the inhabitants at Kuck constructed a wooden structure made from piñon, pine, juniper, and grass (Gardner et al. 2004). One of the pine beams used in construction provided a cutting date of ad 951. This structure collapsed, but because it was in a dry shelter, cedar mats, arrow shafts, and grass thatching were all preserved. Of particular interest was the paleobotanical data for the Formative period occupation at the site (Cummings and Puseman 2003a). Several features dating to the Formative period contained maize kernels, but Feature 14, a clay-­lined hearth discussed below, contained the most. Corn cobs were also found in Feature 1, a bark mat, and Feature 3, an ash dump. Phytolith analysis indicated that these two cobs grew under differing conditions, as the phytoliths from the cob in Feature 1 are significantly larger than those from the cob from Feature 3, despite being from the same genetic strain (Cummings and Puseman 2003a:12). These cobs may have been grown in different years or planted in different settings (Cummings and Puseman 2003a:12). Feature 14 was a clay-­lined hearth dating to ad 880 ± 76 (1140 ± 60 bp) (Cummings and Puseman 2003a:12; Gardner et al. 2004). The feature contained 119 charred chenopodium seeds, 2 sunflower seeds, and 21 maize kernels. Maize pollen was found on the occupation surface adjacent to the feature. The pollen record from the floor adjacent to the hearth also produced pollen consistent with processing cheno-­ams (Cummings and Puseman 2003a:17). This is corroborated by the recovery of elevated cheno-­am and Poaceae pollen from a mano associated with the feature, suggesting that both types of seeds were ground (Cummings and Puseman 2003a:17). Fremont Granaries and Maize Cultivation in Northwest Colorado The distribution of granaries within northwest Colorado can be used to further evaluate Fremont use of maize. Granaries were used to store maize and thus are one of the best indicators of maize cultivation. In the area drained by the Green River there are six major granary clusters and one outlier (Figure 7.1). The clusters are significant in size and type; they illustrate variability in construction and distribution, but also

19

9 9 15

8N 9E 7.67 N 6.81 E

8N10E

100N 99E

67 9 66

170809 159367 170808

182817

182818

3(X)

3230 ± 60 bp 3390 ± 70 bp 3530 ± 60 bp

2230 ± 40 bp

1760 ± 40 bp

ad 951 1090 ± 50 bp 1130 ± 60 bp 1140 ± 60 bp 1470 ± 40 bp

Tree Ring 135360 159366 159365 170807

Co2 10 107 3

Feature FS/AS No.

13 14 14b

Provenience

Conventional ­ adiocarbon Age R (or Tree-Ring Date)

Beta ­ umber N

Table 7.3. Radiocarbon dates from charcoal at Kuck Shelter (5RB3157)

1635–1400 bc 1880–1520 bc 2020–1700 bc

390–185 bc

ad 155–390

ad 870–1025 ad 770–1020 ad 770–1010 ad 425–615

2-Sigma ­ Calibrated Results

1505 bc 1690 bc 1885 bc

360 bc 280 bc 240 bc

ad 255

ad 980 ad 900 ad 900 ad 540

Intercept of ­Radiocarbon Age with Calibration Curve

16 18 16

27a

33b

11 19 26, 27 19

Context



Fremont Farming

201

Figure 7.2. Granary along Douglas Creek.

­ ocument that maize storage and cultivation extended over a broad area. d They include Brown’s Park, Lizard Canyon (Skull Creek), Blue Mountain, Echo Canyon, Douglas Creek, Shavetail Basin, and Calico. Calico is the single granary not in a cluster and may have been strategically located. From the hilltop above the granary is a view that encompasses all of the southern Wyoming Basin. Corn cobs have been found in granaries in each of the clusters. The granaries still evident today are preserved under overhangs. In the Douglas Creek drainage, stone and adobe construction dominates, as is the case in most other clusters (Figure 7.2); however, in Brown’s Park some granaries were constructed using wattle and daub (Figure 7.3). One excavated granary (5RB705) within a cluster near Douglas Creek has provided additional information on these features (Gardner et al. 2005, 2008). Sometime in the late 1990s the cliff wall behind the granary collapsed and exposed the interior of the feature, so it was excavated to stabilize it and ultimately reconstruct the destroyed portions. A total of 273 maize cobs were recovered, one of which dated to ad 1220 ± 31 (805 + 40 bp) (Gardner et al. 2005, 2008). Phytolith analysis on another cob led Cummings and Puseman (2003b) to note that the “phytoliths measured in this cob compare favorably in shape with those recovered from two cobs from the Kuck site,” indicating that it is probably “Fremont maize.”

202

A. Dudley Gardner and William R. Gardner

Figure 7.3. Brown’s Park granary made from wattle and daub, dated to ad 1317 ± 45 (700 ± 30 bp). Patch points on the granary show where a different-colored adobe was used to repair it over time.

No maize pollen was found in the granary, but this is not particularly surprising. The granary is upwind from the benches where corn could grow, so pollen would not be expected. What is significant is the broad distribution of granaries in the area, as they indicate not only maize cultivation but also storage. Fremont Field Locations in Northwest Colorado Another way to examine Fremont cultivation strategies is to investigate possible field locations. Among Ancient Pueblo groups in the American Southwest, the triad of corn, beans, and squash is often used to identify plant cultivation in prehistoric farm fields; however, squash and beans do not appear to have been used extensively in northwestern Colorado. Without the triadic pollen signatures found elsewhere, identifying the locations of farm fields in northwest Colorado is problematic. To aid in field identification, maize pollen has been used as a proxy for where maize might have



Fremont Farming

203

been planted. This is based on the assumption that maize pollen recovered from occupation sites indicates that the fields were nearby because corn pollen does not travel far. Most researchers studying the locations of agricultural fields note that climatic variability greatly affects where agriculture occurs. Dominguez and Kolm (2005:​732) argue that it is essential to “determine the relationships among settlement locations, landscape attributes, climate change, and prehistoric agricultural productivity by determining areas that could be farmed and climatic limits on crop production.” The primary limiting factors to growing crops are consistent across environments and include water, soil, and elevation. As Dominguez and Kolm (2005:​732) note, research into where people choose to grow crops requires developing “accurate models of agricultural technology and soil moisture balance in order to estimate crop production across a landscape with variable climate conditions.” Dominguez and Kolm (2005) argue that there are two strategies for efficiently using water. The first involves selecting field locations with soils that accumulate and retain high levels of moisture. Planting crops in the floodplain of Piceance Creek, for example, would follow this strategy. The second strategy involves clearing, planting, and maintenance practices that take advantage of moisture stored within the soil (Dominguez and Kolm 2005:​737). James Grady (1980) felt that he had identified “Fremont fields” in the Piceance Basin via remote sensing using aerial photography. The recently developed Probability of Agricultural Land-­use Model (PALM) (Gardner 2009) has also used remote sensing to locate optimal locations for Formative period agriculture in present-­day Garfield, Rio Blanco, and Moffat Counties in northwestern Colorado. This model suggests that approximately 1,000 square miles (260,000 hectares) were optimal for practicing cultivation in this region. Based on PALM, there are several localities that are optimal for practicing cultivation along Piceance Creek, including its valley and the mesa tops nearby. In the valley, the soils laid down by stream deposits are relatively deep and close to water. Eagle Point Rockshelter sits on the edge of this rich alluvial deposit. The prevalence of maize pollen at Eagle Point suggests that a field was nearby. Maize pollen has been found at other Fremont sites in the area in locales that suggest a preference for planting corn along valley floors (Creasman 1981; Cummings et al. 2005). There are also scattered soil deposits on the

204

A. Dudley Gardner and William R. Gardner

mesa tops that retain water, identified by modern rabbitbrush and Indian ricegrass stands. In the Douglas Creek drainage, corn pollen has been found at sites along mesa edges, suggesting that mesas were also cultivated (LaPoint et al. 1981). Ethnographic and historic accounts detail how farmers in arid regions, such as the Hopi of northeastern Arizona, plant crops at more than one location during each planting season as a buffering system, so if the crop at one place fails, the others may still be productive (Kennard 1979:​554–555). This may have been a strategy practiced by the Fremont in northwest Colorado in response to the risks involved in cultivation. For Fremont farmers, other plants cultivated alongside maize would have corresponded to what they knew would ensure a return on their investment of time and energy. Farmers in other cultures consider diverse plants growing in or near their fields as a bonus to their efforts rather than as weeds (Harlan and de Wet 1965:​19). Based on recent research, including our work at Eagle Point Rockshelter, it may be safely postulated that Fremont farm fields in northwestern Colorado contained maize, chenopodium, and sunflowers. These fields likely acted as tethers for occupation, given that maize has to be tended to ensure that shoots and plants are not eaten by deer or other grazers. In addition, it appears that the fields were located near patches of other critical resources such as cattail and piñon. The amount of chenopodium pollen in the Formative period occupation levels at Eagle Point suggests that it was grown nearby or even in disturbed soils at the site. According to Kendra McLauchlin (2003:​557–566), chenopodium pollen in elevated amounts can indicate cultivation. Elevated chenopodium counts occur in a variety of Formative period habitation localities in northwest Colorado and suggest that the plant may have been cultivated nearby (Creasman 1981a; Cummings et al. 2005; LaPoint et al. 1981). Far afield from northwest Colorado, there is a clear indication of multi-­cropping of chenopodium with maize by the Quechua in Peru (Mujicia et al. 2003:​150–151). It is also possible that other grasses were cultivated along with maize. Grass was evident in all human fecal material analyzed at Eagle Point (Cummings, Puseman, and Yost 2008; Cummings et al. 2010). It probably came from nearby stands of wild grass, but it is possible that its growth was encouraged. Grasses would have been especially prolific in the Piceance Valley, and it is possible that the ground was tilled so that corn was planted



Fremont Farming

205

in the midst of grass. The question then becomes whether this was done in a way that enhanced grass, sunflower, and chenopodium growth? That question should be addressed via careful study of plant seed size, genetics, and pollen fingerprint. Maize can be choked by other plants, however, so permitting plants to grow adjacent to corn is a complex situation. Discussion and Conclusion Excavations conducted at a variety of Fremont sites in northwestern ­Colorado have provided evidence of maize cultivation and storage along with the use of a variety of other plants (Gardner and Clarke 2002b; Gardner et al. 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008; Gardner, Lammers et al. 2008a, 2008b; Gardner 2009; Gardner and Lammers 2012). Excavations at Eagle Point Rock Shelter have enhanced our understanding of maize use by the Fremont in this area. Corn pollen has been found in almost all Formative period features and strata at the site, bracketed between ad 475 ± 41 and 1522 ± 72 (1590 ± 15 and 400 ± 40 bp), and the recovery of maize cobs and kernels in these deposits indicates that maize was being cultivated nearby and stored at the site. Plants other than maize may have been grown near the site. Paleo­ botanical data point to the consumption of chenopodium, sunflower, cattails, piñon nuts, Indian ricegrass, and a variety of other grasses. Given the abundance of these plants in the paleobotanical assemblage — ​especially chenopodium, sunflower, and grasses — ​it is possible that these plants were experiencing some form of manipulation. Cummings (2012:​1) contends that they may have been “encouraged” but not domesticated, as she argues that “there does not appear to have been any serious selection for replanting.” She goes on to note that the chenopodium remains at Eagle Point fell into the “encouraged, tended, sown” category (Cummings 2012:1). Sun­flowers and some grasses may also have been encouraged, tended, and sown. It has long been known that Native Americans cultivated chenopodium (Asch and Asch 1977; Germillion 1993; McLauchlin 2003; Smith 1984, 1985a, 1985b; Smith and Cowan 1987; Smith and Funk 1985). Larger seeds have been considered evidence of domestication, but seed size in chenopodium is variable even when domesticated. The variation in chenopodium seed size in the archaeological record at Eagle Point — ​combined with the pollen, other macrofloral remains (Cummings et al. 2008), and fecal material — ​ ­allows us to consider the possibility that chenopodium was cultivated at or near Eagle Point.

206

A. Dudley Gardner and William R. Gardner

No granaries have been located in the Piceance drainage. Instead storage features consist of pits. Other storage may have been done; foods may have been stored in perishable materials that did not preserve. There are numerous granaries in Douglas Creek, which is only 21 miles (34 km) from Eagle Point. If the Piceance farmers were reliant on the Douglas Creek Fremont for seed, then it would fit Freeman’s (2012:​3009) model, which contends that forgers have to have “social ties established with cultivators who produce surpluses of crop germ plasm [seeds] that are available for exchange.” If that system breaks down, then the cultivation of plants such as maize may have suffered. Another possibility deserves consideration, however. Spangler (2013:​ 162–163) argues that Fremont farmers in Utah may have had contingency fields far away from main settlements. In Desolation Canyon along the Green River, Fremont farmers may have tended fields “10 or 20 or 30 miles from the main population centers in Nine Mile and Range Creek” (­Spangler 2013:​162–163). In the case of Eagle Point, the brush shelters may have housed seasonal farmers. The lack of granaries in the Eagle Point area could indicate that harvested corn was taken to settlements and storage facilities elsewhere. Farm fields seem to be scattered and placed where optimal returns were assured. This may represent what Simms (2008:​216–217) refers to as “a portfolio of fields in a variety of small settings [that] hedged the risk of farming.” With fields and granaries spread over wide distances, access to patches of husbanded wild plant resources would also have been possible. Current data indicate that corn cultivation ended in the region by ad 1420 to 1460 (500 to 400 bp). If the Fremont abandoned maize agriculture due to some food shortage, then corn cobs with kernels on them would not have been left in storage features. Instead there was probably a systemic change that ended the practice of growing maize. What caused that transformation is beyond the scope of this chapter, but it may have been caused by a changing environment, outside pressure, or simply choosing to rely on wild resources. The groups who occupied the area after ad 1420 to 1460 (500 to 400 bp) hunted, gathered, and maybe “encouraged” grass and cheno­podium to grow, but they did not store or grow maize. The Fremont in northwest Colorado were cultivators. Freeman’s (2012) argument described above notes that foraging dominates among “ancillary cultivators.” We suggest that the success of Fremont “ancillary cultivators” in northwest Colorado lay in cultivating both maize and plants like cheno­



Fremont Farming

207

podium that are considered weeds in modern societies but were viable crops for groups such as the Fremont. Our contention here is that maize, chenopodium, sunflowers, and perhaps grasses were sown and harvested; the level at which this occurred is and should be the subject of additional research. Acknowledgments We appreciate the kindness extended by the White River Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management, Meeker, Colorado, for allowing our field schools to research and work within the resource area. Particularly we are grateful to Barbara Roth, PhD, Mike Selle, Glade Hadden, and Dan Haas. Vice President Ken Fitschen and Associate Vice President Sandy Caldwell at Western Wyoming Community College make our field schools possible. Our greatest thanks for 2008 and 2009 is owed to Exxon Mobil, which helped make this research possible. Western Wyoming College conducts this research to enhance education and to provide a public service to the White River Resource Area Field Office in Meeker, Colorado. Thanks also goes to those who aided in analysis and the field crew, specifically Kathy Puseman, Murl Dirksen, Richard Jones, Linda Scott Cummings, Emma Perret, Chad Yost, Russell Gibbs, Jon Horn, Jamie Young, Daniel McCurdy, Adreanna Jensen, Gabrielle Elliott, Martin Lammers, and Carlee Drew Hutchinson.

References Asch, David L., and Nancy B. Asch 1977 Chenopod as Cultigen: A Re-­evaluation of some Prehistoric Collections from Eastern North America. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 2(1):​ 3–45. Barlow, K. Renee 2002 Predicting Maize Agriculture among the Fremont: An Economic Comparison of Farming and Foraging in the American Southwest. American Antiq­ uity 67:​56–88. 2006 A Formal Model for Predicting Agriculture among the Fremont. In Behav­ ioral Ecology and the Transition to Agriculture, edited by D. J. Kennett and B. Winterhalder, pp. 87–102. University of California Press, Berkeley. Burgh, Robert F., and Charles R. Scoggin 1948 The Archaeology of Castle Park Dinosaur National Monument. University of Colorado Press, Boulder. Coltrain, Joan Brenner, and Steven W. Leavitt 2002 Archaeology, Climate and Diet in Fremont Prehistory: Economic Variability and Abandonment of Maize Agriculture in the Great Salt Lake Basin. Amer­ ican Antiquity 67(3):453–485. Creasman, Steven D. 1977 Preliminary Report on the Inventory of Cultural Resources in the Canyon Pintado Historic District. Colorado State University, Fort Collins.

208

A. Dudley Gardner and William R. Gardner

1981a Archaeological Investigations in the Canyon Pintado Historic District, Rio Blanco County, Colorado. Reports of the Laboratory of Public Archaeology No. 34. Colorado State University, Fort Collins. 1981b Archaeological Investigations in the Canyon Pintado Historic District. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins. 1982 Rock Art of the Canyon Pintado National Historic District. Southwestern Lore 48(4):1–3. Creasman, Steven D., Calvin H. Jennings, Kevin T. Jones, and Jo Ann Christein 1977 Partial Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Canyon Pintado Historic Dis­ trict, Rio Blanco County, Colorado. Reports of the Laboratory of Public Archaeology No. 4. Colorado State University, Fort Collins. Creasman, Steven D., and Linda J. Scott 1987 Texas Creek Overlook: Evidence for Late Fremont (post ad 1200) Occupation in Northwest Colorado.” Southwestern Lore 53(4):1–16. Cummings, Linda Scott 2012 Personal communication. May 7, 2012, email on file. Western Wyoming Community College, Rock Springs. Cummings, Linda Scott, and Kathryn Puseman 2003a Pollen, Starch, Macrofloral, and Corn Cob Analyses at the Kuck Site (5RB3157), Rio Blanco County, Colorado. Paleo-­Research Institute Technical Reports 01–61, 01–90, 01–98, and 02–99. Prepared for Western Wyoming College, Rock Springs. 2003b Zea Mays Cob and a Twig Recovered from 5RB705, Western Colorado. Paleo-­Research Institute Technical Report 03–62. Prepared for Western Wyoming College, Rock Springs. 2006a Preliminary Report, Archaeobotanic Analysis of Samples from Eagle Point, Colorado. Paleo-­Research Institute Technical Report 04–99/05–66. Prepared for Western Wyoming College, Rock Springs. 2006b Archaeobotanic Analysis of Samples from Eagle Point, Colorado. Paleo-­ Research Institute Technical Report 04–99/05–66. Prepared for Western Wyoming College, Rock Springs. 2007 Email Exchange regarding Samples from Eagle Point. Paleo-­Research Institute, Golden, Colorado. 2008 Email Report for Samples from Eagle Point. Spring 2008. Paleo-­Research Institute, Golden, Colorado. Cummings, Linda Scott, Kathryn Puseman, and R. A. Varney 2008 Email Report for Coprolite Samples from Eagle Point, Spring 2008. Paleo-­ Research Institute, Golden, Colorado. Cummings, Linda Scott, Kathryn Puseman, and Chad Yost 2008 Archaeobotanic Analysis of Samples from Ongoing Excavations at the ­Eagle Point Site, 5RB4662, Colorado. Technical Report 04–99/05–66. Paleo-­ Research Institute, Golden, Colorado. Cummings, Linda Scott, R. A. Varney, and Kathryn Puseman 2005 Archaeobotanic Analysis of Samples from Eagle Point, Colorado. Paleo-­



Fremont Farming

209

Research Institute Technical Report 04–99. Prepared for Western Wyoming College, Rock Springs. Cummings, Linda Scott, Chad Yost, Kathryn Puseman, and Melissa K. Logan 2010 Pollen, Phytolith, Starch, Parasite, Macro Floral, and Organic ­Residue (FTIR) Analysis of Coprolitic Material from the Eagle Point Shelter (5RB4662), Rio Blanco County, Colorado. Technical Report 10–66. Paleo-­ Research Institute, Golden, Colorado. Dominguez, Steven, and Kenneth E. Kolm 2005 Beyond Water Harvesting: A Soil Hydrology Perspective on Traditional Southwestern Agricultural Technology. American Antiquity 70:​732–765. Ford, R. 1981 Ethnobotany in North America: An Historical Phytogeographic Perspective. Canadian Journal of Botany — ​Revue Canadienne de Botanique 59:2178–2188. Freeman, Jacob 2012 Alternative Adaptive Regimes for Integrating Foraging and Farming Activities. Journal of Archaeological Science 39(9):3008–3017. Gardner, A. Dudley 2014 Radiocarbon Assays from Eagle Point and Eagle Rock Excavations. Ms. on file at the White River and Uncompahgre Resource Area, Bureau of Land Management, Colorado. Ms. also on file at Western Wyoming Community College, Rock Springs. Gardner, A. Dudley, and Barbara Clarke 2002a The Fremont and Plant Resources Along the Colorado-­Wyoming Border. Wyoming Archaeologist 46(1) (Spring):5–13. 2002b Excavations at the White Coyote Draw Site, 5RB2215. Ms. on file, White River Resource Area Office of the Bureau of Land Management, Meeker. Also on file at Western Wyoming Community College, Rock Springs. Gardner, A. Dudley, and Martin Lammers 2012 Investigations at the Hammond Draw Cave Site 5RB4254. Ms. on file, White River Resource Area Office of the Bureau of Land Management, Meeker. Also on file at Western Wyoming Community College, Rock Springs. Gardner, A. Dudley, Gabrielle Elliott, and Melissa Pola 2005 Granaries in the Douglas Creek Drainage Basin. Presented at the Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologist (CCPA) Conference, Grand Junction, Colorado. Gardner, A. Dudley, Martin Lammers, Jessica Brinkerhoff 2007 Report of Excavations at Eagle Point 5RB4662. Ms. on file, White River Resource Area Office of the Bureau of Land Management, Meeker. Also on file at Western Wyoming Community College, Rock Springs. Gardner, A. Dudley, Martin Lammers, and William Gardner 2008 Revised Preliminary Report for the Kuck Rock Shelter. Ms. on file, White River Resource Area Office of the Bureau of Land Management, Meeker, Colorado. Also on file at Western Wyoming Community College, Rock Springs.

210

A. Dudley Gardner and William R. Gardner

Gardner, A. Dudley, Martin Lammers, William R. M. Gardner, and Laura Pasacreta 2008a Eagle Point (5RB4662): May 2008 Report. Ms. on file, White River Resource Area Office of the Bureau of Land Management, Meeker. Also on file at Western Wyoming Community College, Rock Springs. 2008b Eagle Point (5RB4662): December 2008 Report. Ms. on file, White River Resource Area Office of the Bureau of Land Management, Meeker. Also on file at Western Wyoming Community College, Rock Springs. Gardner, A. Dudley, Martin Lammers, and Glade Hadden 2004 Interim Excavation Report, Kuck Shelter. Ms. on file, White River Resource Area Office of the Bureau of Land Management, Meeker, Colorado. Also on file at Western Wyoming Community College, Rock Springs. Gardner, A. Dudley, Laura Pasacreta, Drew Hutchinson, and Gabrielle Elliott 2008 Cultigens and Storage Facilities During the Formative Period in Northwestern Colorado 800–1200 bp. 73rd Annual Society of American Archaeology Meeting, Vancouver, British Columbia. Gardner, A. Dudley, Jana V. Pastor, William M. Gardner, Kevin W. Thompson, Laura Pasacreta, Melisa Pola, and Jesse Hadden 2003 Eagle Point Shelter (5RB4662), Archaeological Data Recovery and Treatment Plan. Ms. on file, White River Resource Area Office of the Bureau of Land Management, Meeker. Also on file at Western Wyoming Community College, Rock Springs. Gardner, William R. M. 2009 Use of Agricultural Space by the Formative Period Fremont of Northwest Colo­ rado. Master’s thesis, Archaeological Studies Program, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. Germillion, Kristen J. 1993 Analyses Seed Morphology in Chenopodium from Eastern North America, Identification of Domesticates; Wild and Weed Forms Recognized in Archaeological Contexts; Patterns of Variation Compatible with the Co­ existence and Interaction of Crop and Weed Populations. American Antiq­ uity 93(58:​3):496–508. Grady, James 1980 Environmental Factors in Archaeological Site Locations, Piceance Basin, Colo­ rado. Cultural Resources Series No. 9. Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado. Gunnerson, James H. 2009 The Fremont Culture: A Study in Cultural Dynamics on the Northern Anasazi Frontier, Including the Report of the Claflin-­Emerson Expedition of the Pea­ body Museum. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Hadden, Glade 1999 Behold the Lowly Pigweed: Experimental Field Processing and Return Rates for Cheno/Ams. Paper presented at the 4th Biennial Rocky Mountain Anthropological Conference, Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Harlan, Jack R., and J. M. J. de Wet 1965 Some Thoughts on Weeds. Economic Botany 19:​16–22.



