Journal of Archaeological Science (1997) 24, 1075–1088
Fremont Hunting and Resource Intensification in the Eastern
Great Basin
Joel C. Janetski
Department of Anthropology, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, U.S.A.
(Received 1 March 1996, revised manuscript accepted 8 November 1996)
Empirical tests of resource-intensification models argue for diminishing foraging efficiency among hunter–gatherers in
California over the past 2000 years (Basgall, 1987, Research in Economic Anthropology 9, 21–52; Broughton, 1994a,
Journal of Archaeological Science 21, 501–514; 1994b, Journal of Anthropological Anthropology 13, 371–401). The
evidence for this long-term trajectory consists of decreases in the abundance of large, high-ranked prey in archaeofaunal
assemblages. This paper presents faunal data from Fremont structural sites in the eastern Great Basin and Northern
Colorado Plateau as an additional empirical test of resource intensification patterns and compares them to trends in
California and the American Southwest. The measure of resource efficiency used is the artiodactyl index (following
Broughton, 1994a, b), a tool derived from prey choice models of optimal foraging. Faunal data from Fremont
structural sites argue that (1) foraging efficiency declined during the Fremont period, and (2) this decline was due to
population growth.
? 1997 Academic Press Limited
Keywords: RESOURCE INTENSIFICATION, EASTERN GREAT BASIN, AMERICAN SOUTHWEST,
FREMONT, POPULATION GROWTH, LATE HOLOCENE.
Introduction
B
roughton (1994a, b) and Broughton & Grayson
(1993) have put intriguing arguments for decreasing foraging efficiency in hunter–gatherer
subsistence economies during the Late Holocene in
western North America. Using faunal data collected
from sites in California and the western Great Basin,
they maintain that hunter–gatherers shifted emphasis
from large, high-ranked game to smaller, lower-ranked
animals. The pattern of faunal exploitation has been
noted by others for the western Basin (Elston, 1986;
Bettinger, 1991). This process has been described as
resource intensification, defined by Boserup (1965,
cited in Broughton 1994b: 372) as ‘‘a process by which
the total productivity per areal unit of land is increased
at the expense of overall decreases in foraging efficiency. In other words, more energy is harnessed from
a given patch of land, but individuals must expend
more energy, per unit time, in the process’’. The
evidence for intensification ranges from the increasing
use of smaller fish and fewer large mammals
(Broughton 1994a, 1995) in California to a shift toward a greater use of marmots relative to mountain
sheep at high altitude sites in the White Mountains
(Bettinger, 1991; Grayson, 1991; Broughton &
Grayson, 1993; see also Bettinger & Baumhoff, 1982;
Madsen, 1986 for additional efficiency arguments to
explain change in the Great Basin).
Broughton’s (1994a, b, 1995) research on hunter–
gatherers in California attributes the drop in larger
animals to resource depression due to central place
foraging and human population growth. Resource
depression describes the process of game depletion in
the vicinity of villages (central places) as a consequence of local ecology modification due to gardening or as a result of hunting. Ethnographical studies
have documented how hunters reduce the populations
of large game animals near villages, forcing a choice
between taking lower-ranked prey close at hand or
moving farther afield in pursuit of larger animals
(Hames & Vickers, 1982). Transport and travel costs
increase with distance and play an important role
in prey selection decisions (see Szuter & Bayham,
1989: 88; Metcalfe & Barlow, 1992 for discussion
of transport costs). Prey choice decisions should be
reflected in faunal assemblages in the relative abundance of large and small animals (see Broughton,
1995).
In the American Southwest a contrasting pattern in
faunal exploitation has been described by Bayham
(1982), Speth & Scott (1989), and Szuter & Bayham
(1989) for essentially the same period. They maintain
that archaeofaunas here contain increasing rather than
decreasing numbers of large game relative to small
game through time. Speth & Scott (1989) cite empirical
support of the trend from Anasazi contexts in New
Mexico and Hohokam sites in southern Arizona.
Szuter & Bayham (1989) report a steady expansion of
artiodactyls in the Ventana Cave assemblages from
3000  to  1000, although they note that faunal
data from Hohokam sites in the valleys and uplands
1075
0305–4403/97/121075+14 $25.00/as960187
? 1997 Academic Press Limited
1076 J. C. Janetski
are highly variable and need further investigation (see
James, 1994; Szuter & Gillespie, 1994, for more on
trends in Hohokam sites). Speth & Scott reject climate,
technology, and absolute population growth as potential explanations for this trend. Rather, they suggest
that the pattern is a by-product of the ‘‘socioeconomic
responses which accompany the aggregation of populations into more residentially stable and more horticulturally based communities’’ (Speth & Scott, 1989:
78). After reviewing the faunal evidence from southcentral Arizona, Szuter & Bayham (1989) arrive at a
similar conclusion: the increase in artiodactyls through
time suggests changes in strategies as a consequence of
increased sedentism and farming commitments. The
shift in the faunal assemblages at Ventana Cave, for
example, is described as evidence of a change in the
way the cave was used, from a short-term base camp
for mobile foragers to a short-term hunting camp
used logistically by specialized groups from nearby
sedentary villages.
Like Broughton, Southwest researchers cite resource
depression as a primary factor in determining the pattern they describe. In both the California and Southwest
cases, the underlying cause was the same: central place
foraging by predators (human hunters) depleted large
game in the vicinity of villages requiring some adjustment in foraging decisions by the hunters. However, the
circumstances in these two cases are quite different. The
California case describes hunter–gatherers exploiting
land and marine mammals as well as fresh-water and
salt-water fishes. The Southwest examples, on the other
hand, all involve farmers with investments in land
modification and both residential and ritual architecture. This latter fact is especially critical as such
investments influence decision-making regarding
hunting strategies and residential mobility. Perhaps as
a consequence, the response of Southwestern farmers
to resource depression is more variable than that
seen in California (see Discussion for more on this
issue).
The intent of this paper is to test the spatial extent
and form of resource intensification in western North
America using archaeofaunas gathered from Fremont
occupations in the eastern Great Basin and Northern
Colorado Plateau. The Fremont, often included as part
of the greater Southwest (Cordell, 1984), would appear
to be a particularly interesting test case as farming was
an important aspect of the subsistence economy over
much of the area, although hunting, fishing, and
gathering contributed significantly to the diet (Madsen,
1989). The Fremont culture/strategy spread north of
the Colorado and Virgin River drainages after about
 400 and persisted for nearly a millennium. Ceramics
reminiscent of Southwestern traditions, pithouse villages, adobe and masonry granaries, and a distinctive
art style expressed in rock art and figurines are
the material hallmarks of the Fremont period (see
Marwitt, 1986). Scholars appear to agree that human
populations expanded during this period of farming,
although temporal variation occurred (Talbot &
Wilde, 1989; Janetski, 1994; Simms, 1994); however,
few empirically driven discussions of Fremont demography exist (see Talbot, 1995, for an exception).
Given that Fremont farmers were committed to a
central place strategy and given increasing populations
in the Fremont area, the resource-intensification model
predicts that numbers of high-ranked prey available to
villagers will be depressed through time. The archaeological consequences of the pattern are reductions in
the quantities of bone from larger, higher-ranked
animals during the Fremont period. This expectation is
explored following a discussion of prey choice and
resource-intensification models.
Prey Choice Models and Resource
Intensification
Measures of selective efficiency developed from prey
choice models have been useful in assessing long-term
patterns in resource use for the Southwest and areas of
California cited earlier in this paper (Bayham, 1982;
Szuter & Bayham, 1989; Broughton, 1994a, b). Prey
choice models base predictions of prey selection on
ranking in terms of return for effort. The underlying
premises and theoretical bases for optimal foraging
models have been presented often and well, and a
repeat of those arguments in full seems unnecessary
(Bayham, 1979; Stephens & Krebs, 1986; Simms, 1987;
Broughton, 1994b, and references therein). Briefly, the
‘‘energetic value’’ of prey is based on the number or
quantity of calories and/or nutrition obtained from the
organism captured (Broughton, 1994b: 375). Prey
ranking is based on the energetic value less pursuit,
handling, and processing costs. The models predict
that the highest ranking prey will be taken whenever
they are encountered. The capture of lower-ranking
prey, therefore, depends directly on the abundance or
encounter rate of higher-ranking animals. As the populations of higher-ranked prey drop, lower-ranked
animals will be added to the diet. As Broughton
(1994b: 373) notes, the relative frequency of high- and
low-ranked prey can be an index of foraging efficiency.
The more high-ranked prey in the diet, the more
efficient the forager. Other values (hide, fur, bones for
tools, prestige) are also recognized as important and
can and should be combined with economic values in
determining ranking, however (see Jochim, 1976; Kent,
1989; Hawkes, 1990).
