See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/222328382

Trade in Fremont society: Contexts and contrasts

Article in Journal of Anthropological Archaeology · September 2002

DOI: 10.1016/S0278-4165(02)00003-X

CITATIONS READS

27 997

1 author:

Joel C. Janetski
Brigham Young University - Provo Main Campus
54 PUBLICATIONS 826 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Joel C. Janetski on 15 May 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21 (2002) 344–370
www.academicpress.com

Trade in Fremont society: contexts and contrasts

Joel C. Janetski*
Department of Anthropology, Brigham Young University, Rm 946 SWKT, Provo, UT 84602, USA

Received 9 March 2001; revision received 26 September 2001; accepted 5 February 2002

Abstract

Marine shell, turquoise, exotic ceramics, and toolstone, and raw minerals are common in archaeological
assemblages generated by the Fremont, small scale farmers and foragers who occupied the eastern Great
Basin and Colorado Plateau of western North American between AD 400 and 1300. Although researchers
routinely describe such artifacts, little attention been paid to the means whereby these items were acquired
or the implications those mechanisms have for understanding Fremont socio-economic patterns and re-
lations. This paper presents the spatial patterning of both local and exotic goods from Fremont occupa-
tions and offers a range of social contexts for exchange as well as contrasts with Virgin Anasazi contexts for
such goods. A trade fair/festival model is proposed as an important mechanism or context for the dis-
tribution of exotics at Fremont sites. Ó 2002 Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved.

Keywords: Fremont; Trade; Trade festivals; Great Basin; Colorado Plateau

Speech for Good Trading (Tewa Song) Introduction

Now Round about I guess you are,
You enemy people of strange speech
Such as you O Utes, such you O Kiowas
Such as you O Comanches,
such as you O Cheyennes,
Such as you O Pawnee, where you are,
Such as you, O warring peoples all!
So now from here I think of you,
From here I call aloud your names,
With money to trade for your good work
Of aching backs and sweating brows.
And when your village we have reached,
And you have something not for sale,
Easily may it come into our hands!
This what we wish and therefore
I speak now that this to us may happen.
(Spinden, 1993, p. 104)
*
Fax: +801-378-7123.
E-mail address: joel_janetski@byu.edu (J.C. Janetski).
The archaeologically defined Fremont culture
developed north of the Colorado and Virgin River
drainages by 400 AD and persisted for nearly a
millennium (Fig. 1). Farming was an important,
albeit variable, part of the subsistence economy
over much of the area, although hunting, fishing,
and gathering contributed significantly to the diet
(Madsen, 1989; Madsen and Simms, 1998).
Grayware ceramics reminiscent of Southwestern
traditions, pithouse villages, adobe and masonry
granaries, and a distinctive art style are the ma-
terial hallmarks of the Fremont period (see Mar-
witt, 1986). In addition, exotic items (marine shell,
turquoise, jet, Anasazi ceramics), local minerals,
and non-local Fremont ceramics are common if
not abundant in Fremont archaeological assem-
blages and suggest that the acquisition and dis-
tribution of these material goods was ongoing. In
fact, exotics increase significantly at the onset and