Fremont Farming

211

Harris, David, and Gordon Hillman 1989 Foraging and Farming: The Evolution of Plant Exploitation. Unwin Hyman, London. Hauck, F. Richard 2003 Cultural Resource Monitor Assessment of the Little Hills Pipeline Corridor in the Piceance Basin Locality of Rio Blanco, County, Colorado. Ms. on file, White River Resource Area Office, Meeker, Colorado. Hauck, F. Richard, and Michael R. Hauck 2002 Hanging Hearth Shelter (5RB454) Archaeological Excavations (1989–1994) in Rio Blanco County, Colorado. General Studies Series No. 5. Archaeological Research Institute, Bountiful, Utah. Ms. on file, White River Resource Area Office, Meeker, Colorado. Janetski, Joel C., and Richard K. Talbot 1997 Social and Community Organization. In Clear Creek Canyon Archaeological Project, vol. 5: Results and Synthesis, edited by Joel C. Janetski, Richard K. Talbot, D. E. Newman, L. D. Richens, and J. D. Wilde, pp. 363–382. Museum of Peoples and Cultures Technical Series No. 95–9. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. 2000a Social and Community Organization. In Clear Creek Canyon Archaeological Project: Results and Synthesis by J. C. Janetski, R. K. Talbot, D. E. Newman, L. D. Richens, J. D. Wilde, S. A. Baker, and S. E. Billat, pp. 247–262. Museum of Peoples and Cultures Occasional Papers No. 7. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. 2000b Project Overview and Context. In Clear Creek Canyon Archaeological Proj­ ect: Results and Synthesis by J. C. Janetski, R. K. Talbot, D. E. Newman, L. D. Richens, J. D. Wilde, S. A. Baker, and S. E. Billat, pp. 1–7. Museum of Peoples and Cultures Occasional Papers No. 7. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. 2014 Fremont Social Organization: A Southwestern Perspective. In Archaeology in the Great Basin and Southwest: Papers in Honor of Don D. Fowler, edited by Nancy J. Parezo and Joel C. Janetski, pp. 118–129. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Janetski, Joel C., Richard K. Talbot, Lane D. Richens, James D. Wilde, and Deborah E. Newman 2000 Clear Creek Canyon Archaeological Project: Results and Synthesis. Occasional Paper No. 7. Museum of Peoples and Cultures, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. Kennard, E. A. 1979 Hopi Economy and Subsistence. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 9, edited by A. Ortiz. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. LaPoint, Halcyon J., Howard M. Davidson, Steven D. Creasman, and Karen C. Schubert 1981 Archaeological Investigations in the Canyon Pintado Historic District, Rio Blanco County, Colorado, Phase II C Inventory and Test Excavations. Reports of the Laboratory of Public Archaeology No. 53. Colorado State University, Fort Collins.

212

A. Dudley Gardner and William R. Gardner

Liestman, Terry L. 1985 Site42UN1103: A Rockshelter in Dinosaur National Monument, Utah. Midwest Archaeological Center Occasional Studies in Anthropology 13. Madsen, David B. 1979 The Fremont and the Sevier: Defining Prehistoric Agriculturists North of the Anasazi. American Antiquity 44:​7 11–722. 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 Man and Environment in the Great Basin, edited by D. B. Madsen and J. F. O’Connell, pp. 207–226. Society for American Archaeology Papers No. 2. Madsen, David B., and LaMar W. Lindsay 1977 Backhoe Village. Antiquities Section Selected Papers Vol. IV, No. 12. Utah Division of State History, Salt Lake City. Madsen, David B., and Dave N. Schmitt 2005 Buzz Cut Dune and Fremont Foraging at the Margin of Horticulture. Anthropological Papers No. 124. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Madsen, David B., and S. R. Simms 1998 The Fremont Complex: A Behavioral Perspective. Journal of World Prehis­ tory 12(3):255–336. Marwitt, John P. 1970 Median Village and Fremont Culture Regional Variation. Anthropological Papers No. 95. University of Utah, Salt Lake City. Marwitt, John P. (editor) 1980 A Fremont Perspective. Antiquities Section Selected Papers. Utah State Historical Society, Salt Lake City. McLauchlan, Kendra 2003 Plant Cultivation and Forest Clearance by Prehistoric North Americans: Pollen Evidence from Fort Ancient, Ohio, USA. The Holocene 13(4):5​ 57–566. Metcalf, Michael D., and Alan D. Reed (editors) 2011 Synthesis of Archaeological Data Compiled for the Piceance Basin Expansion, Rockies Express Pipeline, and Uinta Basin Lateral Projects, Volume 2: Moffat and Rio Blanco Counties, Colorado, and Sweetwater County, Wyoming. Prepared by Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Inc., Eagle, Colorado. Minnis, P. E. 1992 Earliest Plant Cultivation in the Desert Borderlands of North America. In The Origins of Agriculture: An International Perspective, edited by W. C. Cowan and P. J. Watson, pp. 121–141. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. Mujicia, Angel, Satuurino Marca, and Seven-­Erik Jacobsen 2003 Current Production and Potential of Quinoa (Chenopodium quino Willd.) in Peru. Food Reviews International 19 (1 and 2):149–154. Reed, Alan D., and Michael D. Metcalf 1999 Colorado Prehistory: A Context for the Northern Colorado River Basin. Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists, Denver.



Fremont Farming

213

Reed, Alan D., and Michael D. Metcalf (editors) 2009 Synthesis of Archaeological Data Compiled for the Piceance Basin Expansion, Rockies Express Pipeline, and Uinta Basin Lateral Projects, Moffat and Rio Blanco Counties, Colorado, and Sweetwater County, Wyoming. Vol. 1. Alpine Archaeological Consultants, Inc., Montrose, Colorado, and Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Inc., Eagle, Colorado. Simms, Steven R. 1986 New Evidence for Fremont Adaptive Diversity. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 8:​204–216. 2008 Ancient Peoples of the Great Basin and Colorado Plateau. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, California. Smith, Bruce D. 1984 Chenopodium as a Prehistoric Domesticate in Eastern North America: Evidence from Russell Cave, Alabama. Science 226:​165–167. 1985a Chenopodium berlandieri ssp. jonesianum: Evidence for a Hopewellian Domesticate from Ash Cave, Ohio. Southeastern Archaeology 4:​107–133. 1985b The Role of Chenopodium as a Domesticate in the Pre-­Maize Garden Systems of the Eastern United States. Southeastern Archeology 4:​51–72. Smith, Bruce D., and C. Wesley Cowan 1987 Domesticated Chenopodium in Prehistoric Eastern North America: New Accelerator Dates from Eastern Kentucky. American Antiquity 52(2):3​ 55–357. Smith, Bruce D., and V. A. Funk 1985 A Newly Described Subfossil Cultivar of Chenopodium (Chenopodiaceae). Phytologia 57:​445–448. Spangler, Jerry D. 2013 Nine Mile Canyon: The Archaeological History of an American Treasure. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Talbot, Richard K., and Lane D. Richens 1996 Steinaker Gap: An Early Fremont Farmstead. Occasional Papers No. 2. Museum of Peoples and Cultures, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. Truesdale, James A. 1993 Archaeological Investigations at Two Sites in Dinosaur National Monument: 42UN1724 and 5MF2645. Selections from Division of Cultural Resources No. 4. National Park Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Denver. Wenger, Gilbert Riley 1956 An Archaeological Survey of Southern Blue Mountain and Douglas Creek in Northwestern Colorado. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Denver, Colorado.

CHAPTER 8

Farmers on the Go A Forager-­Farmer Model for the Las Vegas Valley, Southern Nevada

Heidi Roberts and Richard V. N. Ahlstrom

Southern Nevada’s Las Vegas Valley has yet to figure to any significant degree in histories of prehistoric farming in the American Southwest, Great Basin, or Mojave Desert regions. The area has, instead, been generally interpreted as lying outside the Southwest’s “farming frontier.” We have previously suggested (Ahlstrom and Roberts 2008) that newly discovered evidence of farming in the valley was produced primarily, if not entirely, by groups that resided there, consistent with Bruce Smith’s (2001) concept of “low-­level food production.” Smith (2001:​1) applies this term to economies that occupy the “middle ground” that “stretches between hunter-­gathererforagers, with economies based exclusively on wild plants and animals ... and agriculturalists, who strongly depend on domesticated species as food sources.” He rejects the interpretation of this middle ground as consisting necessarily of a brief transitional period and points out that in several areas of the world, economies of this kind survived over intervals of several thousand years (Smith 2001:​19). In this chapter we explore the Las Vegas Valley’s archaeological record as it relates to the area’s historic Southern Paiute occupants, who practiced low-­level food production as a key subsistence strategy. Recent archaeological discoveries suggest that a system similar to the Southern Paiute’s combined farming and wild plant gathering strategies persisted in the region 214



Farmers on the Go

215

from the introduction of maize cultivation around 200 bc. To understand why farming persisted at a low level of intensity for two millennia, we rely in particular on the interpretative model developed by Renee Barlow (2006) to explain shifts in prehistoric Great Basin Fremont subsistence from foraging to farming. Barlow’s Fremont Forager-­Farmer Model For the Fremont areas of the Great Basin and Colorado Plateau, Madsen and Simms (1998) suggested that groups relied to varying degrees on farming and foraging, with the balance between these activities changing rapidly and even involving the occasional switching from one of these subsistence modes to the other. They also recognized the difficulties in detecting these behaviors and behavioral shifts in the archaeological record. Renee Barlow (2006) has formalized a model for predicting when Fremont foragers should have invested time in agriculture rather than hunting and gathering. Her model predicts that investment in agriculture will be low in times and places where high-­ranking plant foods are available during the farming season and marginal return rates for farming activities are low. Consistent with Smith’s concept of persistent low-­level food production, Barlow (2006:​ 97) argued that “maize farming should be viewed not as a transition from ‘being’ a forager to ‘being’ a farmer, but as the outcome of a series of foraging decisions made at various points throughout the growing season.” We follow Barlow’s lead in arguing that some of the subsistence and settlement inconsistencies in the archaeological record of the Las Vegas Valley can be explained with reference to the area’s mix of available resources as well as its distinctive environmental constraints. Behavioral ecology begins with the premise that human behavior will tend toward constrained optimization or behavior that is not fully optimal but that tends toward optimization. Barlow’s diet-­breadth model assumes that the best-­choice diet begins with the highest-­ranked resources, and it incorporates such concepts as patch choice, habitat selection, and central-­ place foraging. Recent models go beyond diet breadth alone and strive to understand social theory and behaviors such as risk evaluation. Barlow’s model predicts when foragers should increase or decrease investments in farming activities. At the most basic level, her model states that “the forager is simply expected to farm when the average return rates for foraging and farming, plus the additional returns expected for spending the next

216

Heidi Roberts and Richard V. N. Ahlstrom

unit of time farming, are greater than the average return rates for foraging and farming, plus the additional returns for spending the next unit of time foraging” (Barlow 2006:​95). She goes on to conclude that “farming investments should only have intensified when higher-­ranked foraging opportunities diminished” and vice versa (2006:​97). The Southern Paiute Subsistence System as a Correlate for the Archaeological Record The Las Vegas Valley in southern Nevada is well suited to apply Barlow’s model because for 2,000 years, from ca. 200 bc to ad 1800, the valley’s occupants were part-­time farmers. Las Vegas Valley occupies the boundary between several cultural and environmental regions. It is typically included in the Great Basin culture area, its biotic environment is most like that of the Mojave Desert, and it is linked hydrologically to the Colorado River system. As part of the Mojave Desert, the valley possesses several economically significant plant and animal species that do not extend northward into the Great Basin proper. When the first Euro-­Americans explored the region, they found the valley occupied by a band of Southern Paiute Indians with close ties to the Chemehuevi people who lived downstream along the Colorado River, as well as to other Southern Paiute bands such as the Pahrump, Moapa, and Pahranagut. Julian Steward’s (1938) classic cultural ecology study forever established the Southern Paiutes as hunter/gatherers who during the late historical period also farmed small gardens that, in Steward’s opinion, did not contribute substantially to their economy. The archaeological record for the last 2,000 years mirrors the Southern Paiute subsistence system as described to Isabel Kelly in the 1930s by her Southern Paiute consultants. Catherine Fowler (2010) recently assembled Kelly’s materials to produce an ethnohistory of the Southern Paiute groups studied by Kelly for the U.S. Forest and Fish and Wildlife services. This document is the source for the Southern Paiute schedule for collecting the most important wild economic plants and cultigens, summarized in Table 8.1. Fowler (2010) notes that the percentages of wild plants versus cultigens in the diet are difficult to estimate on the basis of the available evidence, though one consultant said that more pine nuts were eaten than corn, and that gardening had always been practiced. According to Kelly’s consultants, during the historic period Southern



Farmers on the Go

217

Table 8.1. Southern Paiute gathering and farming schedule, Las Vegas Valley Mountains

January February March

Deer, sheep Deer, sheep

April

May June July August

Pine nuts

Agave, cattail shoots, Indian spinach Rhumex, cactus buds, rodents, chuckwallas, tortoises, caterpillars Tansy mustard, Rhumex Wolfberry fruit Hedgehog cactus fruit, Mojave yucca fruit

Goosefoot, deer, sheep, pine nuts

September Pine nuts, deer, sheep October Pine nuts, deer, sheep November Deer, sheep December

Foothills

Deer, sheep

Valley

Gardens

Jackrabbits Jackrabbits Indian spinach Broomrape, reptiles, rodents Indian ricegrass, Blazing star, chia Aphis sugar Honey mesquite, screwbeans Mesquite, devil’s claw

Prickly pear fruit, banana yucca fruit

Jackrabbits Jackrabbits

Irrigate fields; plant gardens.

Squash blossoms Maize, tepary beans, sunflower, amaranth Pumpkins, squash

Prepare ­gardens. Prepare ­gardens.

Source: Fowler (2010).

Paiute settlements were concentrated around 15 springs scattered throughout the Las Vegas Valley. An additional five encampments were located at the base of the mountains that surround the valley or along the valley’s northern and southern boundaries. Kelly’s interviewees reported that the groups camped at the springs varied in size from one to several extended families. At the largest camp, Kiel Ranch, consultants remembered 16 houses and several gardens. Small gardens were planted near springs after the agave roast in the foothills. Water from the springs was diverted to create irrigated gardens of maize, melons, squash, tepary beans, amaranth, and sunflowers (Figure 8.1). Some of the plants were presprouted, which according to Fowler (2010) is not commonly done in the Southwest. Most of the springs are located in close proximity to mesquite groves or other important wild plants. We believe that at the Corn Creek site, at the northern end of the Las Vegas Valley

218

Heidi Roberts and Richard V. N. Ahlstrom

Figure 8.1. Fields belonging to Southern Paiute residents at the Kiel Ranch, as recalled by Daisy Smith. (Redrafted from sketches by HRA, Inc. Courtesy of Kelly ­Collection, DeGolyer Library, Southern Methodist University.)

in the Desert National Wildlife Refuge, mesquite seed pods, grapes, prince’s plume, grasses, cattail, and many other wild plant foods could have been easily gathered while nearby gardens were being tended. In other spring encampments, wild plant foods such as screwbeans, wolfberries, cactus fruit, and grass seeds were collected and stored. Some families waited until the gardens were harvested before traveling to the mountains to collect pine nuts, whereas others set out earlier, leaving family members behind to tend and harvest the crops. Two wild plant foods that ripen during the fall and that could have been collected while traveling to and from pine nut camps are prickly-­pear fruit and yucca fruit. When green pine cones were ready for collecting in the early fall, families would travel to the mountains to harvest and cache the nuts as well as to hunt deer. Kelly’s consultants indicated that sometimes families would choose to camp in the mountains for the winter and transport cultigens to their winter camps. Other families would spend the winter at their spring



Farmers on the Go

219

Figure 8.2. Typical rock ring feature recorded at Clark County Wetlands Park.

camps in the valley bottom and transport the harvested nuts back with them. Perhaps the relative size of the two harvests — ​cultigens versus pine nuts — ​determined the winter residence location, but Kelly’s materials are not clear on this point. We believe, however, that these ethnographic data reflect a pattern of subsistence similar to that suggested by Madsen and Simms (1998) for the prehistoric Fremont in which residence-­switching behavior was based on harvest size. Archaeological Correlates for the Southern Paiute Subsistence Systems The archaeological record of the Las Vegas Valley preserves traces of Southern Paiute wild plant collection strategies. For example, elders from the Las Vegas Southern Paiute Language Group have confirmed Kelly’s consultants’ observations that certain cactus fruits and berries were dried on bedrock surfaces. On a visit to an area with numerous rock rings built directly on bedrock (Figure 8.2), the elders pointed out that wolfberries grow nearby and would have been collected and dried within these features. Rock rings are found throughout areas of the Las Vegas Valley where mesquite and other wild plants were harvested, and we suggest that the drying of collected foods was one of the functions of this feature class.

220

Heidi Roberts and Richard V. N. Ahlstrom

Figure 8.3. Thermal features and rock ring features in the Las Vegas Valley.

Two other kinds of archaeological features, bedrock mortars and roasting pits, were used to process wild plant foods. Bedrock mortars, which are generally thought to have been used for grinding mesquite pods, occur in at least two places in the Las Vegas Valley. One of these is the Corn Creek Dune site, located at the north end of the valley at the Corn Creek Field Station of the Desert National Wildlife Refuge; the other is adjacent to the Three Kids Pithouse site, located in the valley’s southeastern corner within Clark County Wetlands Park (Figure 8.3). The latter, however, was apparently buried under floodplain sediment from 2,000 years ago until the 1970s and thus provides evidence of correspondingly ancient subsistence practices. Mesquite groves were present historically in both of these locations. Two types of roasting pits are common in the Las Vegas Valley. The larger variety, typically more than a meter in diameter, is found in the center of a mound of burned rocks and other roasting debris and was used to cook agave and quite possibly other food items. Examples are found at the bases of the mountains that bound the Las Vegas Valley at ele­vations between 4,500 and 6,500 ft (1,375 to 2000 m) above sea level. The smaller variety (Figure 8.4) generally measures less than a meter in diameter and is often associated with surface scatters of fire-­affected rock, but not with mounds of debris resulting from the feature’s use. These roasting pits generally produce



Farmers on the Go

221

Figure 8.4. Small roasting pit excavated at the Corn Creek National Register site in the Desert National Wildlife Refuge, Clark County, Nevada.

little definitive evidence of the materials processed within them, but were probably used to cook a variety of plant and possibly a­ nimal foods. Las Vegas’s Archaeological Record during the Formative Period Until recently, most archaeologists believed that, throughout prehistory, the Las Vegas Valley’s Native American inhabitants practiced a highly ­mobile lifestyle based on hunting and gathering and processing wild plants. Even the fact that the valley’s historical period inhabitants, the Southern Paiute, are known to have been at least part-­time farmers does not seem to have spurred much interest in the possible role of agriculture in the area’s prehistory. This disregard for the ethnographic evidence is at least in part a function of the lack of an archaeological record that could be used to establish a link between the practice of farming during the historical and ­prehistoric periods. It has probably also resulted, however, from the ­failure of the region’s two preeminent cultural anthropologists, Isabel Kelly and Julian Steward, to appreciate the potential historical significance of the ­evidence

222

Heidi Roberts and Richard V. N. Ahlstrom

Figure 8.5. Ephemeral pithouse excavated at the Corn Creek National Register site in the Desert National Wildlife Refuge, Clark County, Nevada.

that farming was practiced by some Southern Paiute communities. This occurred in Kelly’s case because of her inference that this technology was not adopted by Southern Paiute people until the early historical period; in Steward’s case, he concluded that to whatever degree the Southern Paiutes did, in fact, engage in farming, this activity was not of sufficient importance to require any modifications to his model of Great Basin hunter-­gather subsistence systems. Steward’s (1938) publication on Basin Plateau Aborig­ inal Sociopolitical Groups formalized these interpretations, despite the fact that, as Catherine Fowler (1982:​126) has explained, “none of the data provided by Steward in his brief sketch of [the Ash Meadows and Las Vegas] Southern Paiute groups is site specific on matters of settlement pattern or subsistence.” The discovery of shallow pithouse habitations (Figure 8.5) (Roberts et al. 2007:​81–85; Roberts and Lyon 2011) and pollen, kernels, and (fragmentary) kernels of maize in storage features (Ahlstrom 2008) at sites in the Las ­Vegas Valley has brought this interpretation of a solely forager-­based prehistoric economy for the region into question. Maize pollen and cobs from radiocarbon-­dated storage pits in Clark County Wetlands Park (Figure 8.6) indicate that farming began in the Las Vegas Valley as early as 350–50 bc and continued to be practiced there as late as ad 1600. The ethnographic



Farmers on the Go

223

Figure 8.6. Excavated storage pit at the Larder site in Clark County Wetlands Park, Nevada.

materials from Isabel Kelly’s research, recently compiled and published by Catherine Fowler (2010), indicate that small-­scale farming continued in the valley after ad 1600 as well. The presence of shallow pithouses in three widespread locations in the valley — ​Wetlands Park, the Corn Creek site, and the Las Vegas Springs Preserve — ​indicate a decrease in settlement mobility during the Puebloan period that, although not necessarily associated with farming, is consistent with its practice. Although horticulture appears to have been practiced, though perhaps not continuously, in the Las Vegas Valley over the last 2,000 years of the prehistoric and early historical periods, habitation features, including the previously mentioned shallow pithouses, remained relatively insubstantial. Small quantities of gray ware ceramics were made locally during the Puebloan period but were subsequently replaced by a mixture of buff and brown ware pottery of uncertain origin. Ceramic assemblages remained small throughout the intervals in question, however, and consisted primarily of undecorated types. Wild foods were clearly important, although their relative value is impossible to quantify from the archaeological record.