Scholars investigating resource intensification
through prey choice models have argued that prey
ranking (profitability) closely follows prey size
(Bayham, 1979; Simms, 1987; Szuter & Bayham, 1989;
Broughton, 1994a, b). This statement is born out by
studies of the Achè of eastern Paraguay (Hawkes,
Hill & O’Connell, 1982), Cree hunters in Canada
(Winterhalder, 1981), and various Amazon farmers
(Gross, 1975; Hames & Vickers, 1982; various in Kent,
Fremont Hunting and Resource Intensification 1077
1989). Alvard (1995: 794) concluded, based on observations of the Piro, that ‘‘body size alone was found
to predict much of the Piro optimal diet’’. Studies of
African hunters (Hadza, Kung San), however, have
shown that this prediction does not apply to very large
animals such as cape buffalo and elephants (Lee, 1979;
O’Connell, Hawkes & Blurton-Jones, 1992) simply
because they are viewed as too dangerous. For the
Great Basin of North America, however, where no
food animals were so large as to pose a threat, the
assumption seems valid given the various currencies
mentioned above: nutritional values, utilitarian values,
and prestige. More calories, fat, protein, etc. (nutritional values), hide and bone for tools (utilitarian
values), and prestige (social values) will be obtained
from larger animals. The most important consideration
in prey ranking appears to be body size (Broughton,
1994b: 376; however, see discussion of mass capture
under Technological Innovation below).
The appeal of the above statement is that body size
is inherent in bone size—the larger the bone the larger
the animal. In addition, bones are abundant in
archaeological collections and provide direct access to
data on prey size, and access to level of foraging efficiency for the site’s occupants. As stated by Broughton
(1994b: 376): ‘‘Other things being equal (e.g. the
seasonality of site occupation, taphonomic histories,
transport distance), archaeological faunas dominated
by large mammals should represent a higher level of
mammalian predation efficiency compared to faunas
dominated by smaller sized mammals’’.
Predation efficiency, therefore, should be measurable
by a ratio of large-to-small animals in the faunal
assemblages. Bayham (1982; cited in Szuter & Bayham,
1989) and others (Szuter & Bayham, 1989; Broughton,
1994a, b) have developed a series of efficiency indices
that rely on such ratios. Szuter & Bayham’s (1989)
research in the Southwest used the artiodactyl
index calculated as the Gartiodactyls/G(artiodactyls+
lagomorphs). Broughton’s (see especially 1994a) research generated several indices that demonstrated
shifts in the use of mammals compared to fish and the
use of anadromous and fresh-water fishes over time. In
all cases, the ratio is calculated to range from 0 to 1,
with higher values suggesting greater dependence on
large animals and higher foraging efficiency.
The artiodactyl index was chosen to analyse
Fremont faunal data since small artiodactyls (deer,
mountain sheep, antelope) and lagomorphs (both
hares and cottontails) are commonly recovered from
Fremont sites. Taphonomic concerns are relaxed in the
face of overwhelming ethnographical evidence for the
importance of rabbits and hares in the diet of Great
Basin hunter–gatherers (Steward, 1938; Stewart, 1942;
Fowler, 1989) and Southwest horticulturalists (various
in Ortiz, 1979; however, see concerns in Schmitt &
Lupo, 1995). Lagomorphs recovered from open structural sites are assumed to represent prey collected by
Fremont hunters.
Fremont Faunal Data
Fremont faunal assemblages are highly variable depending on local environmental conditions (Madsen,
1980). In the north along the Great Salt Lake and Utah
Lake margins, fish, waterfowl, muskrats, and occasionally bison are well represented. South of the Wasatch
Front, lagomorphs (rabbits and hares) and small
artiodactyls (deer, mountain sheep, antelope) dominate
most assemblages. Several fundamental difficulties
were encountered with the Fremont faunal data. First,
the recovery techniques employed in the past vary from
no screening to screening with one-quarter-in. sieves to
one-eighth-in. sieves. In some cases screen sizes are not
reported. More small bones would logically be recovered with smaller mesh screens, presumably making the
collections incompatible for comparative purposes. A
similar problem was present in the collections analysed
by Broughton (1994a, b). However, he found that
differing recovery methods were not influencing the
temporal trends in large-to-small bone ratios. It is
assumed here that differences in recovery techniques
would not have a significant impact on the results of
the analysis in part because numerous small animal
bones are reported in the assemblages suggesting
bones of all sizes were collected. In the Bear River sites,
for example, no mention is made of screening, yet
hundreds of bird and small mammal bones were
recovered attesting to rather careful attention to collecting these remains during excavation. On the other
hand, comparing quantities of fish bones collected
from sites where fill was screened with one-eighth-in.
mesh and sites that were not screened would clearly be
inappropriate.
Second, the sites discussed herein are found in
diverse environments; consequently, changes in site
archaeofaunas could be a simple reflection of ecological differences. The ideal test would be a single wellstratified residential site or a series of temporally
unique occupations in a small region wherein environmental factors could be held relatively constant.
Although residential sites with multiple occupations
are reported for the Fremont area, few report faunal
assemblages by structure and supply dating estimates
for each structure. As a consequence, data sets being
compared are usually site-wide collections from sites in
various locations across the eastern Great Basin and
Colorado Plateau. In an effort to control somewhat for
this problem, I analysed assemblages from all Fremont
sites and then only those from the eastern Basin where
environments are more similar.
Two additional concerns are functional differences
and dating. Table 1 lists the sites used in the analysis
along with physiographical province, elevation, and
age estimate. To resolve the issue of anticipated differences in faunal assemblage due to functional variability, the analysis only included sites that reported the
presence of residential structures (pit or surface
houses). Age estimates are based on a combination of
1078 J. C. Janetski
Table 1. Fremont residential sites used in the analysis
Site
Lott’s Farm
Woodard Mound
Icicle Bench (late)
Pharo Village
Wild Bill Knoll
Five Finger Ridge
Snake Rock
Radford Roost
Huntington Canyon
Nawthis Village
Evans Mound
Round Spring
Mukwitch Village
Bear River 2
Nephi Mound
Caldwell Village
Median Village
Backhoe Village
Icicle Bench (early)
Bear River 3
Location
Elevation
(ft asl)
Age
estimate
Reference
E. Basin
E. Basin
E. Basin
E. Basin
E. Basin
E. Basin
Col. Plat.
E. Basin
Col. Plat.
E. Basin
E. Basin
Col. Plat.
E. Basin
E. Basin
E. Basin
Uintah Basin
E. Basin
E. Basin
E. Basin
E. Basin
5760
4505
5595
6000
6035
5950
6500
5799
6600
6625
5812
7400
5395
4210
5100
5500
5850
5395
5595
4210
 1290
 1290
 1290
 1290
 1240
 1200
 1175
 1160
 1150
 1125
 1100
 1075
 1050
 1020
 1000
 1000
 1000
 900
 850
 640
Hawkins & Dobra, 1982
Richens, 1983
Talbot et al., 1994
Marwitt, 1968
Metcalfe, 1984
Talbot et al., 1995
Aikens, 1967
Talbot et al., 1994
Montgomery & Montgomery, 1993
Sharp, 1992
Berry, 1974; Dodd, 1982
Metcalf et al., 1993
Talbot & Richens, 1993
Aikens, 1967
Sharrock & Marwitt, 1967
Ambler, 1966
Marwitt, 1970
Madsen & Lindsay, 1977
Talbot et al., 1994
Shields & Dalley, 1978
Table 2. Artiodactyl and lagomorph NISP from Fremont residential sites
Site
Lott’s Farm
Woodard Mound
Icicle Bench (late)
Radford Roost
Five Finger Ridge
Snake Rock
Huntington Canyon
Pharo Village
Wild Bill Knoll
Round Spring
Nawthis Village
Evans Mound
Nephi Mound
Mukwitch Village
Caldwell Village
Median Village
Bear River 2
Icicle Bench (early)
Backhoe Village
Bear River 3
Artiodactyl Deer Sheep Antelope Elk Bison Leporidae
47
65
262
1042
10,509
—
75
—
51
4260
1156
—
—
217
—
—
—
938
818
—
12
7
4
58
311
76
104
305
—
190
293
1963
636
3
25
2341
12
26
10
26
9
10
10
45
334
584
43
86
2
134
26
833
93
7
1
392
7
21
14
—
1
4
1
—
—
—
5
—
—
8
63
926
—
—
125
18
3
1
—
10
—
—
—
—
5
1
2
—
—
7
—
—
—
—
—
—
9
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
39
1
—
18
—
—
9
—
—
—
—
2
786
—
—
670
radiocarbon dates and temporally diagnostic artefacts.