224

Heidi Roberts and Richard V. N. Ahlstrom

We believe that behavioral ecology can shed light on the question of why Las Vegas Valley’s prehistoric farmers did not intensify their horticultural practices as farmers did in the adjacent Southwestern region. Barlow’s model for the Fremont is particularly relevant in this context because, as in the Fremont case, foraging remained important in the Las Vegas Valley. Unlike the Fremont area, however, the Las Vegas Valley may never have seen the complete abandonment of farming. As specified in Barlow’s (2006:​99) model, maize cultivation occurs at low investment levels among prehistoric foragers given three conditions: women collect similarly ranked (wild) plants, three bushels per acre is a reasonable yield for maize (cultigens), and foragers can return to the fields at planting. All of these criteria could apply to the Las Vegas Valley. The remainder of this chapter is devoted to examining the evidence of prehistoric farming in the Las Vegas Valley using two different data sets: the archaeological record relating to diet breadth and persistence or change in subsistence practices, and Isabel Kelly’s ethnographic evidence for the Las Vegas and Pahrump Southern Paiute bands as compiled by Fowler (2010). Diet-­Breadth Data from Las Vegas Valley Sites Our analysis of archaeological subsistence data included identifications of charred macrobotanical remains recovered from flotation samples, individual charred macrobotanical specimens, pollen grains extracted from soil samples, and individual faunal specimens (Tables 8.2–8.4). The various samples and specimens were assigned to one of three periods on the basis of radiocarbon dates: samples of specimens not directly associated with dates of this kind were excluded from the analysis. The periods include the Terminal Archaic (200 bc–ad 200), corresponding to the interval when maize farming had been added to the traditional Archaic hunting-­andgathering lifeway; the Puebloan period (ad 200–1300), when cultural influences from Puebloan communities located to the northeast in the Moapa and lower Virgin River Valleys were evident in the Las Vegas Valley; and the Post-­Puebloan(ad 1300–1776) period, when evidence for the presence of Southern Paiute and, to a lesser extent, ancestral Yuman groups can be most clearly identified in the valley (Roberts and Ahlstrom 2012). Sites with evidence from pollen and flotation samples and macrobotanical speci­ mens included, for the Terminal Archaic period, a specialized pit-­storage site (the Larder site); for the Puebloan period, that same pit-­storage site,



Farmers on the Go

225

four habitation sites (Corn Creek, Three Kids, Big Spring, and Scorpion Knoll), a sheltered campsite (Mended Basket site), and a second sheltered campsite with an associated roasting pit complex (26CK4908); and for the Post-­Puebloan period, the previously mentioned pit-­storage and sheltered campsites (Larder and Mended Basket sites), a second sheltered campsite (Garrett Shelter), and an open campsite (Corn Creek). Sampled contexts included, for the Terminal Archaic period, storage pits and a roasting pit; for the Puebloan period, short-­term or ephemeral habitation structures, storage pits, roasting and hearth features, and an activity surface; and, for the Post-­Puebloan period, storage pits, two midden deposits, a hearth, a roasting pit, a human coprolite, and general site deposits (the latter involving the previously mentioned individual macrobotanical samples). The goal of the analysis was to identify indicators of stability or change in diet breadth over time. Before summarizing the results of our tabulations, it is important to note a limitation in our data set involving variability in the numbers of analyzed samples and specimens available from the three periods. The middle, or Puebloan, period produced the most evidence, with data available from 9 flotation and 18 pollen samples (27 total samples) (Table 8.2). This is more than twice the number of samples available from the other two periods. This variation in sample size is significant because of the well-­established principle that the number of identified categories — ​in this case, the number of plant taxa — ​increase as more samples are added to an analysis. The differences between periods in numbers of identified taxa may therefore reflect the amount of research conducted rather than the reality of prehistoric diets. This relationship between numbers of samples and identified taxa is illustrated in Figure 8.7. The evidence in this case involves a comparison of numbers of pollen taxa and numbers of samples from individual sites by time period. Even with these limitations, the available data appear to be most consistent with an interpretation of continuity in diet breadth over time. Table 8.3 summarizes the botanical evidence obtained from both macrobotanical and pollen samples and specimens. Some of the most important taxa, at least from the perspective of archaeological evidence, are represented in all three periods. Other important taxa are missing only from the first or last of the three periods, which, as noted, are the least representative of the data sets. Among the important and common taxa are mesquite, screwbean, piñon, various kinds of cactus, members of the chenopod-­amaranth group

226

Heidi Roberts and Richard V. N. Ahlstrom

Figure 8.7. Pollen taxa by numbers of analyzed samples per site and period.

of plants, and one cultivated plant (maize). What the table does not show is that mesquite is the most widely distributed of these taxa among the various analyzed samples. We also compiled a less robust data set for faunal remains. Table 8.4 shows that a number of taxa — ​including desert tortoises, rodents, rabbits, and large mammals such as bighorn sheep and deer — ​were hunted and trapped during the second and third periods; unfortunately, we have no comparable evidence from contexts dating to the preceding Terminal Archaic period. Discussion Few things in archaeology have a shorter use-­life than the currently accepted “earliest date” of some prehistoric phenomenon. It is worth noting, nevertheless, that at least for now the earliest evidence for farming in the southeastern corner of the Las Vegas Valley predates that from Western Virgin Branch Puebloan sites located to the northeast in the Moapa Valley. This dating invites speculation that farming technology may have come to the Las Vegas Valley not across the Colorado Plateau by way of Ancestral Pueblo communities located to the east and northeast, but up the Lower Colorado and Gila Rivers from early farming communities in southeastern Arizona. Michael Diehl’s (2005) interpretation of farming during southeastern Arizona’s Early Agricultural period provides a revealing counterpoint to our understanding of the Las Vegas Valley case. Particularly useful is his idea that cultivated maize “bolstered” the supply of food obtained by hunt-



Farmers on the Go

227

Table 8.2. Las Vegas Valley diet-breadth analysis: Summary data

Data Type

Observation

Pollen

Sites with pollen samples Total samples a Mean taxa per sample Median taxa per sample Total taxa in all samples

Macrobotanical Sites with flotation samples Total samples a,b Mean taxa per sample Median taxa per sample Total taxa in all samples Additional taxa from individual macro-­ botanical specimens

Terminal Puebloan Post-Puebloan Archaic Period Period (200 bc–ad 200) (ad 200–1300) (ad 1300–1776)

1

7

4

6 2.5

18 2.7

5 2.8

2.5

2

3

7

18

10

1

5

3 c

2 1.5

9 3.1

5 2

1.5

3

2

2

17

7

—

—

1

a

Includes “productive” samples only. Includes cases in which two or three samples collected from a single feature are here combined and tabulated as one “sample.” c An additional four sites have produced individual identified macrobotanical specimens. b

ing and exploiting wild plants. In the Tucson Basin, the Early Agricultural period (2100 bc–ad 50) is characterized by a mixed subsistence economy that Diehl refers to as “farmaging.” The term was chosen to “convey a simultaneous emphasis on hunting and gathering wild foods, with concomitant bolstering of supplies through intensive farming techniques, as well as a willingness to shift from farming to foraging seasonally, or in different years as circumstances ...dictated” (Diehl 2005:​180). The pattern included the use of maize but apparently not other cultigens, the construction and use of ephemeral houses that would have lasted for a few years at most, the year-­ round occupation of the sites where the houses were located, the periodic,

228

Heidi Roberts and Richard V. N. Ahlstrom

Table 8.3. Las Vegas Valley diet-breadth analysis: Botanical remains Botanical Remains

Maize Mesquite Screwbean Piñon Various cacti Saltbush Chenopod-amaranth Ricegrass Cattail Grass/wild rye/alkali sacaton Primrose Globemallow Buckwheat Nightshade Ephedra Thorn/wolfberry Mustard/tansy mustard Mojave yucca Datura Seepweed Squash

Terminal ­Archaic

Puebloan Period

Post-Puebloan Period

2 flotation samples; 6 pollen samples X X

9 flotation samples; 18 pollen samples X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

5 flotation samples; 8 radio­carbon dated macro­botanical specimens; 5 pollen samples X X X X X

X X

X

X X X

X

X

X X

X X X

Note: Botanical remains include some combining and reorganizing of taxa counted in Table 8.2 to accommodate inconsistencies in categories of identified pollen and macrobotanical remains.

short-­term movement of task or family groups to other settings to exploit nonlocal resources, and, at least in the case of the sites investigated, growth in site population over time. Diehl’s interpretation of farmaging is consistent with Smith’s (2001) model of low-­level food production in that it refers to a subsistence pattern that was relatively stable over a 2,000-­year period. This particular aspect of the farmaging model also applies to the Las Vegas Valley, as discussed earlier. The comparison between the southeastern Arizona and southern Nevada cases begins to break down, however, when more specific details are considered. Habitation structures were in use throughout the Early Agricultural period at the sites on which Diehl based his interpretation



Farmers on the Go

229

Table 8.4. Las Vegas Valley diet-breadth analysis: Faunal data Faunal Remains

Tortoise Jackrabbit Woodrat Antelope Artiodactyla Chuckwalla Cottontail rabbit Rabbit Kangaroo rat Bighorn sheep Total taxa

Pithouse Period (n = 2 sites)

Late Ceramic Period (n = 4 sites)

X X

X X X X X X

X X X

X X X 7

7

of the farmaging lifeway, and although the lifeway was relatively stable, it supported an increase over time in the size of the population that resided at those sites. Data from the Las Vegas Valley, on the other hand, suggest that habitation structures were popular during a particular portion of the interval during which low-­level food production was practiced (the Puebloan period) and not during the preceding and following portions of that interval (the Terminal Archaic and Post-­Puebloan periods). There is also no evidence for concentrations of habitation structures in the Las Vegas Valley comparable to those identified at Diehl’s southeastern Arizona sites, nor for increases or decreases in population at the sites where those habitations have been identified. Finally, there is Diehl’s reference to “intensive farming technique” in his description of the farmaging lifeway: nothing in the Las Vegas Valley data set supports the use of the word “intensive” to describe any aspect of the maize farming that was carried out there. To reiterate, Barlow’s (2006) model states that “the forager is simply expected to farm when the average return rates for foraging and farming, plus the additional returns expected for spending the next unit of time farming, are greater than the average return rates for foraging and farming, plus the additional returns for spending the next unit of time foraging.” Further­ more, “farming investments should only have intensified when higher-­ ranked foraging opportunities diminished” and vice versa. Following this model, we suggest that because dependable and high-­ranking wild plant species occur at various locations in the Las Vegas Valley, there was no

230

Heidi Roberts and Richard V. N. Ahlstrom Table 8.5. Return rates for key ranked wild and ­cultivated plants Plants

Maize Honey mesquite Screwbean mesquite Pine nuts Cholla buds Cattail roots Sunflower, ricegrass Chenopodium (seeds) Agave Cactus fruit Wolfberry (fruit) Prince’s plume (leaves) Tansy mustard (seeds) Aphis sugarcane Broomrape

Rate (cal/person/hr)

1,300–1,700 1,500–1,900 1,000–2,000? 900–1,400 2,000–3,000 128–267 300–900 383–652 631–790 1,500 unknown unknown 367 unknown unknown

Sources: Barlow 2006; Diel and Waters 2006; Piperno 2006.

need to intensify horticulture. Several wild plant species are important, but three in particular make the system possible: honey mesquite, screwbean mesquite, and Pinus monophylla (single-­leaf piñon) (Table 8.5). Evidence of these species is present in the archaeological record throughout the farming period, and we would argue that since they did not diminish, and populations did not increase, there was no need to intensify farming efforts. These high-­yield plant resources are located in widely spaced settings that would have required travel and relocation of residence camps. The high levels of mobility needed to maintain this flexible system would have favored longer birth intervals as women would have moved camps fairly long distances to agave and pine nut resources. Families would have moved in the fall to the mountains to gather and store pine nuts. In the spring they would relocate to the foothills to harvest agave and, soon after, move once again to summer camps to plant their fields and, later on, to harvest mesquite. Other forays were made to distant resource patches to harvest cactus fruits, buds, berries, grass seeds, and other important plant resources. Women likely did most of the plant collecting, and they would have been accompanied by their young children, who probably assisted with the harvests. Their movements would therefore have been critical to the locations



Farmers on the Go

231

included in the overall settlement-­subsistence system. The Las Vegas foraging schedule required a good deal of mobility, but there were few s­ cheduling conflicts between the planting and harvesting of garden crops and the procurement of important wild plant foods. Conclusions The archaeological and ethnographic evidence from the Las Vegas Valley points to low-­level food production that continued throughout the farming period. Twenty years ago Claude Warren characterized prehistoric subsistence strategies for the Las Vegas Valley as having two fulcrums, one based on pine nuts from the mountains and the other on mesquite pods from the valley floor (Roberts et al. 2007). New ethnographic information, in particular Fowler’s (2010) important work with Isabel Kelly’s materials, adds a third element to this equation, namely small-­scale farming. Our archaeological data from Wetlands Park and elsewhere in the Las Vegas Valley support a time depth of 2,000 years for this subsistence activity. This specific pattern may be unique to the Las Vegas Valley and adjacent low-­desert basins, given its reliance on the presence of both piñon pine and mesquite trees — ​a combination not commonly found in other nearby r­ egions. Barlow’s (2006) model predicts that this subsistence strategy, with its built-­in flexibility, is probably the most effective and efficient food production and collection system that could have been devised for the valley’s unique environment. Consistent with Barlow’s predictions, maize cultivation occurred in the Las Vegas Valley because similarly ranked wild plants (pine nuts and agave) were available before and after the planting season, and mesquite resources were located within a short distance of fields. Further study is needed to determine if Barlow’s predicted yield for cultigens (three bushels per acre) was achieved near springs and other well-­watered locales where pond-­farming was practiced during the ethnohistoric period. In the Southwest the shift from forager to farmer was accompanied by population expansion and increased sedentism. Why didn’t this happen in the Las Vegas Valley? Perhaps prehistoric populations did not exceed the carrying capacity of their environment because the system was supported by high levels of mobility. The seasonal mobility required to support the system kept birth spacing at a level typically ascribed to collector/forager societies. Perhaps the decrease in birth spacing that is often associated with population growth among sedentary farming cultures did not occur in the

232

Heidi Roberts and Richard V. N. Ahlstrom

Las Vegas area, such that the balance between wild-­resource availability and population density was maintained. Furthermore, this flexible system could accommodate slight changes in population by increasing gardening efforts. It is possible that such a spike in population density is represented in the archaeological record by the Puebloan period, the timing of which corresponds to a period of expansion and colonization throughout the Hohokam and Four Corners regions. If so, this spike in population density was not maintained into the Post-­Puebloan period. References Ahlstrom, Richard V. N. (editor) 2008 Persistent Place: Archaeological Investigations at the Larder and Scorpion Knoll Sites, Clark County Wetlands Park, Southern Nevada. Papers in Archaeology No. 7. HRA Inc., Conservation Archaeology, Las Vegas, Nevada. Ahlstrom, Richard V. N., and Heidi Roberts 2008 Archaeological Evidence of Maize Farming on the Southern Edge of the Great Basin Culture Area. Paper presented at the 31st Great Basin Anthropological Conference, Portland, Oregon. Barlow, K. Renee 2006 A Formal Model for Predicting Agriculture Among the Fremont. In Behav­ ioral Ecology and the Transition to Agriculture, edited by Douglas J. Kennett and Bruce Winterhalder, pp. 87–102. University of California Press, Berkeley. Diehl, Michael W. 2005 Epilogue: “Farmaging” during the Early Agricultural Period. In Subsistence and Resource Use Strategies of Early Agricultural Communities in Southern Arizona, edited by Michael W. Diehl, pp. 181–184. Anthropological Papers No. 34. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona. Diehl, Michael, and Jennifer A. Waters 2006 Aspects of Optimization and Risk During the Early Agricultural Period in Southeastern Arizona. In Behavioral Ecology and the Transition to Agricul­ ture, edited by Douglas J. Kennett and Bruce Winterhalder, pp. 63–86. University of California Press, Berkeley. Fowler, Catherine S. 1982 Settlement Patterns and Subsistence Systems in the Great Basin: The Ethnographic Record. In Man and Environment in the Great Basin, edited by D. B. Madsen and J. F. O’Connell, pp. 121–38. Papers No. 2. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, DC. 2010 Facing Snow Mountain: Las Vegas — ​Pahrump — ​Desert Southern Paiute Culture in the Late Nineteenth Century. Conservation Archaeology Report No. 07–28. Cultural Resource Consultants, Ltd., and HRA, Inc., Las Vegas, Nevada.



Farmers on the Go

233

Madsen, David B., and Steven R. Simms 1998 The Fremont Complex: A Behavioral Perspective. Journal of World Prehis­ tory 12:​255–336. Piperno, Dolores R. 2006 The Origins of Plant Cultivation and Domestication in the Neotropics: A Behavorial Ecological Perspective. In Behavioral Ecology and the Transi­ tion to Agriculture, edited by Douglas J. Kennett and Bruce Winterhalder, pp. 137–166. University of California Press, Berkeley. Roberts, Heidi, and Richard V. N. Ahlstrom (editors) 2012 A Prehistoric Context for Southern Nevada. Archaeological Report No. 011– 05, prepared for the Bureau of Reclamation. HRA, Inc., Conservation Archaeology, Las Vegas, Nevada. Roberts, Heidi, Suzanne Eskenazi, and Elizabeth V. T. Warren 2007 Coyote Named This Place Pakonapanti: Archaeological Investigations at the Corn Creek National Register District in the Desert National Wildlife Refuge, Clark County, Nevada. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Special Publication. HRA, Inc., Conservation Archaeology, Las Vegas, Nevada. Roberts, Heidi, and Jerry Lyon 2011 Archaeological Excavations at the Corn Creek National Register Site, Des­ ert National Wildlife Refuge, Clark County, Nevada. Archaeological Report No. 08–22, prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Desert National Wildlife Refuge. HRA, Inc., Conservation Archaeology, Las Vegas, Nevada. Smith, Bruce D. 2001 Low-­Level Food Production. Journal of Archaeological Research 9(1):1–43. Steward, Julian H. 1938 Basin Plateau Aboriginal Sociopolitical Groups. Bulletin No. 120. Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.

CHAPTER 9

Late Fremont Cultural Identities and Borderland Processes Michael T. Searcy and Richard K. Talbot

The spread of maize farming across the American Southwest reached its northernmost extent west of the Rockies by the first or second centuries ad (James Allison, personal communication, 2014; Allison 2014), in the area encompassing the Colorado Plateau north of the Colorado River and the eastern portion of the Great Basin. The practitioners of farming in this area, the Fremont, generally resemble other Southwest farmers in material culture, social structure, settlement, and land use. They are markedly different from contemporaneous hunter-­gatherers to the west, north, and east in these same characteristics and in general economic strategy. Changing paradigms have variously placed the Fremont as horticulturalists who were part of but culturally peripheral to the Southwest; independent farmers in a broad sea of Great Basin hunter-­gatherers; or a complex of behaviors inclusive of all farmers and foragers in the northern Colorado Plateau and eastern Great Basin. As McBrinn and Roth (this volume) have explained in their history of Great Basin research, there has been a heavy focus on hunters and g­ atherers with a theoretical emphasis on environmental and ecological models. We acknowledge the importance of considering environmental conditions but employ social theory commonly used in the Southwest (e.g. Lyons and Clark 2008; Potter and Yoder 2008) in order to examine Fremont identity 234



Late Fremont Cultural Identities and Borderland Processes

235

at the fringes of a distinct cultural milieu. We echo Allison’s (2008:​63) recommendation that “For archaeologists who work in the arid west, however, ignoring human ecology is not an option; clearly individuals, societies, and settlement patterns were and are shaped by the general aridity and variability of the natural environment.” One of our goals, as McBrinn and Roth have advocated, is to broaden our approach by evaluating the Fremont and others of the eastern Great Basin/western Colorado Plateau using theory that addresses identity and social structures. In this chapter we look at the Fremont frontier and employ the concept of social distance, often discussed in association with practice theory and cultural identity, to explore the relationships that appear to have been taking place between Fremont and non-­Fremont groups ca. ad 900–1300, when regional populations were at a peak. We conclude by suggesting that those relationships demonstrate some of the complexities of Fremont cultural identities that inevitably varied over space and time. Defining Fremont Use of the Fremont label presumes a definable archaeological manifestation, however firm or slippery researchers might perceive it. Evident in previous Fremont research is the “Being or Becoming” question asked at the beginning of this book. We suggest that Fremont identity was indeed transformative over time, as are most traditions (Pauketat 2001b:3). We must be careful not to homogenize the Fremont, as we do not know, and are unlikely to know, all of the specifics of Fremont social, economic, ideological, or linguistic identities, at either the local or regional level. This is especially true when looking at over a millennium of structural and social change. However, for the last century cultural identity, in the generic sense of defining who or what the Fremont are, has been the primary topic of discussion by Fremont researchers. All recognize the unique context of farmers spread across a vast landscape that is rich in natural resources, and that within that landscape certain patterns of land use and material culture production give substance to what is clearly a distinct archaeological tradition. At dispute has been the circumstantial commitment of those farmers to agricultural production versus wild resource use, and the relationship between farmers and non-­farmers. In particular, where and when both domesticate and natural resource use appears abundant, the line between farmer and hunter-­ gatherer can become blurred.

236

Michael T. Searcy and Richard K. Talbot

Following concepts developed by Shennan (1993) and Pauketat (2001a, 2001b), Varien and Potter (2008:​5) state that “Much of the archaeological record is an accumulation of the practices of individuals, the result of their routinized and repetitive activities; it is this repeated action that produces what can be recognized as regional traditions.” However committed Fremont people were to farming, the unique material record of these northern Southwest farmers represents a cultural tradition that clearly contrasts with that of other contemporary populations in the Southwest and Intermountain West. The Fremont organized themselves in communities with farmsteads, hamlets, and villages; had a well-­developed pottery tradition; and produced figurines and rock art of a unique style. In an attempt to better define Fremont identity on both a micro and macro scale, we propose that insights into Fremont cultural identity or identities are best found in Fremont borderlands. We follow here the definition offered by Parker (2006:​80): “Borderlands ... are regions around or between political or cultural entities where geographic, political, demographic, cultural, and economic circumstances or processes may interact to create borders or frontiers.” Parker relates borders to strict or fixed boundaries, such as between states or nations, while frontiers are less tangible, consisting of “a zone of interpenetration between two previously distinct peoples” (Parker 2006:​79, quoting Thompson and Lamar 1981:​7). Parker specifies, however, that frontiers may sometimes be empty, and that direct contact between the two populations may not even occur. The Fremont, as far as we know, had no fixed boundaries, but instead seem to display an interpenetration type of frontier relationship with nearby foragers and farmers in these borderlands. In comparison to ethnographic examples from the Southwest, we highlight some processes of interaction that occurred in these frontier regions and suggest that the Fremont maintained their ethnic boundaries by perpetuating distinctive traditions, in particular between ad 900 and 1300. Social Distance and Ethnic Boundaries The concepts of interaction, ethnic identity, and social distance have been discussed and debated for several decades (see Barth 1998[1969]; Cohen 1978; Jones 1997; and Wobst 1977, among others). Within Southwestern literature, Cordell (2008), Duff (2002), Stone (2003), Allison (2008), Potter and Yoder (2008), Schriever (2008), and many others have more recently



Late Fremont Cultural Identities and Borderland Processes

237

applied these concepts of identity and interaction to understanding Southwestern regional and community social dynamics. In particular, Lyons and Clark (2008) have expounded upon the concepts of ethnic groups and ethnicity proposed by Barth (1998 [1969]) and Jenkins (1996, 1997) and the relation of these concepts to that of social distance in prehistoric societies. Social distance is founded upon the idea that people belonging to different groups — ​be they divided along race, language, or other cultural lines — ​will establish and maintain ethnic boundaries. As Lyons and Clark (2008:​197) have noted, social distance is “a powerful and attractive concept,” and we also find the idea to be especially useful in the study of frontiers of inter­ action where social groups come into contact and work to maintain or reconfigure their ethnic boundaries. The notion of social distance developed in sociology, where it often has been applied to research regarding race relations and status negotiation within ethnic groups (Beshers et al. 1963; Bogardus 1938; Perrucci 1963; Simmel 1950; Simpson and Yinger 1958; Warner and DeFleur 1969). Murphy (1964:​1259–1260) has defined social distance as “a spacing between individuals and groups, determinative of rate of interaction and reinforced by consciously felt attitudes.” He also found that distance is commonly expressed and crucial in ambivalent and ambiguous settings, which includes frontiers of interaction between different groups. And while it is seen as a “pervasive factor in human relationships,” it is important to remember that the “intensity and form of distance, as well as its areas of occurrence, are variant and a function of social systems” (Murphy 1964:​1260). While social distance marks differences between individuals or groups, ethnic identity usually involves categorization of an individual into an ethnic group, where similarity among members constitutes group identity. Barth (1998 [1969]:10–11) has defined the term ethnic group as including four characteristics: (1) is largely biologically self-­perpetuating; (2) shares fundamental cultural values, realized in overt unity in cultural forms; (3) makes up a field of communication and interaction; and (4) has membership which identifies itself, and is identified by others, as constituting a category distinguishable from other categories of the same order. In determining ethnic identity and group membership, Barth (1998 [1969]:150) states that the “critical focus of investigations ...becomes the ethnic boundary that defines the group.” His discussion of the nature of ethnic boundaries expands on the idea that people within a group ­determine

238

Michael T. Searcy and Richard K. Talbot

their membership according to particular criteria, and based on these they will signal their inclusion in or exclusion from the group. This signaling of membership or expression of ethnic identity can take many forms, and as archaeologists we naturally focus on material culture to guide our investigations. But one of the critiques set forth by Lyons and Clark (2008:​197) is that archaeologists often limit their investigations of social distance to material culture. They state that it is important to remember that “vital, durable ethnic symbols are to be found in language and elements of kinship and social organization that leave no residues in the archaeological record,” and that these can readily be seen in ethnographic examples. While this may be the case, we are still relegated to methods of investigation that primarily involve material culture when dealing with identity, but there are some cautionary tales in how these boundaries are defined using objects/artifacts from an etic perspective. One notable study that recorded variables related to ethnic identity and the maintenance of social boundaries was Hodder’s (1982) study of tribal groups in the Baringo district of Kenya. As he noted, there were specific objects used by the different tribes in his study that served to signal membership in a certain group, but some objects, such as metal spear points, overlapped and were stylistically common among some or all groups (Hodder 1982:​57). Hodder’s study offers clear examples of how the sharing of traits and cultural similarity are also a part of interethnic relationships. While the idiosyncrasies related to the use of material culture in distinguishing identity may be difficult to parse, regions on the frontiers of interaction between two groups tend to be prime areas where social distance is expressed. Hodder (1982:​56) noted among the groups included in his study that in border areas, in particular, where the level of tension and competition is at a heightened level, “material culture of many forms is used to justify between-­group negative reciprocity and to support the social and economic dependencies with groups.” Overall, Hodder (1982:​25) found that while material culture was rather homogeneous within tribes, there were “fairly clear breaks at the borders.” Our interest is in the expression of identity at these borders. We explore social distance in terms of both geographic and ethnic boundaries in places considered frontiers, where there is evidence of interaction between the Fremont and other groups. It is important to consider these areas as places where interactions among different ethnic groups required the expression



Late Fremont Cultural Identities and Borderland Processes

239

and maintenance of these boundaries, especially where an increased level of competition for resources existed. While more specific, artifact-­based studies will contribute to a clearer identification of borders and expressions of social distance, the purpose of this chapter is to outline areas of interaction where future studies should be focused. We acknowledge the difficulty in determining which artifacts or evidence of behavior may have been the most important or best indicators of ethnic identity, whether overt or informal (Hodder 1982; Schriever 2008). In a general sense, we provide some noticeable examples of ways in which the Fremont distinguished themselves from other ethnic groups as an initial foray into the topic of social distance at these borderlands. Fremont Context Fremont territory covered most of modern central and northern Utah, an area of roughly 84,000 square miles (Figure 9.1). The spread of agriculture north of the Colorado River was likely accomplished, at least in part, by low-­level migration of Basketmaker farmers over several centuries (Geib 1996; Janetski and Talbot 2000a; Simms 2008; Talbot and Richens 1996, 2004). This was facilitated by relatively low populations of foragers, and current thinking is that over time some foragers acculturated into this farming society. Some areas in this region are less conducive to successful maize farming due in large part to a shorter growing season. Still, new strains of maize and the use of established methods like akchin farming (fields located in overflow areas or at openings of drainages) and ditch irrigation aided this transition. Farmer population growth occurred gradually over several centuries, with the early Fremont, predominantly pithouse dwellers, occupying farmsteads or small hamlets. Larger pithouse villages occurred after ca. ad 900, with some surface adobe habitations appearing a century or so thereafter, although pithouses remained the primary residential unit. Around ad 1300 farming was abandoned in nearly the entire region, except possibly in extreme northeastern Utah and northwestern Colorado, where limited farming may have continued for another two centuries (see Gardner and Gardner, this volume). Fremont material remains, and in particular the dominant gray ware pottery and pithouse architecture, generally resemble those of Basketmaker period sites to the south, but not the more impressive Puebloan period sites (Judd 1926; Morss 1931). Accordingly, A. V. Kidder described this region as a

240

Michael T. Searcy and Richard K. Talbot

Figure 9.1. Fremont cultural area, including borderland regions and their respective sites. (Adapted from map originally crreated by Scott Ure.)

“northern periphery” of the greater Southwest (Kidder 1924; Steward 1936). The implication of cultural marginality, however, became a rallying cry in the theoretical and methodological divorce of Fremont studies from the Southwest in the 1950s (Jennings 1956; Jennings and Norbeck 1955; Rudy 1953; Wormington 1955). Through the 1970s the Fremont were defined internally by regional variants and externally as a curious blip of farmers in Jennings’s otherwise static Desert Culture model of Great Basin hunter-­ gatherers. Later, Madsen and Simms (1998; also Madsen 1982a; Simms 1986)



Late Fremont Cultural Identities and Borderland Processes

241

decried the boundedness of the traditional view of Fremont as farmers and devised a behavioral model wherein strategy choice is situational relative to contexts of selection, which in turn are primarily environmentally determined. In this setting, individuals could move with relative ease within a range of strategies, from full-­time farming to full-­time foraging. The model combined everyone directly or indirectly influenced by farming into an all-­ encompassing “Fremont Complex.” More recently efforts have been made toward reconciliation of Fremont archeological studies with those of the Southwest (Allison 2008; Janetski and Talbot 2000a, 2014; Talbot 2000a). This follows a failure to demonstrate the strategy switching proposed by the behavioral model, and also a broadening of research interests beyond the gastric ecological perspective to include examination of Fremont social structure, identity, exchange relationships, and communities (Allison 2008; Janetski, Jardine and Watkins 2011; Janetski, Richens and Talbot 2012; Janetski and Talbot 2000b, 2014; Richens and Thompson 2010; Talbot 2000b, 2000c, 2011; Talbot, Baker and Janetski 2005; Ure and Stauffer 2010; Watkins 2010a, 2010b). These studies give strong support to the recognition of Fremont farmers as connected not only by dietary strategy, but also by a shared heritage similar to that of tribal groups found throughout the Southwest at the time of Spanish contact. Evidence for this shared heritage is embedded in stylistic commonalities in artifacts, rock art, architecture, and farming (Adovasio et al. 2002; Janetski, Jardine, and Watkins 2011; Talbot 2000a; Talbot, Baker and Janetski 2005) that distinguish the Late Fremont (ad 900–1300) not only from surrounding foragers, but from other Southwestern farming societies as well (Figure 9.2). Most recently Janetski and Talbot (2014) have suggested that the Fremont mirror the tribal characteristics found among other contemporaneous Southwest groups, with regional differentiation similar to that seen more usually in band-­level organization. Those who shared this regional heritage had ample opportunity to interact with other ethnic groups (see Hegmon 2000), and we argue that it is along Fremont borderlands that social distance and ethnic identity would have been the most pronounced. Southwest Ethnography The historic Southwest offers examples of ethnic boundary maintenance yet with permeable borders between groups with distinct tribal affiliations and languages (various, but see Kelly and Fowler 1986; Ortiz 1983). More than

Figure 9.2. Common Late Fremont styles on ceramics, figurines, rock art, and in architecture. (Photos of bowls, figurines, and rock art courtesy of Scott Ure. Photo of adobe-walled structure from Wolf Village courtesy of James Allison.)



Late Fremont Cultural Identities and Borderland Processes

243

four dozen different native groups have been identified in the Northern Mexico–American Southwest region. In Arizona alone there are at least a dozen, encompassing three general linguistic groups: Yuman (the Pai tribes, Mohave, Quechan, Maricopa), Uto-­Aztecan (Southern Paiute, O’odham, Hopi), and Athapaskan (Western Apache, Navajo). Tribal territories varied in overall physiography and natural resources. Consequently, these various groups had diverse economic strategies, including full-­time hunting-­ gathering, farming, and horticulture with varying degrees of reliance on maize and different social structures. This diversity played a significant role in the nature of borderland relationships across the historic Southwest and helps to define expectations for expressions of Fremont identity along its frontiers. No historic Southwest ethnic group was isolated or exempt from the influence of others in the region. For example, Ford (1972, 1983) has described in detail the complex nature of a regional trade system, which included individual traders, trading parties, trade fairs, and intracommunity exchange. Materials traded included an exhaustive listing of native and domesticated plants; animal meat, skins, and other products; raw minerals; finished handicrafts; and other goods. Yet these groups were not exempt from hostilities across that same region, including frequent raiding and warfare (as has been summarized by various authors in Ortiz 1983). Ford (1983:​7 15) discussed the precarious nature of cross-­border relationships, which sometimes included exchange between traditional enemies or with groups whose relationships shifted back and forth between friendly and hostile (see also Ford’s [1972:​26–31] description of Tewa-­Comanche trade relations). Yet the seeming extremes of intergroup hostility and participation in a pan-­Southwest exchange network illustrate the intricacy of maintaining social distance and ethnic group identity. Ford (1983:​722) characterizes this network as one of “complex interactions among kinsmen, neighbors, formal friends, and distant strangers” where the system of ceremony actually facilitated and encouraged cross-­ border interaction. He further describes the contacts as most often occurring between the harvest and the preparation of fields for the next crop (fall and winter), and in these exchanges was reflected the need for groups to develop numerous trade contacts due to the nature of the Southwestern ecology. We interpret this to mean that the types of interactions that occurred

244

Michael T. Searcy and Richard K. Talbot

Figure 9.3. Southern Paiute tribes mentioned in text. (After Kelly and Fowler 1986.)

were dependent on the needs of each group, which may have been defined by what was unavailable to them within their own local environment. The Southern Paiute, closest of all of these Southwest groups to Fremont territory, provide a specific example of borderland relationships. The Southern Paiute occupied a large and environmentally diverse region that included portions of southern Nevada, southern Utah, and Arizona north of the Grand Canyon (Figure 9.3). Only the St. George/Santa Clara, and possibly the Moapa/Las Vegas Paiute, were committed farmers (see Allison 1988; Allison et al. 2008; Euler 1966; Fowler 1995:​110–112; Fowler and Fowler 1981:​132–139; Roberts 2000; Roberts and Ahlstrom, this volume; Talbot and Richens 2009), although the Kaibab were leaning that way just prior to ­Anglo settlement. San Juan Paiutes learned agricultural techniques from the Hopi, but only casually farmed. Kaiparowits, Cedar, and Panguitch Paiute were full-­time foragers. The Paiute concept of territory and boundaries was clear, both between bands and around the margins where contact occurred with non-­Paiutes.



Late Fremont Cultural Identities and Borderland Processes

245

Still, movement was common between the individual bands (e.g., Kaibab Paiute might fish at Panguitch Lake, while Panguitch Paiute could hunt on the Kaibab Plateau). Euler (1966:​104–110) reports that the Southern Paiute had a territory that both they and other groups around them (e.g. Ute, Navajo, Hopi, and others) recognized, a territory defined to large extent by traditional hunting-­gathering lands, even though portions of that territory might have been only intermittently occupied. But like the internal boundaries, the Southern Paiute frontier was permeable, allowing for trade and other interaction with farming and hunting groups to the south and east, and with hunter-­gatherers to the north and west. In particular, Kelly (1964) reports considerable trading of buckskin between Paiute bands and surrounding groups. The Paiute traded ­arrows and other goods to the Ute, in return receiving horses, buffalo hides, knives, and guns. The Bear Dance was probably introduced by the Ute to the Southern Paiute, and some frontier Paiute individuals were often considered indistinguishable from Utes. The San Juan Paiute hunted on the Coconino Plateau of the Havasuapai and intermarried with them. They also traded red mineral paint and eagle feather arrows to the Havasupai for mescal. From the Navajo they got rugs and horses, and from the Hopi, maize and piiki bread, in exchange for buffalo hide blankets, rabbit-­fur blankets and rope, and even firewood. Southern Paiute borderland relationships are variously described by both Kelly (1964) and Euler (1966) as often amicable, occasionally aggressive, and sometimes nonexistent. Frequent alliance formation occurred, but conflict was not uncommon, although typically small-­scale. Euler (1966) talks about occasional raiding parties to the Pai country to the south, and wife stealing was mentioned as one source of conflict. More frequently mentioned by many informants was the kidnapping of children by each other and by outsiders, often in the context of the Spanish slave trade. It is unclear whether these kidnappings also predated Spanish presence. Fremont Borderlands The Southern Paiute are just one example of general borderland processes expressed to varying degrees by most historic Southwestern groups. Some common characteristics of these different groups include: 1. Each group maintained their individual tribal identities, traditions, and linguistic differences, yet each participated in and relied heavily on

246

Michael T. Searcy and Richard K. Talbot

a larger sphere of social relations and commerce, taking advantage of both internal and external economic diversity. 2. Territories were defined, but borderlands were often permeable, including shared resource procurement areas. 3. Borderland relationships were temporally and socially variable and ­perhaps fragile, ranging from amicable to aggressive, or no relationship at all. 4. Aggressive relations might vary from raiding to open warfare. 5. Exchange networks were an integral part of the economic strategies, were both formal and informal, and were local and regional in scale. 6. Exchanged goods were dominated by perishable goods and filled needs usually unmet within a particular area, such as maize, animal hides, etc. Understanding the inevitable variability of interactions that occurred among the various groups surrounding the Fremont region between ad 900 and 1300, our expectations were that there were equally variable levels of identity maintenance. Due to available information we specifically highlight evidence of interaction, especially in the form of trade. As would be expected, there is little evidence of language preservation and/or evidence of the perishable goods that were likely exchanged that also marked ethnic identity. Below we examine data from four variably explored Fremont border­ lands (Figure 9.1) and then discuss the evidence for Fremont identity maintenance. The purpose is to suggest some initial interpretations of border­ land processes in each area that will further our understanding of inter- and intraregional interaction and identity. The Western Borderlands

The Great Basin is as forbidding as any desert in the western United States, with little or no water and sparse vegetation. This situation changes, however, when one reaches the Snake and Deep Creek ranges that form the modern border between Utah and Nevada. The Fremont village sites of Baker and Garrison are situated at the eastern base of the Snake Range, and other Fremont residential sites are known, though poorly reported, in this region. In historic times this area was populated by an intriguing mix of Shoshoni, Goshute, and Paiute hunter-­gatherers (Steward 1938), similar in general terms to hunter-­gatherers who lived there during the Fremont



Late Fremont Cultural Identities and Borderland Processes

247

period. The mountain and valley resources in this region were likely shared by farmers and hunter-­gatherers. The Baker Village site (Wilde and Soper 1999), the better understood of the Fremont sites, dates to ca. ad 1000–1300. At least toward the end of that occupation, the site probably functioned in part as a center of exchange and commerce attracting Fremont traders from all of the population concentrations along the eastern rim of the Great Basin. The ceramic assemblage includes abundant ceramic types from southwestern, central, and northern Utah. Turquoise is common, and marine shell from the Pacific coast is also present (Janetski, Jardine, and Watkins 2011; Jardine 2007). It seems equally likely that Baker Village and other western borderland Fremont sites were contact points in regional trade networks stretching through Nevada and California. While architecture (pithouses and adobe-­walled surface structures) and material culture (figurines, gray ware pottery, etc.) in these borderlands in many ways mirror that of the Fremont in the Parowan and Utah Valleys, Fremont archaeology in this region is rather sparse, and consequently little research has focused on areas to the west of the Snake and Deep Creek ranges. At least one recent examination of Fremont pottery in this region suggests that the Parowan Valley was the primary production zone for ceramics in western Utah and eastern Nevada (Cole 2011). Another ongoing survey project in eastern Nevada is dedicated to studying the extent of Fremont obsidian procurement and will likely provide more information regarding western expansion of the Fremont (Office of Public Archaeology 2010), but at the moment we lack more comprehensive data from these western borderlands. The Northwestern Borderland

The northern Fremont borderland, as defined here, consists of the region around the Great Salt Lake (GSL) and, in particular, the close confines between the GSL and the Wasatch Range. It is an unusually rich area of resource abundance on the eastern edge of the Great Basin desert. The large and diverse natural wetland resources along the eastern and southern edges of the GSL, complemented by nutrient-­rich, well-­watered soils ideal for farming, were particularly inviting to native groups for thousands of years, creating overlapping patterns in settlement strategies, architecture, and material remains.

248

Michael T. Searcy and Richard K. Talbot

These overlapping patterns have frustrated efforts to isolate the identity of GSL Formative period residents. The predominant view is that the GSL Fremont were foragers with only secondary reliance on farming (various, but especially Jennings 1978; Madsen 1979; Marwitt 1970; Steward 1933). Recent stable carbon and radio isotope analyses on a data set of dozens of burials from within or near the wetlands (Coltrain and Leavitt 2002; Coltrain and Stafford 1999; Simms 1999) have demonstrated a real diversity of dietary strategies, with many full-­time foragers present, but others with variable degrees of lifetime reliance on maize agriculture, some up to 60 percent or more. Talbot (2010) recently reexamined the stable isotope data (Coltrain and Leavitt 2002) and biomechanics (Ruff 1999) of the GSL burial set and defined three general strategies that were being carried out concurrently during the Formative period: (1) committed farmers whose maize intake was more than half their diet, averaging about 60 percent; (2) foragers whose maize intake was < 30 percent of their diet, and (3) a middle group whose average diet was between 30 and 50 percent maize. Talbot proposed that foragers with low maize intake were probably itinerant foragers who seasonally exploited the wetlands and had variable relations with Fremont farmers, at times trading for or obtaining maize in friendly exchanges, and other times acting as a threat by raiding farmers’ fields. The intermediate group, however, were probably semisedentary foragers who had more formal, established relations with Fremont farmers. They likely traded directly for domesticates and other accouterments of farming, including ceramics. They could have obtained yearly seed corn from farmers and intermittently grown maize, and may have occasionally raided fields of farmers (such as those with whom they did not have formal relations). The abundance of bison bone at many of the sites in this region suggests bison meat, hide, and bone were likely important trade items, which is similar to patterns among the Tewa and Comanche described by Ford (1972). The close proximity of farmers and foragers also likely resulted in some intermarriage, perhaps primarily foragers marrying into farmer households as part of a strategy to gain preferential access to farmer society and goods. Figure 9.4 suggests that the intermediate group of foragers with maize intake of 30–50 percent mostly disappears after ad 900–1000. This may reflect a sample bias, but the disappearance coincides with a regional ag-



Late Fremont Cultural Identities and Borderland Processes

249

Figure 9.4. Great Salt Lake Fremont chronology based on distinct diets.

gregation of farmers into larger villages, particularly those along the Great Basin–Colorado Plateau transition zone, and a concurrent decline of farmer burials in the GSL wetlands. This suggests that semisedentary or sedentary forager social and economic ties to Fremont farmers were altered when farmer aggregation occurred. Forager populations were significantly increasing during this time, and relationships between farmers and foragers may have been increasingly strained and/or have become more formalized. The Northeastern Borderland

The Uinta Basin, at the northern edge of the Colorado Plateau, is the northeasternmost extent of Fremont occupation. Late Fremont (post–ad 900) presence is seen in numerous small to medium residential sites on the alluvial fans at the southern base of the Uinta Mountains, such as in the Ashley Valley. These farmers logistically exploited the uplands in short-­term seasonal forays (Johnson and Loosle 2002). Boom and bust cycles may have resulted in population shifts between villages and dispersed farmsteads (Loosle and Johnson 2000; Talbot and Richens 2004). Maize is found in forager contexts in southwest Wyoming and taken as evidence for either farmer/forager exchange or as farmer logistical f­ orays, such as following the Green River northward (Loosle and Johnson 2000; Thompson and Pastor 1995). There is also evidence for regional exchange

250

Michael T. Searcy and Richard K. Talbot

in nonlocal obsidian, which north of the Uintas tends to originate from sources in Idaho and Wyoming, and south of the Uintas comes from sources in Utah, Nevada, and New Mexico (Johnson and Loosle 2002). Occasional intrusive Fremont, Ancestral Puebloan, and Numic ceramics are also found at some Uinta Basin sites, where locally made gray wares otherwise dominate (Ambler 1966; Shields 1967; see Spangler 1995). Nonlocal shell ornaments have also been identified at various Fremont sites, including Olivella shell from the Pacific coast (Maronde 1970; Talbot and Richens 1996). Possible coresidence of foragers and farmers in this northeastern region was discussed by Spangler (1995:​485–493) and Talbot and Richens (2004). As with other borderlands, distinguishing between hunter-­gatherer sites and Fremont farmer logistical sites is very difficult. However, Bandy and Baer (2010) recently examined site patterns in the Ryan Gulch/Piceance Basin of northwest Colorado and concluded that the data support Fremont logistical use of this borderland region. Thompson and Pastor (1995) have suggested a trade network between the Wyoming and Uinta Basins evidenced by Fremont rock art in southwestern Wyoming and, among other things, Fremont ceramics and Mineral Mountain (Utah) obsidian traded northward, and “tiger” chert (a unique southwest Wyoming toolstone material) moving southward. The Southern Borderland

The southern Fremont shared a broad frontier with northern Ancestral Pueblo groups, and this area has probably seen the most sustained research over the last several decades. The area includes the Colorado Plateau desert and canyon lands immediately north of the Colorado River, and the upland valleys on the eastern fringe of the Great Basin north of the St. George/ Virgin River Basin. During much of the twentieth century, that Fremont-­ Pueblo relationship was described in terms of a casual diffusion of farming and associated Southwest traits and material culture northward (Jennings 1956; Jennings and Norbeck 1955). More recently Basketmaker-­like characteristics have been noted in the Fremont area (Janetski 2003; Talbot and Richens 1996; Wilde and Newman 1989), and some (Berry 1982; Berry and Berry 2003; Geib 1996, Talbot 2000a; Talbot and Richens 1996) have suggested small-­scale migrations of Basketmaker groups north of the Colorado River as a primary source of farming in the Fremont region. Geib (1996)



Late Fremont Cultural Identities and Borderland Processes

251

proposed that a formal boundary existed between these earliest Fremont and Ancestral Pueblo farmers between ca. ad 500 and 1000 (after an initial Basketmaker II incursion), which then dissolved with more frequent interaction. Talbot (2000a) suggested this boundary breakdown began as early as ad 900. On the Colorado Plateau, the Boulder Valley complex of sites — ​including Coombs Village (Lister and Lister 1961) and other nearby village sites, and extending eastward to the Lampstand Ruins site (Baadsgaard and Janetski 2005) — ​appear to represent a late (ca. ad 1100s) Puebloan intrusion into the Fremont area, perhaps as trading outposts (Jennings 1978). The architecture and ceramics reflect general Kayenta styles, but Virgin ceramics are also present, along with some Fremont trade wares. Much smaller but contemporaneous Fremont sites are also located in this region, again supporting the thesis of a permeable Fremont/Pueblo frontier with economic intercourse between the two. Farther east still, other sites demonstrate a frontier variably occupied by both groups but with clear evidence for exchange (Baadsgaard and Janetski 2005; Geib and Lyneis 1996; Janetski et al. 2005; Jennings and Sammons-­Lohse 1981; Madsen 1982b). Recent excavations and large surveys by Brigham Young University and others (see Janetski, Richens, and Talbot 2012 for a summary) have been carried out in the Escalante Valley, where an extensive but dispersed Fremont occupation is evident. These groups probably lived year-­round in small farming villages or farmsteads in the valley bottom while seasonally exploiting the abundant native floral and faunal resources of the nearby uplands. Geib (1996; Geib et al. 2001) has documented a Virgin Anasazi presence on the Kaiparowits Plateau to the southwest, and a Kayenta Anasazi presence to the south and southeast in the lower Escalante River and Glen Canyon region. The BYU excavations in the valley bottom suggest that some of these Ancestral Puebloan groups moved into the Fremont-­ occupied Escalante Valley, where a vigorous exchange program was carried out, at least by the ad 1000s. In one case, at the Arrowhead Hill site, it appears that around ad 1100 Fremont and Puebloans occupied the site concurrently yet maintained their unique ethnic identities (Janetski, Richens, and Talbot 2012). However, a melding of certain passive Puebloan architectural characteristics into Fremont architecture — ​the same kind of melding seen at other Fremont residential sites throughout this region — ​hints that intermarriage was also occurring, as Talbot (2006:​328–329) has suggested.