Janetski et al. (1995) have recently re-examined all
Fremont dates, calibrating those that had not been
adjusted, and have provided an ‘‘index date’’ for each
site or occupation level. In some cases index dates are
mean dates; in others they are best guesses given all the
temporal evidence including Fremont ceramic types,
architectural styles, and Anasazi trade wares. This
approach follows Broughton’s (1994a: 506) use of
mean dates. The final consideration was the availability
of quantified faunal data. Although analysis and reporting style clearly varied from site to site, the restriction of the analysis to artiodactyls and lagomorphs
allowed almost all data sets to be used, since nearly all
—
—
—
—
—
—
188
—
—
—
—
—
106
—
—
—
—
1
—
9
Lepus Sylvilagus
ÓNISP
ÓNISP
Artiodactyl
spp
spp
Artiodactyl Leporidae
index
5
57
3
86
1182
83
184
230
41
185
648
783
—
14
137
1341
141
15
39
9
45
79
86
389
4973
374
512
265
84
3152
1347
238
—
43
264
749
17
198
137
2
69
86
277
1145
11,198
662
229
409
53
4599
1547
3722
729
227
151
2753
817
986
842
706
50
136
89
475
6155
457
884
495
125
3337
1995
1021
106
57
401
2090
158
214
176
11
0·580
0·387
0·757
0·707
0·645
0·592
0·206
0·452
0·298
0·580
0·437
0·785
0·873
0·799
0·274
0·568
0·838
0·822
0·829
0·985
reported assemblages included rabbits, deer, antelope,
and mountain sheep.
Table 2 presents NISP values for Fremont sites
from both the eastern Great Basin and the Northern
Colorado Plateau. This analysis follows that of Szuter
& Bayham (1989) and Broughton (1994b) who included bone identified only as artiodactyl in their
analysis. The artiodactyl indices calculated here also
include specimens identified as artiodactyl or large
mammal, since that category is essentially a synonym
for small artiodactyls in Fremont assemblages. On the
other hand, the exclusion of small mammal bone, a
good portion of which is probably leporid, clearly
underrepresents rabbits and hares. Nonetheless, many
Nevada
Utah
Fremont Hunting and Resource Intensification 1079
Bear River
1, 2, 3
Hogup Cave
Danger Cave
Caldwell
Village
Uinta Basin
Great Basin
Woodard
Mounds
Nephi
Mounds
Pharo
Village
Five Finger Ridge
Lott's Farm
Radford Roost
Icicle Bench
Huntington
Canyon
Wild Bill Knoll
Snake Rock
Nawthis Village
Round Spring
Mukwitch Village
Backhoe Village
Colorado Plateau
Evans Mound
Median Village
Figure 1. Location of archaeological sites referred to in the text.
of the unidentifiable small mammal bones are from
taxa other than leporids and may or may not have been
food items. This taphonomic dilemma led Broughton
(1994a) to exclude other small mammals (pocket
gophers, ground squirrels) from his analysis, despite
the fact that they were clearly important in the past
(Janetski, 1979; see Lyman, 1992; and Schmitt & Lupo,
1995 for similar decisions). To counter this tendency
to underrepresent rabbits and hares, all bones identified as Leporidae were included in the analysis.
Leporid and lagomorph are used synonymously in this
discussion.
To display temporal patterns in Fremont prey
selection, the artiodactyl index was calculated for 20
residential Fremont sites with quantified faunal assemblages (Figure 1) (Tables 1 & 2). Figure 2 plots
the artiodactyl index for these sites (or temporally
separable assemblages) against time. A visual inspection of Figure 2 suggests a tendency for the
artiodactyl index to decrease through time. This
impression is borne out with Pearson’s correlation
coefficient (r= "0·536, P=0·015, df=18 (all tests are
two-tailed)), which demonstrates that there is a rather
strong, inverse relationship between the artiodactyl
1080 J. C. Janetski
for artiodactyls and lagomorphs with the artiodactyl
index. The resulting r-value (r=0·0234, P=0·921) is
evidence that the index does not vary with the size of
the assemblage.
1.0
0.9
Artiodactyl index
0.8
0.7
0.6
Discussion
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
600
700
800
900
1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
Time AD
Figure 2. Scatterplot and linear fit of all Fremont sites by artiodactyl
index and time (r=0·695, P=0·003, df=14).
1.0
0.9
Artiodactyl index
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
600
700
800
900
1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
Time AD
Figure 3. Scatterplot and linear fit of eastern Great Basin Fremont
sites by artiodactyl index and time (r=0·536, P=0·015, df=18).
index and time for all Fremont sites. In other
words, the use of deer, mountain sheep, and antelope
relative to lagomorphs decreases in the later Fremont
period.
As stated, the above calculations use data from all
Fremont residential sites with faunal information
available. Recognizing that environmental differences
between the eastern Basin and the Colorado Plateau
could make comparisons inappropriate, coefficients
were recalculated for only eastern Basin Fremont
structural sites. This recalculation considerably
strengthened the relationship between the artiodactyl
index and time (r= "0·695, P=0·003, df=14) (Figure
3). These analyses tend to support the conclusions of
Broughton (1994b), who has noted that the relationship between time and the artiodactyl index is strengthened as the size of the region being considered is
reduced.
Certainly an additional concern with this analysis is
whether the values might be varying according to
sample size. To examine this possibility, I calculated
Pearson’s correlation coefficient comparing GNISP
The empirical data presented suggest interesting trends
in Fremont hunting success and strategies. Assuming
that the pattern is real, what could account for the
declining numbers of artiodactyls at Fremont residential sites? Speth & Scott (1989) and Broughton (1994a,
b) consider climatic shifts, technological change, and
resource depression. These are explored below along
with butchering, transport, and taphonomic issues.
Climate
Climatic change such as increasing aridity could have
a deleterious effect on large game populations. A
detailed climatic reconstruction for the Holocene in
the eastern Basin comes from archaeological data
recovered at Hogup Cave (Aikens, 1970). Harper &
Alder (1970) and Durrant (1970) view the variation in
floral and faunal assemblages from Hogup Cave as a
function of climatic change and track shifts in the
occurrence of both plants and animals from 8000 years
ago to the present. The most useful data are from
rodent and bird remains. Harper & Alder (1970: 234)
note that birds and rodents preferring more mesic
environments gradually decrease in numbers during
this period, while those preferring more zeric conditions increase. During the Fremont period (strata
12–14, c.  500–1200), however, evidence suggests
that climates tend toward more mesic conditions.
Waterfowl, for example, show a modest increase.
Grayson (1993: 222) also characterizes the late
Holocene as a time of increased moisture and somewhat cooler conditions relative to the middle Holocene
(see also Currey & James, 1982; Lindsay, 1986;
Murchison, 1989; Lyman, 1992).
More detailed climatic scenarios compiled by
Lindsay (1986) and Newman (1995) document more
mesic and somewhat warmer conditions at about the
time of Christ and again between  600 and 1200.
Newman’s (1995) reconstruction of the climates in
central Utah during the Fremont era argues for only
minor changes throughout the period. These reconstructions are consistent with the more general schemes
noted above. The question is, how would warmer
and wetter conditions affect artiodactyl populations?
Durrant (1952: 458) points to the importance of water
for plant growth and access to winter range for the
support of deer herds, both of which would have been
more available during a warmer, more mesic climatic
interval. These conclusions could reasonably be extended to antelope and mountain sheep as well: wetter,
warmer climates should favour artiodactyls (see Szuter
& Bayham, 1989: 87 for similar conclusions). These
Fremont Hunting and Resource Intensification 1081
data suggest that the climate between 2000 and 800
years ago was favourable for artiodactyls, and the
decrease in artiodactyls at residential sites cannot be
explained by environmental factors.
Technological innovation
Madsen (1986) has suggested that the adoption of the
more efficient bow and arrow could have contributed
to the decline of large game animals, especially deer
and mountain sheep, since they were taken primarily
by encounter hunting. Madsen (1986: 37) places the
timing of the bow and arrow at about 500 , which is
most probably too early. Several (Holmer, 1986; Geib
& Bungart, 1989; Janetski, 1993) have reviewed the
evidence for the arrival of bow and arrow technology
in Utah north of the Anasazi and conclude its use was
widespread no earlier than  200. The adoption of
bow and arrow weaponry in Utah at about 1800 ,
however, seems about right for the issue under discussion. Traditional literature on the Fremont places the
onset of that period at about 1600 years ago (Marwitt,
1986); therefore, since all dates for the Fremont assemblages presented here post-date the onset of bows and
arrows, diminishing numbers of artiodactyls could be
attributed to that technological innovation.
Speth & Scott (1989) and Broughton (1994b), however, discount the impact of the bow and arrow.