252

Michael T. Searcy and Richard K. Talbot

Small quantities of mostly Virgin Anasazi ceramics have been found in collections from eastern Great Basin Fremont village sites in the Parowan Valley. It is interesting, then, that those ceramics do not seem to have been exchanged farther into the Fremont interior. Various researchers examining Parowan Valley ceramics consider it highly likely that the Parowan ­Valley Fremont, protecting their own Snake Valley painted ware distribution networks, tightly controlled this exchange process, bringing in the Virgin or other painted wares but not allowing them to go farther north (Lane Richens, Charmaine Thompson, Chris Watkins, Scott Ure, James Allison, personal communication, 2011). Lane Richens (personal communication, 2014) has reanalyzed a significant portion of ceramics at various Parowan Valley Fremont sites and Virgin Anasazi sites in southwestern Utah. Initial results show that less than 1 percent of the ceramics recovered at Fremont sites in the Parowan Valley were Anasazi. Fremont ceramics are equally as sparse at Virgin Anasazi sites to the south (about .42 percent). In sum, the southern Fremont/northern Ancestral Puebloan borderland ca. ad 900–1300 was variably active, with direct material exchange and possibly intermarriage in some areas, but restrictions and control of trade in others. Many residential sites in the Escalante Valley and elsewhere are situated on high prominences that are hard to get to and easy to defend, and it is possible that not all relationships were cordial. The permeability of the borderland is further demonstrated by the spread of Southwestern architectural characteristics (Talbot 2000b), influences on painted ceramic design styles (Thompson and Allison 1988), and the direct exchange of Ancestral Puebloan ceramics (Richens and Thompson 2010) across the greater Fremont region at this time. Discussion As mentioned above, the data we have for each area are somewhat preliminary, but general implications can be identified from this review of Fremont borderlands concerning the maintenance of Fremont ethnic boundaries and the nature of interactions with other groups. Foremost are data that suggest some type of interaction with neighboring, ethnically distinct communities. Second, core traits of the Late Fremont tradition (i.e., artifacts, rock art, architecture, and farming) are maintained within each area, but



Late Fremont Cultural Identities and Borderland Processes

253

with some variability. In other words, aspects of architecture or painting style on pottery may be different in particular areas due to their interaction with other groups, but for the most part we identify the other remains as Fremont because they fit the archaeological tradition defined above. We suggest this is directly related to how the Fremont chose to identify and distinguish themselves from surrounding groups. Evident in the northern and western regions is the fact that these Fremont enclaves interacted mostly with surrounding foragers. As has been noted in the ethnographic literature (e.g., Ford 1972:​43), farming communities that interact with foraging groups most often exchange food rather than craft items. In the GSL region, relatively large populations of sedentary horticulturalists, semisedentary foragers, and itinerant f­ oragers shared the narrow strip of land between the Great Salt Lake and the Wasatch Mountains, and their varying subsistence strategies are evident in the isotopic data presented above. All of these groups exploited the rich wetland resources to varying degrees, while at least some of the more residentially ­stable foragers probably had well-­established trade and possibly exogamous relationships with Fremont farmers. In areas of lower population density, such as the western and northeastern Fremont borderlands, exchange, at least, is similarly evident, and possibly intermarriage. While subsistence strategies may have varied among Fremont in these areas, artifacts like gray ware ceramics, figurines, and architectural style all remain consistent with the core Late Fremont characteristics outlined above. In the south, different patterns emerge in regard to trade and style. For the Parowan Valley, very few imported ceramics from the Virgin Anasazi region have been noted (less than 1 percent), and vice versa for Fremont wares farther south. While there is evidence for the acquisition of Ancestral Pueblo wares, it is clear that the Fremont continued to produce and expand upon their own gray ware pottery tradition. As mentioned above, there appear to have been attempts to control Ancestral Pueblo trade into the Fremont interior in the Parowan Valley. This valley was the production center for Snake Valley gray wares, which were distributed widely among other Fremont sites to the north. While this is the case, little Fremont pottery has been identified in Ancestral Pueblo contexts to the south, for example, among the Virgin Anasazi (Lane Richens, personal communication, 2011) and may also indicate control of pottery into the south. We suggest that

254

Michael T. Searcy and Richard K. Talbot

the control of pottery exchange may have been a tool for mitigating social distance and expressing ethnic identity. But as Ford (1983:​722) noted among historic Southwest groups, the exchange of goods often included items that were not available within one group’s own borders. With a strong Parowan Valley pottery tradition ­established, it likely was not necessary for the people there to import or exchange for other wares and vice versa. The lack of evidence for exchange ­between these areas may actually be characteristic of trade networks founded on perishable materials. Investigations of multiple lines of evidence are warranted in order to further explore this borderland region, where it appears that there are distinct expressions of social distance. As a point of comparison in the northern Puebloan world, Allison (2008:​63) has noted that over time the exchange of San Juan red ware from likely production sites in southeastern Utah into southwestern Colorado was variable and in some areas indicative of reinforcing group-­level identities (i.e., clans, sodalities, etc.). In light of ethnographic data, Allison suggests that these patterns may have been networks of exchange among kin groups that existed across the northern San Juan region. Following this model, we suggest that the Fremont and Ancestral Pueblo in the southeast may have established trade networks based on kin groups that likely developed ties over centuries of interaction. Their proximity may have also encouraged amicable relationships as they shared resources or traded needed goods. Architectural styles may also have been shared along this southern frontier, or they may represent cohabitation or intermarriage (see Talbot 2006:​328–329 for a more detailed discussion). In any case, it is interesting to note that these Fremont and Ancestral Pueblo characteristics remained distinct. While chronologies for these various areas still need to be refined, it is likely that relationships between the Fremont and bordering communities of farmers and foragers have a long yet variable history. In addition, regional differences would have been affected by any number of variables specific to an area and time, such as population aggregation, availability of wild resources or arable land, and the history of the relationships between groups. Variable resources and ecological environments likely contributed to changes in the types of interaction occurring at these frontiers. While social distance is more defined in some areas at certain times, the lines of



Late Fremont Cultural Identities and Borderland Processes

255

ethnic boundaries are blurred in others (e.g., the use of architectural styles from both groups on the Fremont-­Pueblo frontier). As Murphy (1964:​1260) noted, variation in social distance is likely to occur, and it is important to remember that relationships are situational and ever changing through time as people adjust to new situations and environments. But what is common among all regional manifestations of the Fremont tradition is the fact that their core ethnic identity remained intact. This identity, as outlined at the beginning of this chapter, can partly be seen as a common material culture that resulted from “their routinized and repetitive activities” (Varien and Potter 2008:​5). Conclusions The issue of Fremont identity, then, hangs in large part on the issue of boundedness. We have looked to the edges of the traditional Fremont region to seek ethnic identity and, in particular, to examine the variable nature of identity maintenance through exchange and other contacts, where the Fremont tradition can be contextualized with and contrasted to non-­ Fremont. The evidence to date implies interaction but also the maintenance of social distance between Late Fremont horticulturalists and non-­Fremont groups. Comparatively speaking, there is still much work to be done in developing Fremont chronologies with the amount of resolution associated with the study of prehistoric Southwestern groups. For example, we might expect future studies to deal with exchange spheres and mechanisms, the use of rock art as a Fremont territorial marker, exogamous relationships along the borderlands, an analysis of a pan-­Fremont ritual complex, and even evidence for unfriendly incursions across borderlands. But what is emerging, thanks in part to this volume, are more studies focused on theoretical perspectives common to Southwestern archaeology (e.g., identity, social organization, etc.). We still have a large task ahead of us that involves defining the historical paths of people who were part of the Fremont tradition. As these histories are developed, we will likely need to modify our interpretations of Fremont frontier relationships, but it is increasingly apparent from this and similar studies that the Fremont archaeological tradition is unique and definable, in particular along its borderlands.

256

Michael T. Searcy and Richard K. Talbot

Acknowledgments We thank Barb Roth and Maxine McBrinn for including us in this important volume. We also thank Scott Ure for the original preparation of the maps and illustrations in this chapter. Lane Richens and Jim Allison graciously offered valuable data from their current projects that helped us fill in some gaps in our own research. Finally we extend gratitude to the reviewers who provided their sound advice and direction.

References Adovasio, James M., David R. Pedler, and Jeff S. Illingworth 2002 Fremont Basketry. Utah Archaeology 15(1)2002:​5–26. Allison, James R. 1988 Late Prehistoric Subsistence Practices in the Virgin River Drainage. Paper presented at the 21st Great Basin Anthropological Conference, Park City, Utah. 2008 Human Ecology and Social Theory in Utah Archaeology. Utah Archaeology 21(1):57–88. 2014 The Chronology of Fremont Farming in Northern Utah. Paper presented at the 79th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Austin, Texas. Allison, James R., Cathryn M. Meegan, and Shawn Sabrina Murray 2008 Archaeology and Archaeobotany of Southern Paiute Horticulture in the St. George Basin, Southwestern Utah. Kiva 73(4):417–449. Ambler, J. Richard 1966 Caldwell Village. Anthropological Papers No. 84. University of Utah, Salt Lake City. Baadsgaard, Aubrey, and Joel C. Janetski 2005 Exploring Formative Strategies and Ethnicity in South-­Central Utah: Exca­ vations at Lampstand Ruins and the Durfey Site. Museum of Peoples and Cultures Technical Series No. 00–3. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. Bandy, Matthew S., and Sarah Baer 2010 Fremont on the Fringe of the Great Basin: A Study of the Formative Occupation of the Piceance Basin, Northwestern Colorado. Paper presented at the 32nd Great Basin Anthropological Conference, Layton, Utah. Barth, Fredrik 1998 Introduction. In Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture Difference, edited by Fredrik Barth, 9–38. Waveland, Prospect Heights, Illinois. (Originally published in 1969 by Little, Brown, and Company, Boston.) Berry, Michael S. 1982 Time, Space and Transition in Anasazi Prehistory. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Berry, Michael S., and Claudia F. Berry 2003 An Archaeological Analysis of the Prehistoric Fremont Culture for the Purpose of Assessing Cultural Affiliation with Ten Claimant Tribes. Submitted



Late Fremont Cultural Identities and Borderland Processes

257

to USDI Bureau of Reclamation. Manuscript on file, Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Regional Office, Salt Lake City, Utah. Beshers, James M., Ephraim H. Mizruchi, and Robert Perrucci 1963 Social Distance Strategies and Status Symbols: An Approach to the Study of Social Structure. Sociological Quarterly 4(4):311–324. Bogardus, Emory S. 1938 Social Distance and Its Practical Implications. Journal of Sociology and Social Research 22:​462–476. Cohen, Ronald 1978 Ethnicity: Problem and Focus in Anthropology. Annual Review of Anthro­ pology 7:​379–403. Cole, Clint 2011 Prehistoric Archaeology and the Fremont Frontier at North Meadow Valley Wash, Eastern Nevada. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis. Coltrain, Joan Brenner, and Steven W. Leavitt 2002 Climate and Diet in Fremont Prehistory: Economic Variability and Abandonment of Maize Agriculture in the Great Salt Lake Basin. American An­ tiquity 67(3): 453–485. Coltrain, Joan Brenner, and Thomas W. Stafford, Jr. 1999 Stable Carbon Isotopes and Salt Lake Wetlands Diet: Towards an Understanding of the Great Basin Formative. In Prehistoric Lifeways in the Great Basin Wetlands: Bioarchaeological Reconstruction and Interpretation, edited by B. E. Hemphill and C. S. Larsen, pp. 55–83. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Cordell, Linda S. 2008 Exploring Social Identities through Archaeological Data from the Southwest: An Introduction. In Archaeology without Borders: Contact, Commerce, and Change in the U.S. Southwest and Northwestern Mexico, edited by Laurie D. Webster and Maxine E. McBrinn, pp. 145–154. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. Duff, Andrew I. 2002 Western Pueblo Identities: Regional Interaction, Migration, and Transforma­ tion. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Euler, Robert C. 1966 Southern Paiute Ethnohistory. Glen Canyon Series No. 28, Anthropological Papers No. 78. University of Utah, Salt Lake City. Ford, Richard I. 1972 Barter, Gift, or Violence: An Analysis of Tewa Intertribal Exchange. In So­ cial Exchange and Interaction, edited by Edwin M. Wilmsen, pp. 21–45. Anthropological Papers of the Museum of Anthropology No. 46, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 1983 Inter-­Indian Exchange in the Southwest. In Southwest, edited by Alfonso Ortiz, pp. 711–722. Handbook of North American Indians Vol. 10. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.

258

Michael T. Searcy and Richard K. Talbot

Fowler, Catherine S. 1995 Some Notes on Ethnographic Subsistence Systems in Mojavean Environments in the Great Basin. Journal of Ethnobiology 15(1):99–117. Fowler, Catherine S., and Don D. Fowler 1981 The Southern Paiute. In The Protohistoric Period in the North American Southwest, ad 1450–1700, edited by David R. Wilcox and W. Bruce Masse, pp. 129–162. Anthropological Research Papers No. 24. Arizona State University, Tempe. Geib, Phil R. 1996 Glen Canyon Revisited. Anthropological Papers No. 119. University of Utah, Salt Lake City. Geib, Phil R., and Margaret M. Lyneis 1996 Sources of Temper for Fremont Ceramics. In Glen Canyon Revisited, pp. 167–​179. Anthropological Papers No. 119. University of Utah, Salt Lake City. Geib, Phil R., Jim H. Collette, and Kimberly Spurr 2001 Kaibabitsinungwu: An Archaeological Sample Survey of the Kaiparowits Pla­ teau. Grand Staircase–Escalante National Monument Special Publication No. 1, Cultural Resource Series No. 25. Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake City, Utah. Hegmon, Michelle (editor) 2000 The Archaeology of Regional Interaction: Religion, Warfare, and Exchange across the American Southwest and Beyond. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. Hodder, Ian 1982 Symbols in Action: Ethnoarchaeological Studies of Material Culture. Cambridge University Press, UK. Janetski, Joel C. 2003 Distinctive Bone Disks from Utah Valley: Evidence of Basketmaker Connections in North Central Utah. Kiva 68(4):305–322. Janetski, Joel C., Cady B. Jardine, and Christopher N. Watkins 2011 Interaction and Exchange in Fremont Society. In Perspectives on Prehistoric Trade and Exchange in California and the Great Basin, edited by Richard E. Hughes. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Janetski, Joel C., Lee Kreutzer, Richard K. Talbot, Lane D. Richens, and Shane A. Baker 2005 Life on the Edge: Archaeology in Capitol Reef National Park. Museum of Peoples and Cultures Occasional Papers No. 11. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. Janetski, Joel C., Lane D. Richens, and Richard K. Talbot 2012 Fremont-­Anasazi Boundary Maintenance and Permeability in the Escalante Drainage. In Meetings at the Margins: Prehistoric Cultural Interactions in the Intermountain West, edited by David Rhode, pp. 191–210. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.



Late Fremont Cultural Identities and Borderland Processes

259

Janetski, Joel C., and Richard K. Talbot 2000a Project Overview and Context. In Clear Creek Canyon Archaeological Proj­ ect: Results and Synthesis, by J.C. Janetski, R. K. Talbot, D. E. Newman, L. D. Richens, and J. D. Wilde, pp. 1–7. Museum of Peoples and Cultures Occasional Papers No. 7. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. 2000b Fremont Social and Community Organization. In Clear Creek Canyon Ar­ chaeological Project: Results and Synthesis, by J.C. Janetski et al., pp. 247–262. Museum of Peoples and Cultures Occasional Papers No. 7. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. 2014 Fremont Social Organization: A Southwestern Perspective. In Archaeology in the Great Basin and Southwest: Papers in Honor of Don. D. Fowler, edited by Nancy J. Parezo and Joel C. Janetski, pp. 118–129. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Jardine, Cady B. 2007 Fremont Finery: Exchange and Distribution of Turquoise and Olivella ­Ornaments in the Parowan Valley and Beyond. MA thesis, Department of Anthropology, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. Jenkins, Richard 1996 Social Identity. Routledge, London. 1997 Rethinking Ethnicity. Sage, London. Jennings, Jesse D. 1978 Prehistory of Utah and the Eastern Great Basin: A Review. Anthropological Papers No. 98. University of Utah, Salt Lake City. Jennings, Jesse D. (editor) 1956 The American Southwest: A Problem in Cultural Isolation. In Seminars in Archaeology, 1955, edited by Robert Wauchope, pp. 59–127. SAA Memoirs No. 11. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, DC. Jennings, Jesse D., and Edward Norbeck 1955 Great Basin Prehistory: A Review. American Antiquity 21:​1–11. Jennings, Jesse D., and Dorothy Sammons-­Lohse 1981 Bull Creek. Anthropological Papers No. 105. University of Utah, Salt Lake City. Johnson, Clay, and Byron Loosle 2002 Prehistoric Uinta Mountain Occupations. Heritage Report 2–02/2002. Ashley National Forest, Intermountain Region, USDA Forest Service, Vernal, Utah. Jones, Siân 1997 The Archaeology of Ethnicity: Constructing Identities in the Past and Present. Routledge, New York. Judd, Neil M. 1926 Archaeological Observations North of the Rio Colorado. Bulletin No. 82. Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Kelly, Isabel T. 1964 Southern Paiute Ethnography. Glen Canyon Series No. 21, Anthropological Papers No. 69. University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

260

Michael T. Searcy and Richard K. Talbot

Kelly, Isabel T., and Catherine S. Fowler 1986 Southern Paiute. In Great Basin, edited by Warren L. d’Azevedo, pp. 368– 397. Handbook of North American Indians Vol. 11. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Kidder, Alfred Vincent 1924 An Introduction to the Study of Southwestern Archaeology with a Preliminary Account of the Excavations at Pecos. Yale University Press, New Haven. Lister, Robert H., and Florence C. Lister 1961 The Coombs Site, Part III. Anthropological Papers No. 41. University of Utah, Salt Lake City. Loosle, Byron, and Clay Johnson (editors) 2000 Dutch John Excavations: Seasonal Occupations on the North Slope of the Uinta Mountains. Heritage Report 1–01/2000. Ashley National Forest, Inter­ mountain Region, USDA Forest Service, Vernal, Utah. Lyons, Patrick D., and Jeffery J. Clark 2008 Interaction, Enculturation, Social Distance, and Ancient Ethnic Identities. In Archaeology without Borders: Contact, Commerce, and Change in the U.S. Southwest and Northwestern Mexico, edited by Laurie D. Webster and Maxine E. McBrinn, pp. 185–208. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. Madsen, David B. 1979 The Fremont and the Sevier: Defining Prehistoric Agriculturalists North of the Anasazi. American Antiquity 44(4):711–722. 1982a 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 Man and Environment in the Great Basin, edited by David B. Madsen and James F. O’Connell, pp. 207–226. SAA Papers No. 2. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, DC. 1982b Salvage Excavations at Ticaboo Town Ruin (42Ga2295). In Archaeological Investigations in Utah at Fish Springs, Clay Basin, Northern San Rafael Swell, Southern Henry Mountains, assembled by David B. Madsen and Richard E. Fike. Cultural Resources Series No. 12. Utah Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake City, Utah. Madsen, David B., and Steven R. Simms 1998 The Fremont Complex: A Behavioral Perspective. Journal of World Prehis­ tory 12:​255–336. Maronde, Donna F. 1970 Wagon Run, 42Un49. In Archaeological Excavations in Dinosaur National Monument, Colorado-­Utah, 1964–1965, assembled by David B. Breternitz, pp. 31–40. University of Colorado Studies, Series in Anthropology No. 17. University of Colorado Press, Boulder. Marwitt, John P. 1970 Median Village and Fremont Culture Regional Variation. Anthropological Papers No. 95. University of Utah, Salt Lake City.



Late Fremont Cultural Identities and Borderland Processes

261

Morss, Noel 1931 The Ancient Culture of the Fremont River in Utah. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 12, No. 2. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Murphy, Robert F. 1964 Social Distance and the Veil. American Anthropologist 66(1):1257–1274. Office of Public Archaeology 2010 Obsidian Crossroads: An Archaeological Investigation of the Panaca ­Summit/ Modena Obsidian Source in Lincoln County, Nevada. Proposal submitted to the Bureau of Land Management for Round Four of the Lincoln County Archaeological Initiative (LCAI). On file, Office of Public Archaeology, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. Ortiz, Alfonso (editor) 1983 Southwest. Handbook of North American Indians Vol. 10. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Parker, Bradley J. 2006 Toward an Understanding of Borderland Processes. American Antiquity 71(1):77–100. Pauketat, Timothy R. 2001a Practice and History in Archaeology: An Emerging Paradigm. Anthropolog­ ical Theory 1:​73–98. Pauketat, Timothy R. (editor) 2001b The Archaeology of Traditions: Agency and History Before and After Colum­ bus. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Perrucci, Robert 1963 Social Distance Strategies and Intra-­Organizational Stratification: A Study of the Status System on a Psychiatric Ward. American Sociological Review 28(6):951–962. Potter, James M., and Thomas D. Yoder 2008 Space, Houses, and Bodies: Identity Construction and Destruction in an Early Pueblo Community. In The Social Construction of Communities, edited by Mark D. Varien and James M. Potter, pp. 21–40. Alta Mira Press, ­Plymouth, UK. Richens, Lane D., and Charmaine Thompson 2010 Distribution of Ancestral Puebloid Pottery in the Fremont Area. Paper presented at the 32nd Great Basin Anthropological Conference, Layton, Utah. Roberts, Heidi 2000 Settlement and Subsistence Strategies of the Southern Paiute in the St. George Basin, Southwestern Utah. Paper presented at the 27th Great Basin Anthropological Conference, Ogden, Utah. Rudy, Jack R. 1953 Archeological Survey of Western Utah. Anthropological Papers No. 12. University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

262

Michael T. Searcy and Richard K. Talbot

Ruff, Christopher B. 1999 Skeletal Structure and Behavioral Patterns of Prehistoric Great Basin Populations. In Prehistoric Lifeways in the Great Basin Wetlands: Bioarchaeological Reconstruction and Interpretation, edited by B. E. Hemphill and C. S. Larsen, pp. 290–320. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Schriever II, Bernard A. 2008 Informal Identity and the Mimbres Phenomenon: Investigating Regional  Identity and Archaeological Cultures in the Mimbres Mogollon. PhD ­dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Oklahoma, ­Norman. Shennan, Stephen 1993 After Social Evolution: A New Archaeological Agenda? In Archaeological Theory: Who Sets the Agenda?, edited by Norman Yoffee and Andrew Sherratt, pp. 53–59. Cambridge University Press, UK. Shields, Wayne F. 1967 1966 Excavations: Uinta Basin. In Miscellaneous Collected Papers 15–18, by Wayne F. Shields, John P. Marwitt, Gordon N. Keller, John D. Hunt, and Erik K. Reed, pp. 1–32. Paper No. 15, Anthropological Papers No. 89. University of Utah, Salt Lake City. Simmel, Georg 1950 The Sociology of Georg Simmel. Free Press, New York. Simms, Steven R. 1986 New Evidence for Fremont Adaptive Diversity. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 8(2):204–216 1999 Farmers, Foragers and Adaptive Diversity: The Great Salt Lake Wetlands Project. In Prehistoric Lifeways in the Great Basin Wetlands: Bioarchaeolog­ ical Reconstruction and Interpretation, edited by B. E. Hemphill and C. S. Larsen, pp. 21–54. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 2008 Ancient Peoples of the Great Basin and the Colorado Plateau. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, California. Simpson, George E., and J. Milton Yinger 1958 Racial and Cultural Minorities: An Analysis of Prejudice and Discrimination. 4th ed. Harper and Row, New York. Spangler, Jerry D. 1995 Paradigms and Perspectives: A Class I Overview of Cultural Resources in the Uinta Basin and Tavaputs Plateau. Report on file, Bureau of Land Management, Vernal District Office, Vernal, Utah. Steward, Julian H. 1933 Early Inhabitants of Western Utah. Bulletin of the University of Utah Vol. 23, No. 7. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 1936 Pueblo Material Culture in Western Utah. Bulletin No. 287, Anthropological Series Vol. 1, No. 3. University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. 1938 Basin-­Plateau Aboriginal Sociopolitical Groups. Bulletin No. 120. Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.



Late Fremont Cultural Identities and Borderland Processes

263

Stone, Tammy 2003 Social Identity and Ethnic Interaction in the Western Pueblos of the American Southwest. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 10(1):31–67. Talbot, Richard K. 2000a Fremont Farmers: The Search for Context. In The Archaeology of Regional Interaction: Religion, Warfare, and Exchange Across the American Southwest and Beyond, edited by Michelle Hegmon, pp. 275–293. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. 2000b Fremont Architecture. In Clear Creek Canyon Archaeological Project: Results and Synthesis, by J. C. Janetski, R. K. Talbot, D. E. Newman, L. D. Richens, and J. D. Wilde, pp. 131–184. Museum of Peoples and Cultures Occasional Papers No. 7. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. 2000c Fremont Settlement Patterns and Demography. In Clear Creek Canyon Ar­ chaeological Project: Results and Synthesis, by J.C. Janetski et al. pp. 201–230. Museum of Peoples and Cultures Occasional Papers No. 7. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. 2006 Architecture and Cultural Identity along the Fremont-­Anasazi Interface. In Learning from the Land: Grand Staircase–Escalante National Monument Sci­ ence Symposium Proceedings 2006. Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake City, Utah. 2010 Peopling the Promontory: A Model of Great Salt Lake and Utah Lake Wetlands Adaptations ca. ad 900–1400. Paper presented at the 32nd Great Basin Anthropological Conference, Layton, Utah. 2011 Fremont Farming and Residential Mobility on the Colorado Plateau. In An Archaeological Legacy: Essays in Honor of Ray T. Matheny. Museum of Peoples and Cultures Occasional Papers No. 18. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. Talbot, Richard K., Shane A. Baker, and Joel C. Janetski 2005 Project Synthesis: Archaeology in Capitol Reef National Park. In Life on the Edge: Archaeology in Capitol Reef National Park, by J. C. Janetski, L. Kreut­zer, R. K. Talbot, L. D. Richens, and S. A. Baker, pp. 351–407. Museum of Peoples and Cultures Occasional Papers No. 11. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. Talbot, Richard K., and Lane D. Richens 1996 Steinaker Gap: An Early Fremont Farmstead. Museum of Peoples and Cultures Occasional Papers No. 2. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. 2004 Fremont Farming and Mobility on the Far Northern Colorado Plateau. Museum of Peoples and Cultures Occasional Papers No. 10. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. 2009 Shifting Sands: The Archaeology of Sand Hollow. Museum of Peoples and Cultures Occasional Papers No. 13. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. Thompson, Charmaine, and James R. Allison 1988 Symbolism and Meaning in Fremont Painted Ceramics. Paper presented at the 21st Great Basin Anthropological Conference, Park City, Utah.