Broughton (1994b: 393) notes that the decline in
artiodactyl numbers begins well in advance of the
introduction of the bow, which occurred by  500 in
California. Speth & Scott (1989: 73) put forward a
similar argument for the Southwest. Unfortunately,
few faunal assemblages are known from early Fremont
structural sites. Exceptions are the very recently reported Steinaker Gap and Confluence sites in the
Uintah Basin and east of the Wasatch Front on
Muddy Creek respectively. Both sites were aceramic
with shallow houses and bell-shaped pits and dating to
the first few centuries after Christ (Talbot & Richens,
1994; Greubel, 1996). The faunal assemblages in both
cases were depauperate; consequently, no statements
can be made about change across this technological
shift. It is now clear, however, that (as with the
Southwest and California) shifts in subsistence strategies in the Fremont area began several centuries earlier
than the date offered by Marwitt and prior to the
arrival of the bow and arrow and other farming
accoutrements such as pottery and deep pithouses.
Corn and the use of bell-shaped storage pits, for
example, were in place in central Utah by 150 
(Wilde & Newman, 1989). This suggests that intensification was under way in advance of the arrival of the
bow and arrow.
Technological innovations could also include the
development of mass capture techniques, such as
drives, which, potentially, could have made small
mammal procurement more productive than encounter
hunting of artiodactyls. However, Speth & Scott (1989:
75, see also references therein) argue convincingly that
communal hunting techniques are less efficient than
encounter hunting and are practiced only when resources are depressed. They note that among farmer–
hunters in the Amazon (admittedly a very different
setting from the Great Basin) communal hunts are
carried out primarily to obtain large quantities of meat
for special occasions. This issue is complicated by
the prey choice model, which assumes that prey are
encountered and captured one at a time. Mass capture,
therefore, could disrupt the logic of body size–equal
prey rank*.
Communal hunting for both large and small game is
well documented for the ethnographical period in the
Great Basin (Steward, 1941; Stewart, 1942). The importance of drives for black-tailed jack rabbits (Lepus
californicus), for example, is well known. Nets woven
from vegetable fibres played a critical role in drives for
rabbits as well as in the mass capture of birds and fish.
The construction of nets appears to have considerable
time depth given the quantities of netting fragments
recovered from the lower strata in Hogup Cave
(Aikens, 1970: 120). In fact, if numbers of net fragments represent commitment to communal hunts (such
as rabbit drives), such hunts were more prevalent
during the Archaic than the Fremont period, a conclusion borne out by the strong correlation between
numbers of net fragments and lagomorph bones
(Aikens, 1970: 189). Communal hunting at Hogup
Cave, therefore, appears to have declined through
time. In the absence of clear indications of how faunas
were captured in the past (encounter hunting or
drives), however, the issue remains problematic.
Resource depression
Local resource depletion due to over-hunting characterizes central place foraging strategies. Speth & Scott
(1989) and Szuter & Bayham (1989) both point to the
shift in hunting strategies in the Southwest as a consequence (at least in part) of resource depletion or
depression in the immediate vicinity of villages. Ethnographical data from South America reinforce these
conclusions (Gross, 1975; Hames & Vickers, 1982; and
references therein). Hames & Vickers (1982), for
example, consider the effect of settlement age on the
hunting patterns of the horticultural Siona-Secoya,
Ye’kwana, and Yanomamo Indians of the Amazon
Basin. They note the conventional wisdom that hunting is typically better around new villages and that
game depletion is a significant factor in the relocation
of villages. The choice of new sites is usually in
previously uninhabited or ‘‘rested’’ areas (Hames &
Vickers, 1982: 363). Game depletion is measured in
*An example to the contrary may be fish. Raymond & Sobel (1990)
have suggested that small tui chub captured with gill nets by Indians
in the western Great Basin may have been more cost-efficient
than larger fish when the greater costs of gutting and drying are
considered.
1082 J. C. Janetski
Butchering and transport
Two additional questions are of interest here: (1) how
are Fremont faunal assemblages structured by diachronic changes in butchering and transport; and,
closely related, (2) density-dependent preservation?
Broughton (1995) has cautioned that transport costs
are an important additional consideration when central
place foragers (such as the Fremont) are the focus of
analysis (see also Metcalfe & Barlow, 1992). Increased
logistical hunting would tend to leave bones at butchering sites, thereby accounting for the diachronic pattern seen at residences (i.e. decreasing numbers of
bones from larger game). Hunters travelling farther
afield in search of large game may have stripped meat
and left heavy, low-utility bones behind. At least two
predictions follow from this complementary pattern:
(1) relative numbers of artiodactyl remains at logistical
or kill/butchering sites should increase throughout the
Fremont period; and (2) faunal assemblages from
residential sites should contain increasing numbers
of high utility (in terms of food value) artiodactyl
16
14
12
Strata
terms of the availability of higher-ranked or larger
animals found in the vicinity of the village. As the
region around the village (0–4 km radius) is exploited,
hunters focus on smaller animals in the areas near the
village and move farther afield to capture larger game.
Empirical support for this pattern of game depletion
comes from Vickers (1989) whose longitudinal study
of Siona-Secoya demonstrated an increase in smaller
animals and a decrease in larger animals taken over
time. Further, mean weight of game taken increases as
a function of distance from the village (Hames &
Vickers, 1982: 366). These findings suggest that hunters
in distant zones (more than 9 km from a village) select
larger animals over smaller prey. Day hunts averaged
20 km for Siona-Secoya following near zone depletion
(Hames & Vickers, 1982: 364). Even longer trips, or
‘‘expedition hunting’’ (Vickers, 1989: 54), carry SionaSecoya hunters up to 75 km from the main village,
although the composition of the hunting party often
changes to include a hunter and his family. Groups
can be gone for up to 4 weeks on such hunts. It is not
clear from Vickers’s (1989: 55) data what is brought
back to the village as a consequence of these longer
expeditions, however.
Broughton’s (1995) analysis of vertebrate faunas
from the Emeryville Shellmound demonstrates the
pattern of initial local resource depression and
subsequent hunting of larger game at greater distances. Relative numbers of elk and deer as well as
sturgeon (the largest fish present in the assemblage)
decline in the earlier deposits; sturgeon and elk continue to decline, but deer increase in later levels.
Importantly, this pattern can be further tested through
body part representation, an expectation explored
below.
10
Fremont
Late Archaic
8
6
Archaic
4
2
0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Artiodactyl index
Figure 4. Artiodactyl index by stratum, Hogup Cave.
elements through time as a result of field butchering
prior to transport back to residential bases (Binford,
1981).
Testing these propositions is difficult. Chronological
data from logistical sites, such as caves or rockshelters,
are usually limited to a single date from the Fremont
period; consequently, no trajectory of change in ratios
over the Fremont period can be drawn. Additionally,
few logistical sites in the Fremont area have been
excavated and reported in detail. Only Hogup Cave
(Aikens, 1970) has more than one date for the Fremont
period. Significant quantities of Fremont ceramics first
appear at Hogup in Stratum 12, dated to c.  540 and
780, and continue through to Stratum 14, dated to
between  780 and 1360 (these are calibrated index
dates from Janetski et al., 1995; based on Aikens’s
(1970: 29) report). Interestingly, the artiodactyl index
increases as expected for Strata 12–14 (Figure 4).
Although the patterns at Hogup are intriguing and the
data support the general patterns being discussed here,
it is difficult to imagine Hogup Cave as a logistical
outpost for a Fremont village given its remote location
on the west side of the Great Salt Lake. The closest
known Fremont structural site is in the Bear River
marsh, which lies a minimum of 100 km to the east,
depending on the route taken. The closest access would
be to skirt the north end of the Great Salt Lake. It
seems more reasonable to suggest that sites such as
Hogup were used primarily by non-farmers who increased efforts at big game procurement in order to
trade with horticulturalists for farm products (see
Kelly, 1964 for description of such a pattern among
Southern Paiute people). Finally, taphonomic issues
cloud conclusions using faunal data from sites such as
Hogup (for example see Hockett, 1994 for a discussion
of the origins of Hogup Cave leporids).
The second expectation, that numbers of high-utility
elements should increase at later residential sites if
logistical hunting were the primary means of procuring
artiodactyls, has two parts: (1) determining ratios of
high- to low-utility elements; and (2) demonstrating a
temporal shift in those ratios. Broughton’s analysis
(1995) of the stratified Emeryville Shellmound fauna,
for example, found that, after a period of decline,
Fremont Hunting and Resource Intensification 1083
Table 3. %MAU for small artiodactyls from three Fremont sites and bone density for deer and domestic sheep (from
Lyman, 1994)
Element
Sacrum
Thoracic vert
Cervical vert
Lumbar vert
Pfemur
Dulna
Atlas
Axis
Pelvis
Ribs
Phumerus
Dfemur
Ptibia
Pmetarcarpal
Pmetatarsal
Dmetacarpal
Pulna
Phalanges
Dradius
Pradius
Mandible
Dhumerus
Scapula
Dmetatarsal
Calcaneus
Dtibia
Astragalus
Five Finger Ridge
%MAU*
Nawthis Village
%MAU†
Round Spring
%MAU‡
Deer bone
density
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0·20
2·5
5
5
10
17·5
22·5
25
27
32·5
47·5
52·5
57·5
62·5
82·5
87·5
100
100
15·38
9·47
13·85
5·69
42·31
3·85
7·69
76·92
61·54
10·95
26·92
30·77
57·69
84·62
100
23·08
19·23
85·4
15·38
26·92
50
23·08
53·85
65·38
42·31
80·77
73·8
10·5
4·0
8·4
5·3
21·1
10·5
0
21·1
28·5
3·6
10·5
10·5
5·3
42·1
100
21·1
10·5
58·9
26·3
52·6
26·3
42·1
15·8
10·5
15·8
47·4
26·3
0·17
0·255
0·165
0·29
0·36
0·45
0·195
0·13
0·49
0·258
0·245
0·325
0·31
0·625
0·6
0·5
0·375
0·285
0·405
0·52
0·51
0·51
0·425
0·48
0·488
0·625
0·567
*Based on MNE of mountain sheep plus deer.