264

Michael T. Searcy and Richard K. Talbot

Thompson, Kevin W., and Jana V. Pastor 1995 People of the Sage: 10,000 Years of Occupation in Southwest Wyoming. Cultural Resource Management Report No. 67. Archaeological Services of Western Wyoming College, Rock Springs. Thompson, Leonard, and Howard Lamar 1981 Comparative Frontier History. In The Frontier in History: North America and Southern Africa Compared, edited by H. Lamar and L. Thompson, pp. 3–13. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut. Ure, Scott M., and Sarah Stauffer 2010 The Function of Central Structures in Fremont Community Organization. Paper presented at the 32nd Great Basin Anthropological Conference, Layton, Utah. Varien, Mark D., and James M. Potter 2008 The Social Production of Communities: Structure, Agency, and Identity. In The Social Construction of Communities, edited by Mark D. Varien and James M. Potter, pp. 1–20. Alta Mira, Plymouth, UK. Warner, Lyle G., and Melvin L. DeFleur 1969 Attitude as an Interactional Concept: Social Constraint and Social Distance as Intervening Variables Between Attitudes and Action. American Sociolog­ ical Review 34(2):153–169. Watkins, Christopher N. 2010a Fremont Smallholders: Late Formative Settlement Patterns, Land Tenure, and Community Organization. Paper presented at the 32nd Great Basin Anthropological Conference, Layton, Utah. 2010b The Fremont Bird Cult. Paper presented at the 32nd Great Basin Anthropological Conference, Layton, Utah. Wilde, James D., and Deborah E. Newman 1989 Late Archaic Corn in the Eastern Great Basin. American Anthropologist 91(3):712–720. Wilde, James D., and Reed A. Soper 1999 Baker Village: Report of Excavations, 1990–1994. Museum of Peoples and Cultures Technical Series No. 99–12. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. Wobst, H. M. 1977 Stylistic Behavior and Information Exchange. In For the Director: Research Essays in Honor of James B. Griffin, edited by C. E. Cleland, pp.317–342. Anthropological Papers of the Museum of Anthropology No. 61. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Wormington, H. Marie 1955 A Reappraisal of the Fremont Culture. Proceedings No. 1. Denver Museum of Natural History, Denver, Colorado.

C H A P T E R 10

Evolving Patterns of Villages in the Southwestern Mojave Desert, California Mark Q. Sutton

Early research into the settlement patterns in the Mojave Desert generally assumed that the region was occupied by small groups of mobile people moving from small settlement to small settlement on a seasonal basis and exploiting a wide variety of scarce resources (e.g., Steward 1938; Wallace 1962). This general settlement model was first articulated in the late 1950s as the “Desert Culture” (e.g., Jennings 1957) or “Desert Archaic” (e.g., Jennings 1973). Such a strategy would be generally similar to the “foragers” described by Binford (1980). An alternative model was proposed by Bettinger (1978), who posited that some desert groups lived in larger, more permanent “villages,” were less mobile, and were more focused on specific resources. In this “Desert Village” model, people would have utilized a strategy more similar to Binford’s (1980) “collectors.” Subsequently, McIntyre and Sutton (1981; Sutton and McIntyre 1982; Sutton 1988:​73–76) evaluated these competing models as they pertained to the prehistoric occupation of the southwestern Mojave Desert. It was concluded that villages did exist in the western Mojave Desert and that Bettinger’s (1978) Desert Village model was appropriate for the region. It was further argued that a Desert Village pattern did not develop until about 300 bc (2200 bp), and that prior to that time, a much more m ­ obile 265

266

Mark Q. Sutton

­ attern, akin to the Desert Archaic, was present (Sutton and McIntyre 1982). p ­Robinson (1996) came to the same basic conclusion, calling the late settlements “Central Villages.” In the last several decades additional sites identified as villages have been discovered in the southwestern Mojave Desert, bringing the total to nine. While each of these sites is unique, sites with similar traits appear to be clustered in three separate geographic areas, each with its own character, temporal trajectory, and cultural connections. Together, they suggest a more complex regional prehistory than has traditionally been envisioned. Each of these proposed village clusters is herein defined and described, and implications regarding the prehistory of the southwestern Mojave Desert are proposed. Background The southwestern Mojave Desert (Figure 10.1) is bounded by the San Gabriel Mountains on the south, the Tehachapi and El Paso Mountains on the north, and generally by Highway 395 on the east. Thus defined, the region forms a single hydrologic basin, with the Antelope Valley occupying most of the region and the Fremont Valley located along its northern border (also see Rowlands et al. 1982). Elevations of the region range from 693 m (2,273 ft) to 1,393 m (4,570 ft) above sea level. The climate is semiarid with low humidity, and temperatures vary from 120°F (49°C) in the summer to 0°F (−18°C) in the winter. Rainfall averages about 76 mm (3 in.) per year on the floor of the Antelope Valley, gradually increasing toward the foothills (Stones 1964). Much of the southwestern Mojave Desert lies within a creosote bush scrub community dominated by creosote bush (Larrea tridentata), with mesquite (Prosopis spp.) found around the playas. At slightly higher elevations, a shadscale scrub community dominated by buckwheat (Eriogo­ num spp.), rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus spp.), and saltbush (Atriplex spp.) is present. At still higher elevations along the edge of the San Gabriel and Tehachapi Mountains, a piñon-­juniper woodland (Pinus monophylla and Juniperus californica) is present, and Jeffery pines (Pinus jeffreyi) grow in the mountains. Despite the low precipitation and high evaporation rates, groundwater in the form of springs and/or artesian wells was probably available in quantity well into the twentieth century, before modern agriculture lowered the



Patterns of Villages in the Southwestern Mojave Desert, California 267

Figure 10.1. The southwestern Mojave Desert in California and landmarks noted in the text. Illustration by Luke Wisner of Statistical Research, Inc.

water table. The water table on Edwards Air Force Base in the central Antelope Valley (protected from recent agricultural development) is still high enough to support extensive stands of mesquite around the major playas. The most recent treatment of Mojave Desert prehistory was presented by Sutton et al. (2007; but also see Warren 1984; Sutton 1996), who proposed several broad temporal periods and cultural complexes, some of which spanned the transition between broad periods. The Early and Middle Holocene peoples are represented by the Clovis complex (ca. 12,000–9500 bc [12,000–10,000 bp]), the Lake Mojave complex (ca. 9500–7000 bc [10,000– 8,000 bp]), and the Pinto and Deadman Lake complexes (ca. 8250–3780 bc [9,000–5,000 bp]). Clovis and Lake Mojave materials are poorly represented in the southwestern Mojave Desert, but a few sites have Pinto complex components. However, hot and dry environmental conditions during the Middle Holocene may have impacted human populations, and it is

268

Mark Q. Sutton

possible that parts of the region were largely abandoned during this time. By about 2500 bc (4000 bp), conditions had improved, and the cultural complex that emerged about that time is called Gypsum, lasting until about ad 225 (1800 bp). Beginning about ad 225, cultural systems appear to have changed dramatically across the entire Mojave Desert, and the Rose Spring complex, generally dated between ad 225 and 1100 (1800–900 bp), emerged. The bow and arrow diffused into the area at this time, and there appears to have been a major population increase, dramatic changes in artifact assemblages, and the appearance of well-­developed middens. After about ad 825 (1200 bp), the Medieval Climatic Anomaly (MCA; see Gardner 2007) resulted in warming and drying conditions, during which time populations appear to have declined, and several separate Late Prehistoric complexes, believed to represent the prehistoric aspects of the regional ethnographic groups, emerged. Also of significance here is the Encinitas Tradition in southern California, first proposed by Wallace (1955) and often called the “Millingstone Horizon.” The Millingstone Horizon was redefined as the Encinitas Tradition by Warren (1968; also see Sutton and Gardner 2010) and is generally characterized by a preponderance of milling tools, few projectile points, cairn burials, a paucity of faunal remains, and a very conservative culture whose technology changed little through time. The Encinitas Tradition is dated between about 7600 and 1825 bc (8500–3500 bp) along coastal southern California, after which it was replaced by the Del Rey Tradition, suggested to reflect the entry of Takic groups into the region (Sutton 2010a). In interior southern California, however, the Greven Knoll Pattern of the Encinitas Tradition persisted until about ad 1020 (1000 bp) (Sutton and Gardner 2010), with the Sayles Complex described by Kowta (1969) being recast as the last phase of Greven Knoll (Greven Knoll III). As discussed below, it is suggested herein that Greven Knoll groups extended north into the southeastern Mojave Desert. Villages in the Southwestern Mojave Desert The Mojave Desert as a whole contains a wide variety of site types, including small to large lithic scatters and quarries, rock art, rockshelters, and midden sites generally interpreted as temporary camps. Sites interpreted as large, permanent villages are uncommon; however, in the southwestern Mojave



Patterns of Villages in the Southwestern Mojave Desert, California 269

Desert, large, complex sites classified as villages appear to have been relatively common. These villages generally share a variety of traits, including extensive and deep middens, considerable material culture, exotic materials, cemeteries, and architecture, and are thought to represent more or less permanent occupation locales. To date, nine such village sites have been identified and investigated at some level in the southwestern Mojave Desert. These sites appear to be clustered in three general geographic areas (Figure 10.1): the Western Cluster in the western Antelope Valley; the Southern Cluster in the southeastern Antelope Valley, and the Northern Cluster in the Fremont Valley to the north (see Table 10.1). Each cluster is discussed below. The Western Village Cluster

In the original investigations into the Desert Village model in the southwestern Mojave Desert, McIntyre and Sutton (1981; Sutton and McIntyre 1982) argued that two sites, Cottonwood Creek (CA-­KER-303) and Skelton Ranch (CA-­LAN-488), were large, complex villages indicative of permanent settlement. A third site, Willow Springs (CA-­KER-129), was listed as probable, and a fourth was reported from the Buckhorn Lake area. Since that time, another large site, Fairmont Creek (CA-­LAN-298), has been interpreted as a large village. No new information has become available on Willow Springs, and the large site near Buckhorn Lake (CA-­LAN-828, now recorded as CA-­LAN-1296) has been reevaluated as a seasonal settlement (Gross 1990; Byrd et al. 1994:​165) and was therefore dropped from this analysis. Thus, there are four large sites in the western Antelope Valley currently interpreted as villages. They are generally similar to one another (Table 10.1) and form the Western Cluster defined here. All but Willow Springs are located in hill settings along the edge of the western Antelope Valley, were probably close to piñon-­juniper woodlands at one time, and are situated near springs or adjacent to streams. Each is briefly described below. The Cottonwood Creek Site (CA-­KER-303) The Cottonwood Creek site is located in a small set of foothills protruding into the northwestern Antelope Valley from the Tehachapi Mountains (Figure 10.1, Site 1). Excavated between 1971 and 1976, the site contains a large, dark, greasy, and deep (ca. 2.5 m) midden deposit. Excavation of an

Northern Cluster Cantil (CA-KER-2211) Koehn Lake (CA-KER-875)

Southern Cluster Barrel Springs (CA-LAN-82) Lovejoy Springs (CA-LAN-192) Totem Pole Ranch (no trinomial)

Western Cluster Cottonwood Creek (CA-KER-303) Skelton Ranch (CA-LAN-488) Fairmont Creek (CA-LAN-298) Willow Springs (CA-KER-129)

Site

~ 100 ~ 60 to 150

~ 240,000

~ 100

unknown

~ 2,000

~ 260

unknown

unknown

~ 500,000

~ 200

~ 8,000

~ 160

~ 300

unknown

unknown

~ 250

Midden Depth (cm)

~ 10,000

Size (m2)

medium

medium

high

high

high

unknown

medium

high

very high

Artifact Diversity

Table 10.1. Traits of known villages in the southwestern Mojave Desert

no

no

no

yes

yes

reported

probably

yes

yes

Burials

pithouse-like

wickiup-like

no

no

no

rock rings

rock rings

no

wickiup-like

Architecture

no

no

no

yes

yes

yes

yes

nearby

nearby

Bedrock Mortars

no

no

no

no

no

no

yes

nearby

no

Rock Art



Patterns of Villages in the Southwestern Mojave Desert, California 271

a­ pproximately 2.5 percent sample resulted in the discovery of a cemetery, structure foundations, many features, and a very large quantity and diversity of artifacts. The cemetery was located in the center of the site and contained perhaps as many as 100 burials, many with grave goods. In addition to dozens of hearth features and trash pits, the foundations of three wickiup-­like structures (Sutton 1988:​62–65) were discovered. The recovered artifacts included perhaps 60,000 Olivella beads, numerous steatite items, hundreds of projectile points, considerable obsidian, and many other artifact classes. Some of the steatite artifacts were inlaid with Olivella beads, similar to items found along coastal southern California. Based on radiocarbon dating, Cottonwood Creek appears to have been occupied between about ad 640 and 1580 (2500–300 bp) (see Sutton 1988:​62–64). There are several smaller sites located around the Cottonwood Creek site, including those with rock rings, small lithic scatters, bedrock mortars (Serfoss 1972, 1973), and small middens (Sutton 1984). The full nature and relationships of the surrounding sites to each other have not been ­determined. The nature and content of the Cottonwood Creek site leaves little doubt that its inhabitants had close ties with groups to the west, and the site is located in a geographic location where trade and movement throughout the area could be controlled. It may be an example of a “gateway community” (Hirth 1978) developed in response to trade requirements. A full site report is not yet available, so a more detailed interpretation cannot be offered at this time. The Skelton Ranch Site (CA-­LAN-488) Skelton Ranch is located in the margins of the San Gabriel Mountains along the southwestern flank of the Antelope Valley (Figure 10.1, Site 2) and was excavated between 1969 and 1970. At that time the site consisted of a deep (3 m), extensive, dark, greasy midden deposit. Much of the site was destroyed by flooding in the late 1960s, so its full extent was never determined (see Sutton 1988). The site contained a cemetery of unknown size, but no structures were identified. The recovered artifacts included many Olivella beads (5,000 of which were found with one burial alone [Sutton 1988:​49]), numerous steatite items, a great many projectile points, considerable obsidian, and many other artifact classes. A radiocarbon date of ad 1279 ± 69 (734 ± 75 bp) (Sutton 1988: Table 1) was obtained from a hearth about midway in the deposit, suggesting that

272

Mark Q. Sutton

the site may be about 2,000 years old. It would appear that occupation of the Skelton Ranch site was generally contemporaneous with that of Cotton­ wood Creek (CA-­KER-303, see above), across the Antelope Valley to the north. A number of other smaller sites have been identified in the immediate vicinity, but only one (CA-­LAN-484; see Sutton 1988) has been investigated and is known to contain bedrock mortars and pictographs (Sutton 1982a:31; Knight 1993:​46, Figure 5; Knight et al. 2008:​12). The size, content, and complexity of the Skelton Ranch site indicate that it was an important place. The large quantity of trade items, the diversity of the artifact assemblage, the presence of a cemetery, and the depth of the midden deposit suggest that it was intensively occupied, perhaps on a permanent basis. Skelton Ranch is similar in structure and content to Cottonwood Creek but is not located in an obviously strategic spot with regard to trade. It does, however, lie along a creek within an ecotone between the desert and the mountains. A full site report is not yet available for the Skelton Ranch site. The Fairmont Creek Site (CA-­LAN-298) The Fairmont Creek site lies at the northern end of the Fairmont Buttes (Figure 10.1, Site 3). The site was tested in 1972 (Couey 1972) and 1976 (Sutton 1982b) and at that time consisted of a large, dark, greasy, and deep (2 m) midden accumulation along a creek channel. A number of other sites (or perhaps loci) are located in the immediate vicinity, including lithic scatters, rock rings (Couey 1972, 1996), hunting blinds (Couey 1996), at least 230 bedrock mortars (Sisk and Robinson 2005), and pictographs (Sutton 1982a:31, Figure 3; Knight et al. 2008:​15). The site may have been occupied as early as Pinto times through the Late Prehistoric (Sutton 1982b; also see Robinson 1993). No architecture was found at the site itself, although there are rock rings nearby. No cemetery was identified within or around the site. No radiocarbon dates are available from the site, although obsidian hydration data (Sutton 1982b: Table 4) suggest that part of its occupation was generally contemporaneous with both Cottonwood Creek and Skelton Ranch. A second large site, the Lima Bean site (CA-­LAN-678/679), is located along the creek channel about 1.6 km south of the Fairmont Creek site. The Lima Bean site contains a large midden, many artifacts, some 400 bedrock mortars, and some cupules (Sisk and Robinson 2005). Little work has been done at this site, so its full extent, content, and age are unknown. It is possible that it may represent a second village in the Fairmont Butte area.



Patterns of Villages in the Southwestern Mojave Desert, California 273

The nature of the Fairmont Creek site, as well as its associated sites, suggests that it was a major locality, particularly given the large number of bedrock mortars and the presence of the nearby Lima Bean site. However, this classification is weakened by the apparent absence of architecture or a cemetery. In addition, the only trade items recovered were a few Olivella beads and some obsidian. Another plausible explanation of the Fairmont Creek site is that it was a large seasonal camp associated with the use of a nearby rhyolite quarry (CA-­LAN-898) that was occupied sporadically from Pinto to Late Prehistoric times. The Willow Springs Site (CA-­KER-129) The Willow Springs site is located on the floor of the northwestern portion of the Antelope Valley (Figure 10.1, Site 4). It is a large and diffuse site containing “camps, mortar holes and cairns in an area of approximately five square miles” (Price 1954:​10) but has never been formally investigated. The primary midden deposit was apparently located near the springs in a cluster of boulders. A cemetery was reported at the site, but it may have been destroyed by construction activities in the early 1900s (Leadabrand 1965). No rock art is known at the site (Knight 1993:​41). It is possible that Willow Springs was the location of an ethnographic Kitanemuk village (see Sutton 1980, 1988; King 2004:​98–100). Although little is known about the Willow Springs site, from all accounts it appears to have been a major center, at least late in time. It has been reported that a large number and diversity of sites surround Willow Springs, including one of the largest aggregations of rock cairns known in the Mojave Desert (Price 1954; Wlodarski and McIntyre 1979). Willow Springs is the least understood of the sites in the Western Cluster. While a midden deposit was reported, its extent, depth, and content are unknown. A cemetery was reported but has never been confirmed. The site is also atypically located on the floor of the Antelope Valley. Given these facts, the Willow Springs site is the weakest of the candidates for Western Cluster. Discussion In general, the villages of the Western Cluster contain only “late” components (Fairmont Creek is an exception, with a possible Pinto component), and none have Encinitas Tradition (Millingstone) components. They are very Late Californian in character, containing large, deep, dark, and greasy

274

Mark Q. Sutton

middens, cemeteries, and considerable material culture that includes many shell and steatite artifacts (as well as some obsidian artifacts) and are generally associated with bedrock mortars and pictographs. As far as can be determined, these sites (or site components) appeared about 2,500 years ago and were occupied until about the time of contact. It is not clear whether the sites were linked in a political sense, but it is interesting to note that they all lie within the territories claimed by ethnographic groups speaking Takic languages, a linguistic entity thought to have been in place for at least 4,000 years (Sutton 2010b). Another important trait of the Western Cluster (notwithstanding the Fairmont Creek site) is the presence of cemeteries located within the site deposits rather than as separate facilities away from the habitation areas. Sutton (1980, 1988) proposed that cemeteries within site deposits were a Kitanemuk (a Takic group) trait, whereas separate cemeteries were a Tataviam (also a Takic group) trait. If so, it could suggest that the Western Cluster was linked to a proto-­Kitanemuk political entity. The Western Cluster appears to reflect Late Californian groups living in a cultural ecotone between California and the Great Basin. The southwestern Mojave Desert, with its more mesic landscape and biotic zones, would be more familiar to Californian groups and so perhaps more susceptible to colonization. Clearly, the trade items at these sites indicate that they retained their linkages with other Californian groups to the west. The Southern Village Cluster

Since the original consideration of the Desert Village idea (McIntyre and Sutton 1981; Sutton and McIntyre 1982; Sutton 1988:​73-­76), at least three ­additional sites (CA-­LAN-82, CA-­LAN-192, and Totem Pole Ranch) along the southern flank of the Antelope Valley have been classified as villages (Robinson 1996). Two are located in foothill settings, one by a spring and one by a creek, while the third is located at a spring on the valley floor. These sites appear to be similar in character but different than the sites of the Western Cluster (see Table 10.1). Each of the three sites is discussed ­below. The Barrel Springs Site (CA-­LAN-82) Located at the base of the San Gabriel Mountains in the south-­central Antelope Valley (Figure 10.1, Site 5), the Barrel Springs site had been heavily damaged by vandals and modern development prior to a limited testing



Patterns of Villages in the Southwestern Mojave Desert, California 275

program conducted in 1985 (Love 1989). Barrel Springs was reported to have a fairly deep deposit, up to 1.6 m in some locations (Love 1989:​5) and bedrock mortars, but no rock art. Two components were identified at the site. The earlier component contained a large number of manos, metates, and pestles, some mortars, bowls, stone spheres, hammerstones, debi­ tage, burials (see Groark 1995), a cremation (radiocarbon dated to 874 ± 249 bc [2711 ± 180 bp] [Love 1989:​41]), and many projectile points of varying types and ages (Moore 1995). An ash lens near the bottom of the deposit was radiocarbon dated to 4799 ± 254 bc (5892 ± 215 bp) (Love 1989:​ 41). The assemblage is consistent with an occupation by Greven Knoll II (­Encinitas Tradition [Sutton and Gardner 2010]) groups. The size and content of that component suggest that the site had a major occupation at that time. A Late Prehistoric (ca. post-­1000 bp) component was also identified at the site. While the exact nature and extent of the late component are not clear, it is quite different from the early component. Artifacts from the late component include many items of steatite, late point types, some pottery, and Olivella beads (see Moore 1995). Based on the midden deposit and the variety of late artifact types, Robinson (1996) believed that the late component reflected a village. In sum, the Barrel Springs site contains a substantial Greven Knoll component overlain by a later component very different in character and seemingly associated with Californian groups to the west. One could easily hypothesize that late in time (ca. 1000 bp?) the Greven Knoll II people were replaced in some manner by a different group from the west. Lovejoy Springs (CA-­LAN-192) The Lovejoy Springs (or Lake Los Angeles) site is located along a small series of buttes on the floor of the southeastern Antelope Valley (Figure 10.1, Site 6) and has been investigated numerous times (see Price et al. 2009). It has a deep, extensive midden deposit containing considerable material culture, including a large number of milling tools (871 manos and 389 metates [see Price et al. 2009: Tables 1 and 2]), a cemetery, and a few bedrock mortars (DeWitt and Haire 1990), but no rock art (Price et al. 2009). Four ­components  — ​Pinto, Gypsum, Rose Spring, and Late Prehistoric — ​ have been identified at the site (Price et al. 2009:​182–184), and it may have been first occupied as early as 2525 bc (4000 bp). The extensive quantity of

276

Mark Q. Sutton

milling tools and the cemetery suggest that it was a major village location. Little is known about any surrounding or associated sites. The component classified as Gypsum appears to contain a great deal of milling equipment, inhumations with shell beads, and an Elko series projectile point. Price and others (2009:​59) noted its similarity to Encinitas sites to the south, and it is proposed here that the Gypsum component at Lovejoy Springs actually reflects an occupation by Greven Knoll II or III groups (see Sutton and Gardner 2010). The later components at Lovejoy Spring are thought to represent occupations by different (non-­Encinitas Tradition) groups. Totem Pole Ranch (no trinomial) The Totem Pole Ranch site (Figure 10.1, Site 7) is located in the south-­central Antelope Valley several miles east of Barrel Spring. Test excavations were conducted in the early 1980s, and a summary of the results was presented by Earle and others (1995: Section 3:​11). The site had been extensively damaged by vandals, and while its size and depth were difficult to determine, it was thought that the midden was extensive and as deep as 100 cm (R. W. Robinson, personal communication, 2011). Material culture from the Totem Pole Ranch site included considerable milling equipment and a diverse artifact assemblage, including trade items such as shell beads and obsidian. No human remains, bedrock mortars, or rock art were found. No chronometric dates are available from the site, although a late component (indicated by the presence of glass beads) is present. It is possible that the site is the ethnographic Serrano village of Maviayek (Earle et al. 1995: Section 2:​2–9). While this site seems to fit the criteria for a village, it would have been a small one. The dominance of milling tools suggests the presence of a Greven Knoll component (Sutton and Gardner 2010). A later component is also present, and there seems to have been a continuity of occupation until ethnographic times. Discussion Each of the village sites in the Southern Cluster appears to contain at least two components; a Greven Knoll component overlain by one or more late components. The Greven Knoll components contained considerable milling equipment, discoidals, relatively few shell artifacts, some inhumations



Patterns of Villages in the Southwestern Mojave Desert, California 277

and rare cremations, relatively little obsidian, and no bedrock mortars or rock art. The late components at the Southern Cluster villages are quite different and appear to be much more Californian (rather than Great Basin) in character. They contain less milling equipment, but some steatite and more shell beads (reflecting coastal influences), some obsidian, and late point types. These late components are quite similar to those of the Western Cluster villages, but their inception was later in time. Following this line of thought, it is hypothesized herein that at its inception, the Southern Cluster represents an occupation of the southern flank of the southwestern Mojave Desert by Greven Knoll II and/or III groups. If so, this would represent the northernmost extension of a cultural tradition known across most of southern California but not heretofore identified in the Mojave Desert (but see Price et al. 2009:​59). To the south, in interior southern California, Greven Knoll III assemblages were replaced by a Californian cultural pattern that diffused eastward from the coast after about ad 740 (1250 bp) (the Palomar Tradition; Sutton 2011). The Palomar Tradition included new settlement systems, new economic foci, and transformations in artifact types (e.g., small points and shell beads), perhaps in conjunction with adaptations associated with environmental change, the spread of bow and arrow technology, and/or the diffusion of Takic languages eastward from the coast. The Palomar Tradition had replaced the existing Greven Knoll III pattern in interior southern California by about ad 1000, although Sutton (2009, 2011) argued that the actual population was not replaced. The putative Greven Knoll components of the Southern Cluster are each overlain by late components that reflect a different system. As noted above, in interior southern California, Greven Knoll was replaced by the Palomar Tradition beginning about ad 740 (1250 bp), about the time that the late components containing steatite, shell beads, late points, and fewer milling tools (the traits of the Western Cluster) appear at Southern Cluster sites. Thus, it is hypothesized here that people of the Western Cluster moved east and replaced Greven Knoll groups. It has been argued elsewhere (Sutton 2009) that sometime around ad 1000 the Takic Kitanemuk language diffused east, first to the Vanyume and then to the Serrano, with Californian traits moving along with it. If the Western Cluster does reflect some sort of proto-­Kitanemuk entity (see

278

Mark Q. Sutton

above), then it is possible that the late components of the Southern Cluster could reflect the movement of the Kitanemuk language and other traits east. While this is quite speculative, it is consistent with the existing data. The Northern Village Cluster

The Northern Cluster is different still, with two sites so far identified. Each is in the Fremont Valley to the north of the Antelope Valley (see Figure 10.1, Table 10.1). These sites are discussed below. The Cantil Site (CA-­KER-2211) The Cantil site, excavated in 1990 (Sutton 1991), is located in the southern part of the Fremont Valley (Figure 10.1, Site 8) and consisted of a multicomponent (Rose Spring and Late Prehistoric) deposit that contained milling tools, projectile points, a few shell beads, considerable obsidian, and a large quantity of lagomorph faunal remains. There was also at least one wickiup-­ like structure foundation identified in the Rose Spring component. The site lies along Cache Creek (now generally dry) and is thought to have been occupied between about ad 940 and 1235. No cemetery, bedrock mortars, or rock art were found in association with the site. The Cantil site was originally interpreted as a small village occupied by people that had abandoned the Koehn Lake site (see below) after the lake’s desiccation (Sutton 1991). That interpretation is not so clear now, and it is possible that the occupation of the Cantil site overlaps that of the Koehn Lake site. The Koehn Lake Site (CA-­KER-875) The Koehn Lake site is located in the Fremont Valley along the southwestern fossil shoreline of Koehn Lake (Figure 10.1, Site 9) and was excavated between 1986 and 1998 (Sutton n.d.). The site was occupied between about 1,200 and 800 years ago, partly, at least, during an apparent high stand of the lake. Of note are the vast extent of the midden and the presence of substantial pithouse-­like structures (Sutton n.d.). Material culture was varied but present in small numbers. No burials, rock art, or bedrock mortars were identified. This site is viewed as a village due to its large size, extensive midden deposits, and the presence of permanent architecture. It is believed to be an



Patterns of Villages in the Southwestern Mojave Desert, California 279

essentially single-­component site, reflecting an occupation by Rose Spring Complex people. Thus, it is regarded as a Rose Spring village and may have been occupied on a permanent basis. Discussion The two sites of the Northern Cluster are clearly Great Basin in character and differ from sites in the Western and Southern clusters in several ways. Northern Cluster sites have middens that are not as dark and greasy, and they contain fewer trade items from the coast, a much higher percentage of obsidian from the Coso Volcanic Field to the north (Figure 10.1), and relatively fewer artiodactyls and other large game among the faunal remains (e.g., Jackson 1989; Sutton 1991). Both the Cantil and Koehn Lake sites were first occupied by Rose Spring Complex groups, although the Cantil site also contained a Late Prehistoric component. Other villages occupied by Rose Spring Complex groups are known, including two in the northwestern Mojave Desert. These sites, Rose Spring (CA-­INY-372 [Yohe 1992; Figure 10.1, Site 10) and Coso Junction Ranch (CA-­INY-2284 [Whitley et al. 1988]; Figure 10.1, Site 11), also contained extensive middens and structures, and it seems plausible that the Cantil and Koehn Lake sites represent the southern extent of a much larger village cluster/system oriented toward the Great Basin and occupied by Rose Spring Complex groups. Such connections remain to be investigated. In sum, though, the villages of the Northern Cluster do not appear to be associated with those of the Western or Southern Clusters. Speculations and Conclusions Three distinct clusters of what appear to be villages have been identified in the southwestern Mojave Desert (Figure 10.1). The Western Cluster villages are large, extensive, contain considerable material culture, and are distinctively Californian in character. Sutton (2009) proposed that people ­speaking proto-­Takic languages moved through the general western Mojave Desert region on their way south to the Los Angeles area sometime about bc 1830 (3500 bp). They then established a new Takic cultural tradition (the Del Rey Tradition [Sutton 2010a]) in the Los Angeles Basin. It is suggested here that the villages of the Western Cluster were also proto-­Takic and generally associated with their linguistic relatives of the Del Rey Tradition. At

280

Mark Q. Sutton

a minimum, they maintained trade contacts, and it is even possible that the Western Cluster groups were themselves Del Rey Tradition people along the fringe of the southwestern Mojave Desert. The early components in the Southern Cluster village sites are clearly Encinitas Tradition in character, and if these sites were occupied by Greven Knoll groups, it would represent the northernmost extension of that Californian cultural pattern. The later components of the Southern Cluster sites are clearly not Encinitas in character and are more similar to the Western Cluster sites. Following this, it is hypothesized that sometime around ad 1000, Western Cluster groups moved east and replaced the Greven Knoll groups of the Southern Cluster, suggesting that Takic languages moved east at about that time (Sutton 2009:​68). Thus, it is proposed that the area of the Western Cluster was occupied by Californian groups since at least 640 bc (2500 bp) and perhaps as early as 2500 bc (4000 bp). At the same time, the area of the Southern Cluster was occupied by Encinitas groups, only to be replaced by the Californian groups of the Western Cluster expanding to the east late in time. It seems that the southeastern edge of the Mojave Desert was occupied by Californian rather than Great Basin groups, likely taking advantage of the mountain/valley ecotone and associated resources in those areas. The villages of the Northern Cluster are quite different from the Western and Southern Clusters and appear to be much more like sites of the Great Basin than California. It is possible that the Northern Cluster system developed late in time in response to changing environmental conditions (e.g., the MCA [Gardner 2007]) and may not have lasted past that event. Conversely, it could be part of a much larger system in the northwestern Mojave Desert and eastern California. Even from this brief treatment, it is clear that these village clusters reflect sociopolitical, settlement, and subsistence systems of greater complexity than currently understood for the southwestern Mojave Desert. It may also suggest that large, permanent populations may not be as unusual for the desert areas as once thought. Acknowledgments I appreciate the invitation of Barbara Roth to participate in this volume. I am indebted to Ken Becker, Jill K. Gardner, Roger W. Robinson, Barbara Roth, and several anonymous reviewers for their comments, contributions, and ideas. Luke Wisner of Statistical Research, Inc., produced Figure 10.1.



Patterns of Villages in the Southwestern Mojave Desert, California 281

References Bettinger, Robert L. 1978 Alternative Adaptive Strategies in the Prehistoric Great Basin. Journal of Anthropological Research 34(1):27–46. Binford, Lewis R. 1980 Willow Smoke and Dog’s Tails: Hunter-­Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45(1):4–20. Byrd, Brian F., Drew Pallette, and Carol Serr 1994 Prehistoric Settlement Along the Eastern Margin of Rogers Dry Lake, West­ ern Mojave Desert, California. Anthropological Technical Series 2. Brian F. Mooney Associates, San Diego. Couey, William 1972 AVC-­9, Work in Progress. Antelope Valley Archaeological Society Newsletter 1(3–4):3–4. 1996 Environmental Resources of Fairmont Butte, California: A Proposal for Preservation (original 1974). In The Grayest of the Gray: Selections from An­ telope Valley’s Most Obscure Archaeological Literature, edited by Roger W. Robinson, pp. 13–26. Occasional Paper No. 3. Antelope Valley Archaeological Society, Antelope Valley, California. DeWitt, William H., and Diane Haire 1990 Bedrock Mortars at Lovejoy Spring. Antelope Valley Archaeological Society Newsletter 19(2):3–4. Earle, David D., J. McKeehan, and R. D. Mason 1995 Cultural Resources Overview of the Little Rock Watershed, Angeles National Forest, California. Report on file, Angeles National Forest, Arcadia, California. Gardner, Jill K. 2007 The Potential Impact of the Medieval Climatic Anomaly on Human Popula­ tions in the Western Mojave Desert. Archives of Great Basin Prehistory No. 7. Coyote Press, Salinas, California. Groark, Kevin 1995 Human Remains Found at Barrel Springs. Antelope Valley Archaeological Society Newsletter 25(1–2):5–6. Gross, G. Timothy 1990 The Farm Drop Zone Sites, Edwards Air Force Base, California: Implications for Regional Settlement Patterns. In Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology, Vol. 3, edited by Martin D. Rosen, pp. 331–348.Society for California Archaeology, San Diego. Hirth, Kenneth G. 1978 Interregional Trade and the Formation of Prehistoric Gateway Communities. American Antiquity 43(1):35–45. Jackson, Scott R. 1989 A Preliminary Report on Some Vertebrate Faunal Remains from CA-­ LAN-488: An Open Site in the Western Mojave Desert, California. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for California Archaeology, Los Angeles.

282

Mark Q. Sutton

Jennings, Jesse D. 1957 Danger Cave. Anthropological Papers No. 27. University of Utah, Salt Lake City. 1973 The Short Useful Life of a Simple Hypothesis. Tebiwa 16(1):1–11. King, Chester, D. 2004 Ethnographic Overview of the Angeles National Forest: Tataviam and San Gabriel Mountain Serrano Ethnohistory. Report on file, Angeles National Forest, Arcadia, California. Knight, Albert 1993 Rock Art of the Western Mojave Desert: A Reevaluation. Kern County Ar­ chaeological Society Journal 4:​41–60. Knight, Albert, Douglas H. Milburn, and Barbara Tejada 2008 Rock Art of the Western Mojave Desert: A View from the First Decade of the 21st Century. Kern County Archaeological Society Journal 10:​3–24. Kowta, Makoto 1969 The Sayles Complex: A Late Millingstone Assemblage from Cajon Pass and the Ecological Implications of Its Scraper Planes. Publications in Anthropology Vol. 6. University of California, Berkeley. Leadabrand, Russ 1965 Let’s Explore a Byway. Westways Magazine (February):5–7. Love, Bruce 1989 Barrel Springs Archaeology, Antelope Valley, Southern California. Report on file, Angeles National Forest, Arcadia, California. McIntyre, Michael J., and Mark Q. Sutton 1981 Late Prehistoric Period Adaptive Strategies in the Western Mojave Desert. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for California Archaeology, Bakersfield. Moore, Edra 1995 The Allan Hancock Collection from Barrel Springs: A Challenge. Antelope Valley Archaeological Society Newsletter 25(6):3–4. Price, Barry A., Alan G. Gold, Barbara S. Tejada, David D. Earle, Suzanne Griset, Jay B. Lloyd, Mary Baloian, Nancy Valente, Virginia S. Popper, and Lisa Anderson 2009 The Archaeology of CA-­LAN-192: Lovejoy Springs and Western Mojave Desert Prehistory. Draft report on file, Department of Public Works, County of Los Angeles, Alhambra, California. Price, Clyde 1954 Tehachapi Camps and Cairns. Archaeological Survey Association Newsletter 2(1):10. Robinson, Roger W. 1993 CA-­LAN-298: The “History” of an Archaeological Site. In Antelope Valley Reflections 1(2):4–7. Antelope Valley Heritage Foundation, Lancaster, California. 1996 Some Thoughts on “Central Village” Settlement Pattern Systems in Antelope Valley. Antelope Valley Archaeological Society Newsletter 26(10):3–4.



Patterns of Villages in the Southwestern Mojave Desert, California 283

Rowlands, Peter, Hyrum Johnson, Eric W. Ritter, and Albert Endo 1982 The Mojave Desert. In Reference Handbook on the Deserts of North Amer­ ica, edited by Gordon L. Bender, pp. 103–162. Greenwood Press, Westport, ­Connecticut. Serfoss, Wes 1972 Report on Field Surveys. Antelope Valley Archaeological Society Newsletter 1(3–4):3. 1973 Report on Field Surveys. Antelope Valley Archaeological Society Newsletter 2(2):3. Sisk, Jenny, and Roger W. Robinson 2005 The Bedrock Mortars at Fairmont Butte, California. In Papers in Antelope Valley Archaeology and Anthropology, edited by Roger W. Robinson, pp. 77– 101. Occasional Paper No. 4. Antelope Valley Archaeological Society, Antelope Valley, California. Steward, Julian 1938 Basin-­Plateau Aboriginal Sociopolitical Groups. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 120. Stones, A. G. 1964 Antelope Valley, Mojave Desert, California: A Geographical Analysis. Master’s thesis, University of California, Los Angeles. Sutton, Mark Q. 1980 Some Aspects of Kitanemuk Prehistory. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 2(2):214–225. 1982a Rock Art of the Western Mojave Desert. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 18(4):27–38. 1982b Archaeology of the Fairmont Buttes. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 18(4):1–26. 1984 Archaeological Investigations at Ker-­733: A Special Purpose Site in the Antelope Valley. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 20(4):33–55. 1988 An Introduction to the Archaeology of the Western Mojave Desert, California. Archives of California Prehistory No. 14. Coyote Press, Salinas, California. 1991 Archaeological Investigations at Cantil, Fremont Valley, Western Mojave Des­ ert, California. Museum of Anthropology Occasional Papers No. 1. California State University, Bakersfield. 1996 The Current Status of the Archaeology of the Mojave Desert. Journal of Cal­ ifornia and Great Basin Anthropology 18(2):221–257. 2009 People and Language: Defining the Takic Expansion into Southern California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 41(2–3):31–93. 2010a The Del Rey Tradition and Its Place in the Prehistory of Southern California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 44(2):1–54. 2010b A Reevaluation of Early Northern Uto-­Aztecan Prehistory in Alta California. California Archaeology 2(1):3–30. 2011 The Palomar Tradition and Its Place in the Prehistory of Southern California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 44(4):1–74.

284 n.d.

Mark Q. Sutton

The Archaeology of the Koehn Lake Site (CA-­KER-875), Fremont Valley, Western Mojave Desert. Draft manuscript in possession of the author. Sutton, Mark Q., Mark E. Basgall, Jill K. Gardner, and Mark W. Allen 2007 Advances in Understanding Mojave Desert Prehistory. In California Pre­ history: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp. 229–245. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland. Sutton, Mark Q., and Jill K. Gardner 2010 Reconceptualizing the Encinitas Tradition of Southern California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 42(4):1–64. Sutton, Mark Q., and Michael J. McIntyre 1982 Dynamics of Late Period Adaptive Strategies in the Western Mojave. Paper presented at the Great Basin Anthropological Conference, Reno, Nevada. Wallace, William J. 1955 A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11(3):214–230. 1962 Prehistoric Cultural Development in the Southern California Deserts. American Antiquity 28(2):172–180. Warren, Claude N. 1968 Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California Coast. In Archaic Prehistory in the Western United States, edited by C. Irwin-­ Williams, pp. 1–14. Contributions in Anthropology Vol. 1, No. 3. Eastern New Mexico University, Portales. 1984 The Desert Region. In California Archaeology, by Michael J. Moratto, pp. 339–430. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida. Whitley, David S., George Gumerman IV, Joseph M. Simon, and Edward H. Rose 1988 The Late Prehistoric Period in the Coso Range and Environs. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 24(1):2–10. Wlodarski, Robert J., and Michael J. McIntyre 1979 A Recently Discovered California Rock Cairn Complex. The Masterkey 3(4):137–142. Yohe, Robert M., II 1992 A Reevaluation of Western Great Basin Cultural Chronology and Evidence for the Timing of the Introduction of the Bow and Arrow to Eastern California Based on New Excavations at the Rose Spring Site (CA-­INY-372). PhD dissertation, University of California, Riverside.

Contributors

Richard V. N. Ahlstrom HRA Archaeology, Inc. Las Vegas, Nevada

Heidi Roberts HRA Archaeology, Inc. Las Vegas, Nevada

K. Renee Barlow Research Associate Utah State University Eastern ­Prehistoric Museum Logan, Utah

Barbara J. Roth Department of Anthropology University of Nevada, Las Vegas Michael T. Searcy Department of Anthropology Brigham Young University Provo, Utah

A. Dudley Gardner Western Wyoming Community ­College, Rock Springs, Wyoming

Mark Q. Sutton Statistical Research, Inc. San Diego, California

William R. Gardner Yale University New Haven, Connecticut

Richard K. Talbot Department of Anthropology Brigham Young University Provo, Utah

Maxine E. McBrinn Museum of Indian Arts and Culture Santa Fe, New Mexico

Bradley J. Vierra Statistical Research, Inc. Albuquerque, New Mexico

Jim A. Railey SWCA Environmental Consultants Department of Anthropology University of New Mexico Albuquerque, New Mexico

Stephanie Whittlesey Independent Consultant Tucson, Arizona

285

Index

Page numbers in italics refer to figures or tables. agriculture. See farmers and farming; irrigation; maize Ahlstrom, Richard V. N., 9, 10 akchin farming, 35, 90–91 Akins, Nancy A., 65 Albuquerque Basin, impact of early farming on hunter-gatherers during Archaic period in, 16–39 Allison, James R., 235, 236, 254 Anasazi (Ancestral Pueblo), 139, 251, 252, 253 “ancillary cultivation strategy,” 189, 190, 206–7 “anticipated mobility,” 112 archaeology: approaches to ­sedentism in research on Southwestern, 113–​ 15; focus of on first appearance of maize in Southwestern, 58–59; overview of research on foragers and farmers in Southwestern, 1–10. See also burials; ceramics; farmers and farming; foragers and foraging; lithic assemblages architecture. See structures Arizona: deconstruction of Early ­Agricultural period in southern, 78–98; and linguistic groups, 243 Arizona State Museum, 95, 99n1 Armijo phase, 22, 26 Arrowhead Hill site, 251 Arroyo Negra site, 23, 24, 34, 36 Athapaskan linguistic group, 243

Baer, Sarah, 250 Bajada phase, 19 bajada sites: and sedentism of early farmers in Tucson Basin, 119–20, 125–26; and settlement patterns in southern Arizona, 96 Baker Village site, 246, 247 Bandy, Matthew S., 250 Barlow, K. Renee, 9, 62, 66, 160, 197, 215–16, 224, 229, 231 Barnard, Hans, 112 Barrel Springs site, 270, 274–75 Barrier Canyon Style (BCS) pictographs, 156 Barth, Fredrik, 237 Basketmaker groups, 113, 250–51 Bat Cave, 68 beans, 5, 202 Bear Dance (Ute and Paiute), 245 bedrock mortars, 220 behavioral ecology, 111, 138, 215, 224. See also human behavioral archaeology (HBE) Bell, Willis H., 148 bell-shaped storage pits, 24, 93, 94, 117 Berry, Claudia, 4 Berry, Michael S., 4, 94 Bettinger, Robert L., 265 bighorn sheep, 23. See also faunal remains Binford, Lewis R., 29–30, 110, 265

287

288 Index biotic community, of Albuquerque Basin, 17 bison, 23, 62, 63, 65, 248. See also faunal remains Book Cliffs, and Range Creek, 136 borderland processes, and cultural identities of Fremont groups during Late Archaic on Colorado Plateau, 234–55 Boulder Valley site complex, 251 Brigham Young University, 251 Brown’s Park granary site, 201, 202 Buckhorn Lake site, 269 Budge’s Arch site, 161, 165 burials: and evidence for sedentism at Late Archaic sites in Tucson Basin, 124; from Late Fremont in Great Salt Lake area, 248; at village sites in Mojave Desert, 271 Burnout site, 157–58 Byrd, Brian F., 112–13 Cabezon site, 61, 67, 71 caches and caching: prevalence of among hunter-gatherer groups, 122; versus hoarding among f­ oragers and farmers, 147–53. See also storage Calico granary site, 201 California, and evolving patterns of villages in Mojave Desert, 265–80 Cannon, Michael D., 63 Cantil site, 270, 278, 279 Casletter, Edward F., 148 cattail, 195, 197. See also plant resources central-place forager-prey choice model, 63, 65 “Central Villages,” 266 ceramics: and complex social relationships at Range Creek, 139–40; and ethnic boundaries of Late Fremont, 242, 247, 250; as key aspect of ­archaeological research in Southwest, 3; and Southern Paiute in Las Vegas Valley, 223

Chama Alcove site, 61 chenopodium, 193–95, 197–99, 204–6, 230. See also plant resources Child, Greg, 183n1 Chiricahua phase, 81 Cienega phase, 82, 123 Clark, Jeffrey J., 237, 238 Clark County Wetlands Park, 219, 220, 222, 231 cliff granaries, 171–73, 176–81 climate: changes in during Archaic period in Albuquerque Basin, 17–19; and mobility of Archaic foragers in Albuquerque Basin, 32; of southwestern Mojave Desert, 266; variability of and locations of Fremont agricultural fields, 203. See also droughts; Medieval Climatic Anomaly climbing aids, and cliff granaries, 173 Clovis complex, 267 Cochise culture, 81–82 Cocopa, 147–48 Coffee Camp site, 86, 93 “collectors,” and mobility, 110, 265 College of Eastern Utah, 157, 182n1 Colorado, farming by Fremont groups in northwestern, 188–207 Colorado Plateau: and Basketmaker II groups, 113; and cultural identities and borderland processes of Fremont groups during Late Archaic, 234–55; remote storage and mobility of Fremont groups in Range Creek area of northern, 136–81 Colton, Harold S., 83 Coltrain, Joan Brenner, 190 Comanche, 248 conflict: and ethnic boundaries in Southwest, 245; intergroup as constraint on mobility of foragers in Archaic period of Albuquerque Basin, 32, 34. See also defensive strategy



Index

cooking, techniques of at Early Agricultural period sites in southern Arizona, 88–90. See also hearths; roasting pits Cooley, Maurice, 82 Copper Canyon region, 153 coprolites, and evidence for diet of Fremont groups in northwestern Colorado, 197–98 Cordell, Linda S., 236 Cordova Cave, 68 Corn Creek Dune site, 220, 221, 222 Coso Junction Ranch site, 279 Coso Volcanic Field, 279 Costello-King site, 93, 98, 116, 119, 121 costs, of food storage, 145–46. See also transport costs Cottonwood Creek site, 269, 271, 272 cultural ecology, 6–7 cultural identities, and borderland processes of Fremont groups on Colorado Plateau during Late ­Archaic period, 234–55 cultural resource management (CRM), 4, 78 Cummings, Linda Scott, 197, 198, 201, 205 Daifuku, Hiroshi, 8 Dairy Site, 121 Dart, Allen, 123 David’s Granary site, 161, 170 Dean, Jeff, 183n1 Dean, Rebecca, 124 defensive strategy, cliff granaries in Range Creek as, 138, 152, 176–81. See also conflict Del Ray Tradition, 268, 280 demographic trends: during Archaic period in Albuquerque Basin, 25–29; and population increase at Fremont sites in Range Creek, 158 dental diseases, and diet of early agricultural groups, 91, 92