†Based on MNE of small artiodactyls.
‡Based on MNE of body size III bovids (predominantly bighorn sheep and deer).
high-utility elements increased in later strata, a pattern
that Broughton suggests is evidence for greater use
of distant hunting patches, field butchering, and subsequent transport of selected elements back to the
shellmound residence. Similar patterns of change in
high-utility elements have apparently also been documented in the Southwest at both Chacoan (Akins,
1982; cited in Speth & Scott, 1989: 73) and Hohokam
sites (Bayham & Hatch, 1984; cited in Speth & Scott,
1989: 73).
Relative abundance of high- and low-utility body
parts in Fremont faunal assemblages has been explored
by several analysts. Sharp (1992), Rood & Butler
(1993), and the author (Janetski, 1995) have recently
described large faunal collections from Nawthis
Village, Round Spring, and Five Finger Ridge respectively and reported on the distribution of artiodactyl
elements. In each case the pattern of body part distribution was more characteristic of that expected at a kill
site than at a residential site; that is, among other
things, the assemblages were dominated by low- rather
than high-utility elements. This pattern seems unacceptable for what are clearly residential sites. Explanations offered range from the process of drying meat
(Todd, 1993: 384–385), to the selection of bone for
tools (Sharp, 1992: 152), and density-mediated attrition due to carnivore gnawing (Sharp, 1992; Janetski,
1995: 137). My conclusions were based on a comparison of percentage minimal animal units (%MAU) for
small artiodactyls from Nawthis Village, Five Finger
Ridge, and Round Spring with deer bone density as
presented by Lyman (1994: 246–247, table 7·6) (Table
3)*. In all cases there is a positive strong relationship
between bone density and %MAU (rNawthis =0·4696,
P=0·014; rFive Finger =0·6325, P=0·001; rRound
Spring =0·5829, P=0·003). These values argue strongly
that preservation, bone processing (Bunn, 1993), or
carnivore gnawing are primary factors in shaping the
assemblages from these sites.
That reverse utility curves should describe the three
Fremont faunal assemblages mentioned above is no
surprise given the research by Lyman (1994) on this
topic. He concludes that researchers should expect that
archaeologically recovered assemblages of bones have
been altered by density-mediated, post-depositional
processes, particularly carnivore gnawing (Lyman,
*Lyman (1994: 246–247) scanned multiple sites on bones resulting in
several values for proximal or distal ends, for example. Since few
analyses provide MNEs for other than proximal and distal ends, I
averaged Lyman’s numbers to obtain a single density value for that
portion of the bone. For example, density values for the proximal
tibia were obtained by averaging scan sites T11 (0·30) and T12 (0·32)
for deer to obtain a value of 0·31 (see Table 3). The pelvis value was
the most worrisome as there are seven scan sites; all seven were
averaged to obtain the single value of 0·49.
1084 J. C. Janetski
Table 4. MNE for Round Spring long bones calculated by ends only and shafts plus ends compared to utility values
(SFUI)
MNE based on ends
(proximal, distal, shafts)
Element
Humerus
Radius
Metacarpal
Femur
Tibia
Metatarsal
12
14
9
5
13
19
(2/12/6)
(14/7/2)
(9/0/6)
(5/3/2)
(1/13/3)
(19/2/2)
1994: 261). The work of Rapson (1990), Marean &
Spencer (1991), Marean et al. (1992), and others have
provided additional ways of quantifying elements (calculating ratios of long bone shafts to long bone ends,
for example) in order that patterns resulting from
cultural behaviour can be differentiated from attrition
due to carnivore activity. Marean et al. (1992: 117)
conclude that this is best performed by combining
evidences of hammer stone percussion and tooth marks
as well as analysis of body parts that includes sorting of
elements by shafts and ends. Todd’s (1993: 358–360)
report of the Round Spring assemblage comes closest
to covering all of the analytical bases suggested,
although he does not differentiate between shaft ends
and middle shafts. However, plotting the MNEs based
on long bone ends only and MNEs calculated on both
ends and shafts for the Round Spring long bones
(following Lyman, 1994: 271–272) does not alter the
pattern of reverse utility at Round Spring (Table 4,
Figure 5). The slope of the best fit lines in Figure 5 is
essentially the same for MNE for ends only and MNE
for ends plus shafts: as utility increases, frequency
decreases. Persistence of the reverse utility pattern is
likely to be due to intense processing of bones by
people, village dogs, and/or other scavengers; an explanation that may also apply to Nawthis Village, and
Five Finger Ridge.
The second part of the expectation regarding the
occurrence of high-utility elements (that element ratios
should shift toward increasing numbers of high-utility
25
MNE
20
15
10
5
0
20
60
40
80
100
SFUI
Figure 5. Scatterplot and linear fit for utility (SFUI) and MNE
frequencies for Round Spring long bone ends only and ends plus
shafts. /, ——, ends only; 5, – – –, ends plus shafts.
MNE based on
ends+shafts
SFUI (Metcalfe
& Jones, 1988)
18
16
15
7
16
21
36·8
25·8
5·2
100
62·8
37
parts through time) is hindered by the scarcity of useful
data from early sites. The three sites mentioned above,
Round Spring, Nawthis Village, and Five Finger
Ridge, are all late sites (post-1000 ) so tracking
change through time is difficult. Further, the previous
discussion questions whether transport behaviour can
be derived from body part ratios, at least as currently
calculated. Clearly, excavations of early Fremont sites
and more sophisticated faunal analyses from all periods
are areas that need attention in Fremont studies.
Summary
Long-term trends in Fremont artiodactyl use may be
best explained as a function of resource depression due
to increasing populations. Unfortunately, discussions
of Fremont population levels are few and most are
synchronic in nature (see Meighan, 1958; Gunnerson,
1969; for some examples). Sammons-Lohse (1981) considered village size, but again her discussion was essentially synchronic. Talbot (1995) offers one of the few
discussions of Fremont demographical trends. Following an exhaustive review of dated sites, he argues that
significant population growth and site aggregation
began after  900 and continued into the  1200s.
Talbot & Wilde (1989: 11), relying on radiocarbon
dates, have shown that site density in the middle Sevier
River Valley was high during the period between
 1050 and 1200, suggesting a population increase.
Settlement data from the Richfield area and Clear
Creek Canyon, a tributary to the Sevier River, demonstrate that early occupations were primarily on floodplains as evidenced by early dates at Backhoe Village
(Madsen & Lindsay, 1977), Lott’s Farm, and Icicle
Bench (Talbot et al., 1994). Later villages tended to be
aggregated and were located increasingly on ridges
(Five Finger Ridge is an example), although use of the
floodplains or valley sites continued. This pattern is
evidence that people were using more of the landscape through time and that absolute numbers were
increasing.
Under conditions of higher populations, the Fremont may have remained in one place for longer
periods simply because there may have been fewer
places to move. Or, if the village were moved, the new
area may not have lain ‘‘fallow’’ or rested long enough
Fremont Hunting and Resource Intensification 1085
for large game populations to rebound from years of
hunting by the last group to occupy the area. Archaeological evidence of this could be reoccupation of preferred locations such as that documented for Median
Village (Marwitt, 1970) and the Evans Mound (Berry,
1974; Dodd, 1982) in Parowan Valley where superimposed houses were common. It is noteworthy that
superpositioning seems more common at structural
sites found in valley locations than at ridgetop sites (see
also Simms, 1986).
Somewhat puzzling is the contrast between Southwestern faunal assemblages, where artiodactyl elements apparently increase in village sites, and Fremont
assemblages, where numbers of artiodactyls decrease.
Why is that so? Recent, well-controlled faunal data
may argue that the Southwestern pattern is not as
widespread as Speth & Scott (1989) suggest. Szuter &
Gillespie (1994), for example, point out that more
rigorous screening techniques at Hohokam sites during
the 1980s have produced evidence that smaller game,
especially lagomorphs, were more important than previously thought. Also, James (1994) has summarized
new data from the Roosevelt Dam area that are
somewhat mixed but which appear to show an increase
in lagomorph exploitation through time. No increase
in large game is apparent at the several sites he
discusses. More compelling are data from the Four
Corners area where Munro (1994: 123–124) has documented the increasing importance of turkeys from
Basketmaker to Pueblo III occupations. Likewise,
Thompson (1990), who analysed faunal assemblages
from early Pueblo II and late Pueblo III contexts at the
Nancy Patterson site in south-eastern Utah, found that
use of turkeys increased dramatically in Pueblo III
times while artiodactyl use declined.
Speth & Scott (1989: 78) predict variable responses
to localized protein depletion. Options may have included greater dependence on turkey, as described for
the Four Corners region, increased use of fish, or, as
was the case on the eastern Puebloan borders, exchange with Plains hunters for bison meat. However,
these options were pursued only when significant investments in agricultural facilities (irrigation canals,
check dams, etc.) close to villages precluded settlement
relocation. In contrast to Southwest farmers, Fremont
investments in land modification for agricultural purposes were few (see Metcalfe & Larrabee, 1985; Talbot
& Richens, 1994, for reviews). Likewise, residential
architecture, although more elaborate than that seen
for Great Basin or California aboriginal groups, was
relatively modest and no ritual architecture (such as
kivas) has been documented in the Fremont area.
Consequently, the option to move was more attractive
to the Fremont than to the Anasazi or Hohokam.
use the term ‘‘farmers’’ since the model is based on the
assumption that those occupying structural sites were
involved in farming. This does not assume that farming
was the only strategy or that other strategies were
not operating concurrently with the horticultural pattern (Madsen, 1982, 1989; Simms, 1986, 1990, 1994;
Upham, 1994).
The analysis of faunal data from Fremont residential
or structural sites suggests a pattern generally reminiscent of that seen in the Southwest. As corn and
gardening were included in the subsistence economy
about 2000 years ago, people made a greater commitment to a central place strategy followed by a slow
decline in hunting success between  500 and 1300
(see Lupo & Schmitt, 1995 for some corroboration of
this trend for the northern portion of the region and
Metcalf, 1993 for a different view).
The Fremont who occupied village sites are best
modelled as farmer–hunters who were concerned with
both the productivity of their fields and the productivity of their hunting forays (see also Sharp, 1992).
Abandonment of village locations to maintain maximum yields on both fronts may have occurred as often
as every few years as a consequence of resource depression (see various examples of mobility of part-time
agriculturalists in Kent, 1989). Declining yields of
hunters who hunt big game, not only as an important
way of provisioning their families (meat, buckskins for
clothing, bone for tools, sinew for a multitude of
purposes), but also as a source of prestige for the
successful, may have spurred site abandonment (see
Kent, 1989; Hawkes, 1990 for discussions of why meat
is more valuable than plant foods).
Conclusions
The aim of this paper has been to test resourceintensification models developed in California and the
American Southwest. The test case was the Fremont, a
group who practiced a mixed economy north of the
better-known Southwestern farmers. Relying on prey
choice logic and the artiodactyl index, the analysis
concluded that a gradual reduction in foraging
efficiency occurred in the eastern Great Basin and
Northern Colorado Plateau during the Late Holocene.
Faunal assemblages from archeological sites show a
slow decline in the relative numbers of large game
animals between  500 and 1300. This trend may have
influenced the regular movement of villages and discouraged the construction of major agricultural facilities. The persistence of the pattern (artiodactyl
hunting, regular residential moves) combined with
population increase over several centuries resulted in a
gradual reduction of small artiodactyl populations
across the Fremont area.
A Model of Fremont Subsistence
Acknowledgements
These brief discussions suggest several possibilities for
modelling subsistence practices of Fremont farmers. I
This paper was improved by thoughtful comments
from Jack Broughton, John Clark, Dave Schmitt, and
1086 J. C. Janetski
Steve Simms. Dave Madsen and Bob Bettinger also
offered useful insights. Three anonymous reviewers
contributed excellent comments and suggestions that
enhanced the clarity and focus of the arguments. The
final form of the paper is my responsibility.
References
Aikens, C. M. (1967). Excavations at Snake Rock Village and the
Bear River No. 2 Site. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah
Anthropological Papers 87.
Aikens, C. M. (1970). Hogup Cave. Salt Lake City, UT: University of
Utah Anthropological Papers 93.
Alvard, M. (1995). Intraspecific prey choice by Amazonian hunters.
Current Anthropology 36, 789–818.
Ambler, J. R. (1966). Caldwell Village. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Anthropological Papers 84.
Basgall, M. E. (1987). Resource intensification among hunter–
gatherers: acorn economies in prehistoric California. Research in
Economic Anthropology 9, 21–52.
Bayham, F. E. (1979). Factors influencing the archaic pattern of
animal utilization. Kiva 44, 219–235.
Bayham, F. E. (1982). A Diachronic Analysis of Prehistoric Animal
Exploitation at Ventana Cave. Ph.D. Thesis. Arizona State
University, Tempe, AZ, U.S.A.
Berry, M. S. (1974). The Evans Mound: Cultural Adaptation in
Southwestern Utah. Masters Thesis. University of Utah, Salt Lake
City, UT, U.S.A.
Bettinger, R. L. (1991). Aboriginal occupation at high altitude:
alpine villages in the White Mountains of eastern California.
American Anthropologist 93, 656–679.
Bettinger, R. L. & Baumhoff, M. A. (1982). The Numic spread:
Great Basin cultures in competition. American Antiquity 47,
485–503.
Binford, L. R. (1981). Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths. New
York: Academic Press.
Broughton, J. M. (1994a). Late Holocene resource intensification
in the Sacramento Valley, California: the vertebrate evidence.
Journal of Archaeological Science 21, 501–514.
Broughton, J. M. (1994b). Declines in mammalian foraging efficiency
during the Late Holocene, San Francisco Bay, California. Journal
of Anthropological Anthropology 13, 371–401.
Broughton, J. M. (1995). Resource Depression and Intensification
During the Late Holocene, San Francisco Bay: Evidence from the
Emeryville Shellmound Vertebrate Fauna. Ph.D. Thesis. University
of Washington, Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
Broughton, J. M. & Grayson, D. K. (1993). Diet breadth, adaptive
change, and the White Mountain faunas. Journal of Archaeological
Science 20, 331–336.
Bunn, H. T. (1993). Bone assemblages at base camps: a further
consideration of carcass transport and bone destruction. In (J.
Hudson, Ed.) From Bones to Behavior. Carbondale, IL: Center for
Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper 21, pp. 156–168.
Cordell, L. S. (1984). Prehistory of the Southwest. New York:
Academic Press.
Currey, D. R. & James, A. R. (1982). Paleoenvironments of the
northeastern Great Basin and northeastern Basin Rim region: a
review of geological and biological evidence. In (D. B. Madsen &
J. F. O’Connell, Eds) Man and Environment in the Great Basin.
SAA Papers No. 2. Washington, DC: Society for American
Archaeology, pp. 27–52.
Dodd, W. A. Jr. (1982). Final Year of Excavations at the Evans
Mound Site. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Anthropological Papers 106.
Durrant, S. D. (1952). Mammals of Utah: Taxonomy and Distribution. Vol. 6. University of Kansas Publications, Lawrence, Kansas:
Museum of Natural History.
Durrant, S. D. (1970). Faunal remains as indicators of neothermal
climates at Hogup Cave. In (C. M. Aikens, Ed.) Hogup Cave. Salt
Lake City, UT: University of Utah Anthropological Papers 93,
pp. 241–146.
Elston, R. (1986). Prehistory of the western area. In (W. L.
d’Azevedo, Ed.) Great Basin. Handbook of North American
Indians, vol. 11, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor. Washington,
DC: Smithsonian Institution, pp. 135–148.
Fowler, C. S. (1989). Willard Z. Park’s Ethnographic Notes on the
Northern Paiute of Western Nevada, 1933–1944. Salt Lake City,
UT: University of Utah Anthropological Papers 114.
Geib, P. R. & Bungart, P. W. (1989). Implications of early bow use
in Glen Canyon. Utah Archaeology 1989 2, 32–47.
Grayson, D. K. (1991). Alpine faunas from the White Mountains,
California: adaptive change in the Late Prehistoric Great Basin?
Journal of Archaeological Science 18, 483–506.
Grayson, D. K. (1993). The Desert’s Past, a Natural Prehistory of the
Great Basin. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Greubel, R. A. (1996). Archaeological investigations of 11 sites along
Interstate 70: Castle Valley to Rattlesnake Bench. Ms prepared
for Utah Department of Transportation, Salt Lake City, UT.
Contract No. 93-8185. Alpine Archaeological consultants, Inc.
Gross, D. R. (1975). Protein capture and cultural development in the
Amazon. American Anthropologist 77, 526–549.