289

Desert Archaeology, Inc. (DAI), 79, 81, 84, 86, 87, 93, 116, 117 Desert Archaic, 265, 266 Desert Culture model, of Great Basin hunter-gatherers, 240 Desert National Wildlife Refuge, 218, 220 Desert Village model, 265, 269, 274 Desolation Canyon Wilderness Study Area, 136, 206 Developmental period, 60–61. See also Early Developmental period Diehl, Michael W., 62, 84, 89, 90, 97, 122, 123, 125, 226–27, 228–29 diet: evidence from dogs as proxy for human, 98, 198; focus on in Southwestern archaeological research, 5; of Fremont groups in northwestern Colorado, 197–98; maize and composition of during Early Agricultural period in southern Arizona, 84. See also cooking diet-breadth model: and Barlow’s Fremont forager-farmer model, 215; and population increase, 33; and Southern Paiute in Las Vegas Valley, 224–26, 227, 228, 229 diminishing returns curve, and food storage, 149, 150 Dinosaur National Monument/Green River Arch, 192 “districts,” and sedentism, 118 dogs, 98, 198 Dominguez, Steven, 203 Douglas Creek Fremont, 193, 206 Douglas Creek/White River drainage system, 192, 195 droughts, during Archaic period in Albuquerque Basin, 19, 33, 38 Duff, Andrew I., 236 Eagle Point Rockshelter, 193, 194–98, 203, 204, 205 Earle, David D., 276

290 Index Earle, Timothy, 28–29 Early Agricultural period (EAP), in southern Arizona, 78–98, 227 Early Ceramic period, 78, 83 Early Developmental period, in Albuquerque Basin, 22 Eddy, Frank, 82 Edge site, 194, 195 Edwards Air Force Base, 267 Elko corner-notched projectile points, 153 Emery Gray ceramics, 139 Enchanted Hills site, 24, 25–26, 36 Encinitas Tradition, 268, 280 En Medio phase, 22, 26–27, 36–37, 38 environment: of Albuquerque Basin during Archaic period, 17–19; of northwestern Colorado, 191–92; of Range Creek Archaeological Project area, 136–37; as research theme, 8–9; of southwestern Mojave ­Desert, 266–67. See also climate; faunal remains; plant resources Escalante Valley, 251, 252 ethnography: examples of ethnic boundary maintenance from historic Southwest, 241, 243–45; and forager-farmer model for Southern Paiute in Las Vegas Valley, 231; and mobility of farming groups, 94–95; and population densities during Archaic period in Albuquerque Basin, 28–29; role of in archaeological research in Southwest and Great Basin, 6; and settlement patterns of Early Agricultural period groups in southern Arizona, 97–98; and transport costs of food storage, 153 Euler, Robert C., 245 Ezzo, Joseph A., 98 Fairmont Creek site, 269, 270, 272–73 “farmagers” and “farmaging,” 97, 123, 227, 228–29

farmers and farming: and Archaic hunter-gatherers in Albuquerque Basin, 16–39; and deconstruction of Early Agricultural period in southern Arizona, 78–98; and forager-farmer model for Las Vegas Valley in southern Nevada, 214–32; Fremont cultural identities and borderland processes during Late Archaic on Colorado Plateau, 234–55; and nature of cultivation by Fremont groups in northwestern Colorado, 188–207; overview of research on in Southwest and Great Basin, 1–10; relationship between foragers and maize cultivation in northern Rio Grande Valley, 58–72; and remote storage by Fremont groups in Range Creek region of Utah, 136–81; and sedentism in Tucson Basin, 108–27 faunal remains: from Archaic contexts in Albuquerque Basin, 23, 37–38; from Early Agricultural period sites in southern Arizona, 87; and occupation duration of Late Archaic sites in Tucson Basin, 124; from Southern Paiute sites in Las Vegas Valley, 226, 229. See also bison; dogs; hunting field locations, and maize cultivation by Fremont in northwestern Colorado, 202–5 firewood, use and depletion of during Archaic period on West Mesa in Albuquerque Basin, 35 flexibility, in foraging and farming adaptations: as research theme, 9; and sedentism of early farmers in Tucson Basin, 127 floodwater farming, 90 floodplain sites, and sedentism of early farmers in Tucson Basin, 116–19, 125 foragers and foraging: and caching,



Index

122; and evolving patterns of villages in Mojave Desert, 265–80; and forager-farmer model for Las Vegas Valley in southern Nevada, 214–32; impact of early farming on in Albuquerque Basin during Archaic period, 16–39; and maize cultivation in Northern Rio Grande Valley, 58–72; overview of research on in Southwest and Great Basin, 1–10; and remote storage in Range Creek region of Utah, 136–81; and transition to agriculture, 189–90. See also faunal remains; optimal foraging theory; plant resources Ford, Richard I., 67, 243, 248, 254 Formative period, 195, 203, 221–24 Fortress site, 161, 169, 178–79 Fowler, Catherine S., 216, 217, 222, 223, 224, 231 Freeman, Andrea, 67 Freeman, Jacob, 189–90, 206 Fremont: and Barlow’s storager-farmer model, 215–16; cultural identities of and borderland processes during Late Archaic on Colorado Plateau, 234–55; as most-studied farming group in Great Basin, 8; and nature of cultivation in northwestern Colorado, 188–207; remote storage and mobility in Range Creek area of northern Colorado Plateau, 136–81; and sedentism of farming groups, 114–15; use of term and definition of, 235–36 “Fremont Complex,” 241 Fresnal Shelter, 68 Gardner, Dudley, 9, 159 Gardner, William R., 9 Garrison village site, 246 “gateway community,” 271 Geib, Phil R., 250–51 geographic variability, and regional

291

settlement systems during Early Agricultural period in southern Arizona, 95–98 geology, of Albuquerque Basin, 17. See also obsidian Gifford, Edward W., 148 Gila Pueblo Archaeological Foundation, 81 Gilman, Patricia A., 114, 126 Glen Canyon Linear Style petroglyphs, 156 gourds, 22 Grady, James, 203 granaries: and maize cultivation by Fremont groups in northwestern Colorado, 199–202, 206; and remote storage by Fremont groups of northern Colorado Plateau, 136–81. See also storage grasses and grass seeds, 67, 147, 164, 174, 196, 197, 204–5, 218, 228, 230. See also plant resources grave goods, and burials, 124, 271 Great Basin, overview of research on foraging and farming in, 1–10 Great Salt Lake, and borderlands of Late Fremont, 247–49, 253 Green, Nancy, 183n1 Gregory, David A., 123, 125 Greven Knoll Pattern, 268, 275, 277, 280 group fission, 34–35 Grove, M., 67 Gypsum complex, 268, 276 Hadden, Glade, 193 Hammond Draw site, 194 Hard, Robert J., 68 Hassan, Fekri A., 28 Havasupai, 245 Hawk’s Nest site, 88–89 health, and diet of Early Agricultural period populations in southern Arizona, 91–92

292 Index hearths, 34, 117, 199, 225; and Archaic structures in Albuquerque Basin, 19–20 Hesse, S. Jerome, 116–17 hoarding. See also caches and caching Hodder, Ian, 238 Hohokam, 89, 92, 123, 124 Holiday site (Albuquerque Basin), 24, 36 Hopi, 148, 245 Huckell, Bruce, 4, 66, 82, 83, 86, 92 Hudspeth, William B., 62 human behavioral ecology (HBE), 7. See also behavioral ecology Humboldt concave-base projectile points, 153 hunter-gatherers. See foragers and foraging hunting: and Archaic contexts in ­Albuquerque Basin, 23, 37–38; and food resources in northern Rio Grande Valley, 62–63; and Southern Paiute gathering schedule in Las Vegas Valley, 217. See also faunal remains increasing returns curve, and food storage, 149, 151–52 iron-deficiency anemia, 91 irrigation, and Early Agricultural period in southern Arizona, 78, 90, 91, 94–95; and San Pedro phase, 115, 118, 125 Irwin-Williams, Cynthia, 3–4 Ivie Creek Black-on-white ceramics, 139–40 Janetski, Joel C., 191, 241 Jay phase, 19 Jemez Cave, 61, 67, 68, 71 Jemez Valley (Albuquerque Basin), 23 Jenkins, Richard, 237 Jennings, Jesse D., 8, 240

Johnson, Allen W., 28 Jornada Mogollon region (New ­Mexico), 114 Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology, 3 Kaibab, 244 Keeley, L. H., 122 Kelly, Isabel T., 147, 216–19, 221–22, 223, 224, 231, 245 Kelly, Robert H., 30, 110–11, 122 Kent, Susan, 93, 112, 120 Kenya, tribal groups in Baringo district of, 238 Kidder, A. V., 239–40 Kiel Ranch site, 217, 218 Kitanemuk village site, 273, 274, 277–78 Kiva (journal), 3 Koehn Lake site, 270, 278–79 Kohler, Timothy, 65 Kolm, Kenneth E., 203 Kowta, Makoto, 268 Kuck Shelter site, 193, 194, 198–99 labor requirements, for maize cultivation by Fremont groups, 175–76 Lake Mojave complex, 267 languages, groups of in Late Archaic Arizona, 243. See also Raramuri-­ speaking peoples; Takic languages La Paloma site, 96, 121, 124 Las Capas site, 79–80, 81, 84–87, 90–91, 93, 95, 97, 116, 118, 121, 124–26 “Las Capas Site Complex,” 119 Las Vegas Valley, and forager-farmer model, 214–32 Late Archaic period, and evidence for sedentism in Tucson Basin, 120–24; 126–27. See also Archaic period; Early Agricultural period Late Fremont period, 241, 249 Late Pioneer period, 89 Late Prehistoric period, 275 Leavitt, Steven W., 190



Index

LeBlanc, Steven, 4 Lima Bean site, 272, 273 lithic assemblages, and Late Archaic mobility in Albuquerque Basin, 24. See also metates; obsidian; projectile points Little Village site, 157, 159 Locomotive Rock site, 161, 164 logistical zone, and mobility, 29–30 Loosle, Byron, 183n1 Los Pozos site, 85, 94, 125 Lovejoy Springs site, 270, 275–76 Lyons, Patrick D., 237, 238 Mabry, Jonathan B., 90, 91, 92, 94, 97–98, 118, 119, 124, 125 Madsen, David B., 190, 191, 215, 219, 240–41 maize: cultivation of by Southern Paiute in Las Vegas Valley, 224; dependence on during Early Agricultural period in southern Arizona, 83–92; and early farming in Albuquerque Basin, 20–22, 33; focus on in Southwestern ethnobotanical research, 5; and Fremont granaries in Range Creek, 163, 175–76, 177; relationship between cultivation of and foraging in Northern Rio Grande Valley, 58–72; and sedentism of early farmers in Tucson Basin, 123; use of and cultivation by Fremont in northwestern Colorado, 193, 198, 199–205 Maricopa, 148 Marwitt, John P., 193 Maviayek village (Serrano), 276 Maya, and storage structures, 94 McBrinn, Maxine E., 9, 234, 235 McClelland, John A., 92 McIntyre, Michael J., 265, 269 McLauchlin, Kendra, 204 Medieval Climatic Anomaly (MCA), 268

293

metates, 88, 97 middle ground, between huntergatherers and agriculturalists, 214 Milagro site, 93, 121 Millingstone Horizon, 268 Mimbres Valley, 63 Minnis, P. E., 67 Moapa/Las Vegas Paiute, 244 mobility: and caching, 148; definitions of, 109–11; of Early Agricultural period populations in southern Arizona, 92–95; and farmer-­forager model for Southern Paiute in Las Vegas Valley, 230, 231–32; as fluid concept, 112–13; and food storage among hunter-gatherers, 145; among Fremont, 114–15; indicators of for Archaic groups in ­Albuquerque Basin, 23–25, 29–35; in Jornada Mogollon region, 114; and San Pedro phase occupations, 125–27Mogollon, 63 Mojave Desert, evolving patterns of villages in southwestern, 265–80 Morss, Noel, 143 Murphy, Robert F., 237, 255 Nambe Falls site, 61 Nameless Ravine (Albuquerque Basin), 23, 24 Nash, Robert, 182n1 National Geographic Society, 182–83n1 National Science Foundation, 182n1 Natufian (Levant), 111–12, 113 Navajo, 245 Near East, emergence of sedentism and reduction in mobility in, 111–12 Nelson Washout site, 161, 164 Nevada, and forager-farmer model for Las Vegas Valley, 214–32 Nine Mile Canyon, 145, 179 northern Rio Grande Valley, relationship between foraging and maize cultivation in, 58–72

294 Index Northern Village Cluster (Mojave Desert), 270, 278–79, 280 Nunamuit, 110 nutrition, and diet of Early Agricultural period populations in southern Arizona, 91–92 obsidian, 180, 247, 250, 271, 273, 276, 278, 279 “old-wood problem,” and radiocarbon dating, 25 optimal foraging theory (OFT), 7, 62, 71 Paiutes, and concepts of territory and boundaries, 244–45. See also Southern Paiutes Pajarito Plateau, 72 Palomar Tradition, 277 Panguitch Paiute, 245 Papagos, 148 parasites, evidence of in coprolites, 198 Parker, Bradley J., 236 Parowan Valley, 247, 252, 253 passive resource defense, granaries as, 138, 178 Pastor, Jana V., 250 Pauketat, Timothy R., 236 Pendant Granary site, 161–62, 168 perimeter posts, and Archaic structures in Albuquerque Basin, 20 petroglyphs. See rock art Phillips, Phillip, 82 Phoenix Basin, 69 Piceance Creek and Piceance Valley, 194–95, 203 Pilling, Clarence, 143 Pilling Figurines, 143 piñon pine, and pine nuts, 18–19, 31, 64, 65–69, 71, 120, 126, 194, 197, 198, 228, 230. See also plant resources Pinto and Deadman Lake complexes, 267 pithouses, 4 38, 97, 115, 141, 145, 193, 222–23, 239, 270

plant-and-go strategy, 66 plant resources: and Archaic period in Albuquerque Basin, 21, 22, 33; diet-breadth analysis and plant use by Southern Paiute in Las Vegas Valley, 228, 230–31; and plant use by Fremont groups in northwestern Colorado, 193–94, 195–98, 199, 205; reliance on specific taxa during Early Agricultural period in southern Arizona, 84–85; and return rates in northern Rio Grande Valley, 64, 65; and Southern Paiute gathering schedule in Las Vegas Valley, 217; storage of by Fremont foragers and farmers in Range Creek, 163. See also beans; chenopodium; gourds; grasses and grass seeds; maize; piñon pine; squash population growth, among Archaic hunter-gatherers in Albuquerque Basin, 28, 32, 34 porotic hyperostosis, 91, 92 Post-Puebloan period, 224, 225 Potter, James M., 236 Powell, Shirley, 113–14 Prehistoric Museum of Eastern Utah, 157, 182n1 Price, Clyde, 273 Probability of Agricultural Land-use Model (PALM), 203 processing, of foods. See cooking; hearths; metates; roasting pits projectile points, 153. See also lithic assemblages pronghorn antelope, 23. See also faunal remains Pueblo, intrusion of into Fremont area, 251. See also Anasazi Puebloan period, 224, 225 Pueblo I period, 114 Puerco Valley site, 20, 21 Purgatoire River (Colorado), 159 Puseman, Kathryn, 201



Index

Quechua (Peru), 204 rabbits, 23. See also faunal remains radiocarbon dates: and demographic trends during Archaic period in Albuquerque Basin, 25–27; from Fremont sites in northwestern Colorado, 196, 199, 200; from Fremont sites in Range Creek, 154–55, 180; from village sites in Mojave Desert, 271–72 Rafferty, Janet E., 109 Railey, Jim A., 9 Range Creek (Utah), remote storage and shifting strategies of farming and foraging in, 136–81 Raramuri-speaking peoples, 153 “recurrent sedentism,” 118, 125 Red Canyon sites (Uinta area), 159 red ochre, and burials, 124 Reinhart, Theodore R., 23, 24 remote sensing, and field locations from Formative period, 203 remote storage structures, of Fremont groups in northern Colorado Plateau, 136–81 Richens, Lane D., 250, 252 Rincon phase, 89 Rio Casas Grandes Valley, 68 Rio Grande Valley, early maize in, 60–62. See also northern Rio Grande Valley Rio Nuevo site, 127 roasting pits, 88, 220–21 Roberts, David, 183n1 Roberts, Heidi, 9, 10 Robinson, Roger W., 266, 275 Rocek, Thomas R., 109, 114 rock art, and Fremont groups, 136, 141, 143, 144, 156, 160, 179–80, 195, 242 rock rings, 219, 220 rockshelters, and Fremont groups in Range Creek area, 142, 156. See

295

also Eagle Point Rockshelter; Kuck Shelter site Roney, John R., 68 Rose Spring complex, 268, 278, 279 Roth, Barbara J., 10, 67, 68, 92, 96, 119, 234, 235 runoff farming. See akchin farming St. George/Santa Clara, 244 Salt Lake Community College, 182n1 San Juan Paiutes, 244, 245 San Pedro phase, 81, 82, 85–86, 97, 115 San Rafael Fremont, 193 Santa Cruz Bend site, 88, 94 Santa Cruz River, 90. See also Tucson Basin Sayles, E. B., 81 Sayles Complex, 268 Schiffer, Michael B., 98 Schriever, Bernard A., II, 236 Searcy, Michael T., 10 seasonality: gathering and farming schedule of Southern Paiute in Las Vegas Valley, 217, 231–32; and mobility of Archaic hunter-gatherers in Albuquerque Basin, 30–32 sedentism: of Early Agricultural period groups in southern Arizona, 92–94, 98; of early farmers in Tucson Basin, 108–27; food storage and increase in, 144, 148–49; and population increases at Fremont sites in Range Creek, 159 Serrano, 276, 277 “settlement drift,” 118, 125 settlement patterns, Early Agricultural period and regional systems of in southern Arizona, 95–98. See also mobility; sedentism; villages Seymour, Elizabeth, 182n1 shell ornaments, 250, 271, 273, 276 Shennan, Stephen, 236 shields, in Fremont rock art, 143, 144, 179, 180

296 Index Sierra Tarahumara, 153 “Silverbell interval,” 83 Simms, Steven R., 6, 190–91, 206, 215, 219, 240–41 Skelton Ranch site, 269, 270, 271–72 slab-lined storage cists, 145, 173–74 slave trade (Spanish), 245 Smith, Bruce D., 97, 214, 228 Smyth, Michael P., 94 Snake Rock site, 161 Snake Valley ceramics, 139 Snow, David H., 89 social structure: and ceramics at Range Creek sites, 139; and constraints on mobility of Archaic foragers in Albuquerque Basin, 32; examination of in Southwestern research on foragers and farmers, 5–6. See also conflict; sociological conditions Society for American Archaeology (symposium 2010), 2 sociological conditions, for practice of combined foraging and farming, 189–90 Solar Wells site, 121 Southern Paiute: and ethnic boundaries in Southwest, 244; and forager-­ farmer model for Las Vegas Valley, 214–32 Southern village cluster (Mojave ­Desert), 270, 274–76, 277, 280 Southwest: approaches to sedentism in research on, 113–15; and examples of ethnic boundary maintenance from historic ethnography of, 241, 243–45; focus in archaeology of on first appearance of maize, 58–59; overview of research on foraging and farming in, 1–10 Spangler, Jerry D., 250 Spanish, and slave trade in Southwest, 245 squash, 5, 202 Steward, Julian H., 6, 216, 221, 222

Stiner, Mary C., 98 Stone, Tammy, 236 storage: in Albuquerque Basin during Archaic period, 20, 24–25; and Early Agricultural period sites in southern Arizona, 93–94; as evidence for sedentism of early farmers in Tucson Basin, 122–23; by Fremont groups in northwestern Colorado, 197, 206; and shifting strategies of farming and foraging in Range Creek region of Utah, 136–81. See also caches and caching; granaries structures: in Albuquerque Basin during Archaic period, 19; and Early Agricultural period sites in southern Arizona, 93; as key aspect of archaeological research in Southwest, 3; and sedentism at Late Archaic sites in Tucson Basin, 120–22; and towers at Fremont sites in Range Creek, 160–61. See also granaries; perimeter posts; pithouses; slab-lined storage cists subsistence strategies: archaeological correlates for Southern Paiute in Las Vegas Valley, 219–21; of Fremont groups in northwestern Colorado, 190–91; Southern Paiute in Las Vegas Valley as mixed, 216–19, 231. See also farmers and farming; foragers and foraging; storage Sulphur Spring phase, 81 Surprise Valley Paiute, 147 Sutton, Mark Q., 9, 10, 265, 267, 269, 277, 279 SWCA Environmental Consultants, Inc., 79, 81, 85, 86, 93, 116, 124 Takic languages, 274, 277–78, 279, 280 Talbot, Richard K., 10, 191, 241, 248, 250, 251 Talus Shelter site, 195



Index

Tanque Verde Wash site, 89 Tataviam, 274 Tavaputs Plateau, 145 Terminal Archaic period, 224, 225 Tewa, 248 Third Avenue site, 23, 24, 34, 36 Thompson, Kevin W., 250 Three Kids Pithouse site, 220 Tohono O’odham, 90 Totem Pole Ranch site, 270, 276 “towers,” and Fremont sites in Range Creek, 160–61 Towner, Ron, 183n1 trade: ethnic boundaries and regional system of in Southwest, 243, 254; and Late Fremont in Great Salt Lake region, 248 transport costs: of food storage, 146, 153; and plant resources in northern Rio Grande Valley, 65 trash deposits, as evidence for sedentism of early farmers in Tucson Basin, 123 tree-ring dates, from Fremont sites in Range Creek, 154–55, 156 Tsegi orange ware, 140, 162 Tucson Basin: and Las Capas site, 79, 80; mixed subsistence economy during Early Agricultural period in, 227; plant resources of, 68; sedentism and early farmers in, 108–27; survey of by Arizona State Museum, 95 Tularosa Basin, 68–69 Tularosa Cave, 68 Turtle Canyon Wilderness Study Area, 136 Tusayan polychrome, 140, 162 Uinta Basin, 192, 249 Uinta Fremont, 192–93 Uinta Gray ceramics, 139 University of Arizona Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, 183n1

297

University of Utah, 182n1 Upham, Steadman, 8 upper bajada occupation, in Tucson Basin, 119–20, 125–26 Utah Archaeology (journal), 3 Utah Museum of Natural History, 182n1 Utah Rock Art Research Association, 182n1 Utah Statewide Archaeological Society, 182n1 Utah Valley University Honors Program, 182n1 Utes, 245 Uto-Aztecan linguistic group, 243 Valencia site, 89 Valentine, John, 183n1 Valley Farms site, 116, 118–19, 121, 124 Vander Wall, Stephen B., 146, 152 Vanyume, 277 Varien, Mark D., 236 Vierra, Bradley J., 9, 30, 67 villages: evolving patterns of in Mojave Desert, 265–80; and Fremont groups in Range Creek area, 141, 180; variation in as research theme, 9–10 visiting zones, and mobility, 30 Wallace, William J., 268 Warren, Claude N., 231, 268 Waters, Jennifer A., 87, 122 water-table farming, 90, 91 Wellman, Kevin, 119 Wendrich, Willeke, 112 West Branch site, 89 Western Apache, 94–95, 98 Western Mono, 144 Western Village cluster, in Mojave ­Desert, 269, 271–74, 277, 279, 280 West Mesa (Albuquerque Basin), 16, 22, 25, 26, 28, 30, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 Wetlands site, 93, 121 White Coyote Draw site, 194

298 Index White Mountain Apache, 95 Whittlesey, Stephanie M., 9, 10, 68, 92 , 117, 118, 121, 123, 124, 125 Wilcox, Waldo, 136, 178 Wild Horse Canyon (Mineral Mountains), 180 wild plants. See cattail; chenopodium; grasses and grass seeds; piñon pine; plant resources Willey, Gordon R., 82 Willow Springs site, 269, 270, 273 Wills, Wirt H., 66, 67

Wöcherl, Helga, 122–23 women, and plant collecting by Southern Paiute in Las Vegas Valley, 230–31 Wyoming, and Uinta Fremont, 192, 249, 250 Yoder, David, 160, 183n1, 236 Yuman, 144, 148, 224, 243 Zeanah, David W., 65 Zuhlsdorf, Christine, 183n1