Gunnerson, J. H. (1969). The Fremont culture: a study in culture
dynamics on the northern Anasazi frontier. Papers of the Peabody
Museum of Archaeology and Ethnololgy Vol. 59, No. 2.
Cambridge: Harvard University.
Hames, R. B. & Vickers, W. T. (1982). Optimal diet breadth theory
as a model to explain variability in Amazonian hunting. American
Ethnologist 9, 358–378.
Harper, K. T. & Alder, G. M. (1970). The macroscopic plant
remains of the deposits of Hogup Cave, Utah, and their paleoclimatic implications. In (C. M. Aikens, Ed.) Hogup Cave. Salt
Lake City, UT: University of Utah Anthropological Papers 93,
pp. 215–240.
Hawkes, K. (1990). Why do men hunt? Benefits for risky choices. In
(E. Cashden, Ed.) Risk and Uncertainty in Tribal and Peasant
Economies. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, pp. 145–155.
Hawkes, K., Hill, K., O’Connell, J. F. (1982) Why hunters gather:
optimal foraging and the Achè of Eastern Paraguay. American
Ethnologist 9, 379–398.
Hawkins, B. & Dobra, L. (1982). Archaeological excavations at the
Lott’s Farm Site. Ms. on file. Salt Lake City: Antiquities Section,
Utah Division of State History.
Hockett, B. C. (1994). A descriptive analysis of the leporid bones
from Hogup Cave. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 16, 106–117.
Holmer, R. N. (1986). Common projectile points of the Intermountain West. In (C. J. Condie & D. D. Fowler, Eds) Anthropology of
the Desert West: Essays in Honor of Jesse D. Jennings. Salt Lake
City, UT: University of Utah Anthropological Papers 110, 89–115.
James, S. R. (1994). Hunting and fishing patterns at prehistoric sites
along the Salt River: the archaeofaunal analysis. In Paleobotanical
and Osteological Analyses. The Roosevelt Community Development Study, vol. 3. Tucson, AZ: Center for Desert Archaeology
Anthropological Papers 14, pp. 85–168.
Janetski, J. C. (1979). The implications of snare bundles in the Great
Basin and Southwest. Journal of California and Great Basin
Anthropology 1, 306–321.
Janetski, J. C. (1993). The archaic to formative transition north of
the Anasazi: a basketmaker perspective. In (V. Atkins, Ed.)
Anasazi Basketmaker: Papers from the 1990 Wetherill-Grand Gulch
Symposium. Salt Lake City, UT: Bureau of Land Management
Cultural Resource Series 24, 223–241.
Janetski, J. C. (1994). Recent transitions in the eastern Great Basin:
the archaeological record. In (D. B. Madsen & D. Rhode, Eds)
Across the West: Human Population Movement and the Expansion
of the Numa. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press, pp.
157–178.
Janetski, J. C. (1995). Research applications: faunal remains. In
(J. C. Janetski, R. K. Talbot, D. E. Newman, L. D. Richens &
Fremont Hunting and Resource Intensification 1087
J. D. Wilde, Eds) Clear Creek Canyon Archaeological Project,
Volume Five: Result and Synthesis (final draft), Brigham Young
University, Provo, UT: Museum of Peoples and Cultures
Technical Series No. 95-99, pp. 133–150.
Janetski, J. C., Talbot, R. K., Newman, D. E., Richens, L. D. &
Wilde, J. D. (1995). Clear Creek Canyon Archaeological Project,
Volume Five: Result and Synthesis (final draft), Brigham Young
University, Provo, UT: Museum of Peoples and Cultures Technical Series No. 95-9.
Jochim, M. (1976). Hunter-Gatherer Subsistence and Settlement: a
Predictive Model. New York: Academic Press.
Kelly, I. T. (1964). Southern Paiute Ethnography. Salt Lake City, UT:
University of Utah Anthropological Papers 69.
Kent, S. (1989). Cross cultural perceptions of farmers as hunters and
the value of meat. In (S. Kent, Ed.) Farmers as Hunters: the
Implications of Sedentism. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, pp. 1–17.
Lee, R. B. (1979). The !Kung San: Men, Women, and Work in a
Foraging Society. Cambridge: Cambridge Press.
Lindsay, L. W. (1986). Fremont fragmentation. In (C. J. Condie &
D. D. Fowler, Eds) Anthropology of the Desert West: Essays in
Honor of Jesse D. Jennings. Salt Lake City, UT: University of
Utah Anthropological Papers 110, pp. 229–251.
Lupo, K. & Schmitt, D. (1995). Late Holocene variability in bison
and human subsistence strategies in the northeastern Great Basin.
Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology (in press).
Lyman, R. L. (1992). Influences of Mid-Holocene altithermal climates on mammalian faunas and human subsistence in eastern
Washington. Journal of Ethnobiology 12, 37–62.
Lyman, R. L. (1994). Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Madsen, D. B. (1980). Fremont/Sevier subsistence. In (D. B.
Madsen, Ed.) Fremont Perspectives. Salt Lake City, UT: Antiquities Section Selected Papers 16, 25–34.
Madsen, D. B. (1982). Get it where the gettin’s good: a variable
model of Great Basin subsistence and settlement based on data
from the eastern Great Basin. In (D. B. Madsen & J. F. O’Connell,
Eds) Man and Environment in the Great Basin. Washington, DC:
Society for American Archaeology, SAA Papers 2, 207–226.
Madsen, D. B. (1986). Great Basin nuts: a short treatise on the
distribution, productivity, and prehistoric use of pinyon. In (C. J.
Condie & D. D. Fowler, Eds) Anthropology of the Desert West:
Essays in Honor of Jesse D. Jennings. Salt Lake City, UT:
University of Utah Anthropological Papers 110, 21–42.
Madsen, D. B. (1989). Exploring the Fremont. Salt Lake City, UT:
University of Utah, Museum of Natural History Occasional
Publications 8.
Madsen, D. B. & Lindsay, L. W. (1977). Backhoe Village. Salt Lake
City, UT: Utah State Historical Society, Antiquities Section
Selected Papers Vol. 4, No. 12.
Marean, C. W. & Spencer, L. M. (1991). Impact of carnivore
ravaging on zooarchaeological measures of element abundance.
American Antiquity 56, 645–658.
Marean, C. W., Spencer, L. M., Blumenschine, R. J. & Capaldo,
S. D. (1992). Captive hyena bone choice and destruction, the
schlepp effect and Olduvai archaeofaunas. Journal of Archaeological Science 19, 101–121.
Marwitt, J. P. (1968). Pharo Village. Salt Lake City, UT: University
of Utah Anthropological Papers 91.
Marwitt, J. P. (1970). Median Village and Fremont Culture Regional
Variation. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Anthropological Papers 95.
Marwitt, J. P. (1986). Fremont cultures. In (W. L. d’Azevedo, Ed.)
Great Basin. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 11, W. C.
Sturtevant, general editor. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, pp. 161–172.
Meighan, C. W. (1958). Archaeology of Paragonah. Unpublished
manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology, University of
California, Los Angeles, U.S.A.
Metcalf, M. D. (1993). Research contributions. In (M. D. Metcalf,
K. J. Pool, K. McDonald & A. McKibbin, Eds) The Round Spring
Site, 42SV23, vol. III. Hogan Pass: final report on archaeological
investigations along Forest Highway 10 (State Highway 72), Sevier
County, Utah. 3 vols. Prepared for Interagency Archaeological
Services, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service,
Lakewood, Colorado. Contract No. CX-1200-6-B052. Eagle, CO:
Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, pp. 387–403.
Metcalf, M. D., Pool, K. J., McDonald, K. & McKibbin, A. (Eds)
(1993). The Round Spring Site, vol. III. Hogan Pass: final report on
archaeological investigations along Forest Highway 10 (State
Highway 72), Sevier County, Utah. 3 vols. Report prepared for
Interagency Archaeological Services, U.S. Department of the
Interior, National Park Service, Lakewood, Colorado, USDUNPS Contract No. CX-1200-6-BO52. Eagle, CO: Metcalf
Archaeological Consultants.
Metcalfe, D. (1984). Gooseberry Archaeological Project: 1983. Salt
Lake City, UT: University of Utah Reports of Investigations 83-1.
Metcalfe, D. & Barlow, K. R. (1992). A model for exploring the
optimal trade-off between field processing and transport. American
Anthropologist 94, 340–356.
Metcalfe, D. & Jones, K. (1988). A reconsideration of animal body
part utility indices. American Antiquity 53, 486–504.
Metcalfe, D. & Larrabee, L. (1985). Fremont irrigation: evidence
from Gooseberry Valley, central Utah. Journal of California and
Great Basin Anthropology 7, 244–253.
Montgomery, K. R. & Montgomery, J. A. (1993). Huntington
Canyon project: archaeological excavations at sites 42Em2109 and
42Em2095, Emery County, Utah. 2 vols. Utah State Department
of Transportation State Road 31. UDOT Project No. RS-0282(4).
Report prepared by Abajo Archaeology, Bluff, Utah.
Munro, N. D. (1994). An Investigation of Anasazi Turkey Production
in Southwestern Colorado. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada.
Murchison, S. B. (1989). Fluctuation History of Great Salt Lake,
Utah, During the Last 13,000 Years. Final Report, Part II, NASA
Contract NAS5-28753. Limnotechnics Laboratory Report
89-2. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Department of
Geography.
Newman, D. E. (1995). Paleoenvironments. In (J. C. Janetski, R. K.
Talbot, D. E. Newman, L. D. Richens & J. D. Wilde, Eds) Clear
Creek Canyon Archaeological Project Volume Five: Results and
Synthesis (final draft). Brigham Young University, Provo, UT:
Museum of Peoples and Cultures Technical Series No. 95-99,
345–352.
O’Connell, J. F., Hawkes, K. & Blurton-Jones, N. G. (1992).
Patterns in the distribution, site structure and assemblage composition of Hadza kill-butchering sites. Journal of Archaeological
Science 19, 319–345.
Ortiz, A. (Ed.) (1979). Southwest. Handbook of North American
Indians, vol. 9, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Washington,
DC: Smithsonian Institution.
Rapson, D. J. (1990). Pattern and Process in Intra-Site Spatial
Analysis: Site Structural and Faunal Research at the Bugas-Holding
Site. Ph.D. Thesis. University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Ann
Arbor: University Microfilms International.
Raymond, A. W. & Sobel, E. (1990). The use of Tui Chub as food by
the Indians of the western Great Basin. Journal of California and
Great Basin Anthropology 12, 2–18.
Richens, L. D. (1983). Woodard Mound: Excavations at a Fremont
Site in Goshen Valley, Utah County, Utah 1980–1981. Masters
Thesis. Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, U.S.A.
Rood, R. J. & Butler, V. (1993). Round Springs faunal remains. In
(M. D. Metcalf, K. J. Pool, K. McDonald & A. McKibbin, Eds)
The Round Spring Site, 42SV23, vol. III. Hogan Pass: final report
on archaeological investigations along Forest Highway 10 (State
Highway 72), Sevier County, Utah. 3 vols. Prepared for Interagency Archaeological Services, U.S. Department of the Interior,
National Park Service, Lakewood, Colorado. Contract No. CX1200-6-B052. Eagle, CO: Metcalf Archaeological Consultants,
pp. 165–192.
Sammons-Lohse, D. (1981). Households and communities. In (J. D.
Jennings and D. Sammons-Lohse, Eds) Bull Creek. Salt Lake City,
UT: University of Utah Anthropological Papers 105, 111–135.
1088 J. C. Janetski
Schmitt, D. & Lupo, K. (1995). On mammalian taphonomy, taxonomic diversity, and measuring subsistence data in zooarchaeology. American Antiquity 60, 496–514.
Sharp, N. (1992). Fremont Farmers and Hunters: Faunal Resource
Exploitation at Nawthis Village, Central Utah. Ph.D. Thesis.
University of Washington, Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
Sharrock, F. W. & Marwitt, J. P. (1967). Excavations at Nephi, Utah,
1965–1966. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Anthropological Papers 88.
Shields, W. F. & Dalley, G. F. (1978). The Bear River No. 3 Site. In
(C. M. Aikens, D. D. Fowler, J. F. Matley, W. F. Shields, G. F.
Dalley, G. F. Fry & J. S. Dean, Eds) Miscellaneous Collected
Papers 19–24 (Paper No. 22). Salt Lake City, UT: University of
Utah Anthropological Papers 99, 55–104.
Simms, S. R. (1986). New evidence for Fremont adaptive diversity.
Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 8, 204–216.
Simms, S. R. (1987). Behavioral Ecology and Hunter-Gatherer
Foraging: an Example from the Great Basin. Oxford: British
Archaeological Reports, BAR International Series 381.
Simms, S. R. (1990). Fremont transitions. Utah Archaeology 1990 3,
1–18.
Simms, S. R. (1994). Farmers and foragers in the Late Holocene
eastern Great Basin. Paper presented at the 24th Great Basin
Anthropological Conference, Elko, NV.
Speth, J. D. & Scott, S. L. (1989). Horticulture and large-mammal
hunting: the role of resource depletion and the constraints of time
and labor. In (S. Kent, Ed.) Farmers as Hunters: the Implications
of Sedentism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 71–79.
Stephens, D. W. & Krebs, J. R. (1986). Foraging Theory. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Steward, J. H. (1938). Basin-Plateau Sociopolitical Groups.
Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American
Ethnology Bulletin 120.
Steward, J. H. (1941). Cultural Element Distributions XII: Nevada
Shoshoni. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California
Press, Anthropological Records Vol. 4, No. 2.
Stewart, O. C. (1942). Culture element distributions XVIII: UteSouthern Paiute. University of California Anthropological Records
6, 231–356.
Szuter, C. R. & Bayham, F. E. (1989). Sedentism and prehistoric
animal procurement among desert horticulturalists of the North
American Southwest. In (S. Kent, Ed.) Farmers as Hunters: the
Implications of Sedentism. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, pp. 80–95.
Szuter, C. R. & Gillespie, W. B. (1994). Interpreting use of animal
resources at prehistoric American Southwest communities. In
(W. H. Wills & R. D. Leonard, Eds) The Ancient Southwest
Community: Models and Methods for the Study of Prehistoric
Social Organization. Albuquerque, NM: University of New
Mexico Press, pp. 67–78.
Talbot, R. K. (1995). Settlement patterns and demography. In (J. C.
Janetski, R. K. Talbot, D. E. Newman, L. D. Richens & J. D.
Wilde, Eds) Clear Creek Canyon Archaeological Project, Volume
Five: Result and Synthesis (final draft), Brigham Young University, Provo, UT: Museum of Peoples and Cultures Technical Series
No. 95-9, pp. 301–305.
Talbot, R. K. & Richens, L. D. (1993). Archaeological Investigations
at Richfield and Vicinity. Brigham Young University, Provo, UT:
Museum of Peoples and Cultures Technical Series No. 93–15.
Talbot, R. K. & Richens, L. D. (1994). Steinaker Gap: an Early
Fremont Agriculture Farmstead. Brigham Young University,
Provo, UT: Museum of Peoples and Cultures Technical Series No.
94-18.
Talbot, R. K. & Wilde, J. D. (1989). Giving form to the formative:
shifting settlement patterns in the eastern Great Basin and
northern Colorado Plateau. Utah Archaeology 1989 1, 3–18.
Talbot, R. K., Richens, L. D., Wilde, J. D., Janetski, J. C. &
Newman, D. E. (1994). Clear Creek Canyon Archaeological
Project Volume Four, Part 1: Icicle Bench; Part 2: Radford Roost
and Lott’s Farm. Brigham Young University, Provo, UT: Museum
of Peoples and Cultures Technical Series No. 94-25.
Talbot, R. K., Richens, L. D., Wilde, J. D., Janetski, J. C. &
Newman, D. E. (1995). Clear Creek Canyon Archaeological
Project Volume Four, Part 3: Five Finger Ridge. Brigham
Young University, Provo, UT: Museum of Peoples and Cultures
Technical Series No. 95-8.
Thompson, C. (1990). Anasazi Social Boundaries and Resource
Access: the Faunal Evidence From Nancy Patterson Village, Utah.
Masters Thesis. Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, U.S.A.
Todd, L. C. (1993). Body parts, butchery, and postdepositional
processes at Round Spring: formational analysis of body size III
(brain) bovids. In (M. D. Metcalf, K. J. Pool, K. McDonald &
A. McKibbin, Eds) The Round Spring Site, 42SV23, vol. III.
Hogan Pass: final report on archaeological investigations along
Forest Highway 10 (State Highway 72), Sevier County, Utah. 3
vols. Prepared for Interagency Archaeological Services, U.S.
Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Lakewood,
Colorado. Contract No. CX-1200-6-B052. Eagle, CO: Metcalf
Archaeological, pp. 341–385.
Upham, S. (1994). Nomads of the desert west: a shifting continuum
in prehistory. Journal of World Prehistory 8, 113–167.
Vickers, W. T. (1989). Patterns of foraging and gardening in a
semi-sedentary Amazonian community. In (S. Kent, Ed.) Farmers
as Hunters: Enclosure the Implications of Sedentism. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 46–59.
Wilde, J. D. & Newman, D. E. (1989). Late Archaic corn in the
eastern Great Basin. American Anthropologist 91, 712–720.
Winterhalder, B. P. (1981). Foraging strategies in the boreal forest:
an analysis of Cree hunting and gathering. In (B. P. Winterhalder
& E. A. Smith, Eds) Hunter-Gatherer Foraging Strategies: Ethnographic and Archaeological Analyses. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press, pp. 66–98.