0278-4165/02/$ - see front matter Ó 2002 Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 2 7 8 - 4 1 6 5 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 0 3 - X
 J.C. Janetski / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21 (2002) 344–370
Fig. 1. The Fremont culture area in western North
America.
largely disappear at the demise of the Fremont
period (Janetski, 1994). Importantly, it is the
presence of these items along with a recognizable
style visible in ceramics, figurines, rock art, beads,
pendants, gaming bones, and functionally enig-
matic items that give Fremont its unique flavor.
Despite the presence of exotic materials, Fremont
researchers have seldom demonstrated more than
a passing interest in trade (for example, Madsen,
1979, 1989; Madsen and Simms, 1998; Marwitt,
1986; Simms, 1990; however, see Hughes and
Bennyhoff, 1986; Lyneis, 1984; Malouf, 1940;
McDonald, 1994, for some exceptions). Conse-
quently, the potential range of contexts for ex-
change in Fremont society as well as the role it
may have played in cultural processes and change
remains to be explored. Exchange, of course,
consists of more than the movement of goods
across the landscape; it is a ‘‘form of interaction
that creates and reflects specific socioeconomic
linkages between individuals, groups, and societ-
ies’’ (Irwin-Williams, 1977, p. 142). The patterned
distribution of stylistically distinctive material re-
mains in time and space, then, can be an impor-
tant avenue to seeing the extent of such
socioeconomic linkages. Viewed in this way, that
is, as a region of social and economic interactions,
exchange may serve an important complement to
more traditional views of the Fremont (Adovasio,
1979; Aikens, 1979; Janetski and Talbot, 1997;
345
Madsen, 1979, 1989; Madsen and Simms, 1998;
Marwitt, 1970, 1979; Simms, 1986).
Fremont archaeological remains—pit houses,
painted and corrugated ceramics, elaborated
storage architecture, reliance on horticulture—and
inferred social patterns are reminiscent of South-
western patterns (Janetski and Talbot, 1997), a
fact that has resulted in the inclusion of Fremont
in regional syntheses since Kidder (1924); see also
Cordell (1997). Studies of exchange systems in
Southwest societies might, therefore, be useful in
understanding Fremont socio-economic issues
in as much as they have contributed significantly
to understanding of Anasazi and Hohokam social
relations (Crown, 1991; Ericson and Baugh, 1993
McGuire et al., 1994; Neitzel, 1989; Toll, 1991; to
cite a few). For these reasons, this paper will in-
voke both the Southwest and Great Basin litera-
ture in the following discussions.
Small scale societies and exchange
As intimated, exchange in small scale (band
and tribal) societies is not solely economic; rather
it is intertwined with social obligations, kinship,
politics, and peace making (Mauss, 1990; Sahlins,
1972). Sahlins’s (1972) classic treatment of eco-
nomics in pre-capitalist societies makes clear that
redistribution of commodities cannot be under-
stood apart from social context. Circumstance,
kinship, and history all play a part in determining
direction, quantity, and quality of the flow of
goods. Sahlins’s (1972, p. 191) ‘‘Scheme of Reci-
procities’’ reflects the array of circumstances and
expectations that surround gift giving and trade.
Exchange played an important role in relaxing
tensions between unrelated groups. Marshall
(1961, p. 245) relates a Bushman perspective:
‘‘The worse thing is not giving presents. If people
do not like each other but one gives a gift and the
other must accept, this brings a peace between
them. We give what we have. That is the way we
live together.’’ Viewed in this light, exchange as-
sumes diplomatic dimensions apart from eco-
nomics.
Trade events typically included or concluded
with feasts, a pattern exemplified by numerous
cases. To cite just two: North Alaskan trade fairs
concluded with the Messenger Feast, and the
Pomo of California participated in trade-feasts
during which foodstuffs, especially fish, were tra-
ded for shell or stone beads (Vayda, 1967). Feasts
were associated with most gatherings in the Great
346 J.C. Janetski / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21 (2002) 344–370
Basin/Colorado Plateau region: the Sun Dance
(Ute), Datura ceremony (Southern Paiute/Chem-
ehuevi), Bear Dance (Ute), Girl’s Dance (Washo)
all concluded with feasting (see Jorgenson, 1986
for brief descriptions). The social, political, and
economic blended on these occasions.
A functional aspect of this blending is exchange
relations as a means of risk reduction (Cashden,
1990; Wiessner, 1982). The uncertainties of life
among hunter-gatherers and subsistence farmers
required the maintenance of fall-back strategies,
often including exchange for food, either indirectly
or directly. Sahlins has argued that food moved
mostly in generalized rather than balanced ex-
change. He states as principle ‘‘. . .one does not
exchange things for food, not directly that is,
among friends and relatives. Traffic in food is
traffic between foreign interests.’’ (Sahlins, 1972,
p. 216). Spencer’s account of restrictions on trade
in food among the Alaskan Eskimo illustrates this
notion:
Again, the feeling was present that to trade for
food was reprehensible, but since each setting
had its own specialties, this attitude was in some
measure obviated. . .The pattern with respect to
food was less concerned with formal exchange. It
was used to cement good relations between part-
ners and when given as a gift, the notion of trading
for food was avoided. (Spencer, 1976, p. 199)
Spencer’s statement that ‘‘each setting had its
own specialties’’ anticipates circumstances
wherein food would be an exchange commodity:
ecologically or economically contrasting regions.
Ethnographic examples of trade flourishing in
such circumstances suggest the importance of
food as a commodity but expectations varied with
social distance. Indirect trafficking in food was
practiced by !Kung hunter-gatherers through
hxaro exchange (Lee, 1979; Wiessner, 1982). This
system provided access to alternative resource
areas and maintained obligations to even out
differences in resource abundance in times of lo-
calized shortfalls. In this system socio-economic
relations were maintained through delayed return
gifting that anticipated future need. Although
non-food gifts were common, the importance of
considering location in choosing partners em-
phasizes food sharing as a critical component of
the system (Wiessner, 1982, p. 74).
Direct trade in food is most evident when, in
contrast to the !kung gift exchange, consumables
cross ethnic boundaries. Examples include
the Mandan/Arikara-Plains and Plains-Pueblo
exchange relations which illustrate ecologically
complementary or mutualistic relationships as in
both cases garden produce of farmers moved
against meat and hides brought by hunters
(Spielmann, 1991; see also discussion of feasting
as related to ritual as well as long distance ex-
change in Potter, 2000 and references therein).
Likewise, Huron farmers of the Great Lakes re-
gion maintained multiple exchange relations with
Iroquois to the south and Algonkian peoples to
the north to obtain locally scarce meat, fish, and
hides or additional maize supplies (O’Shea, 1989).
Davis (1974, p. 11) notes that food was the class of
materials most frequently traded by native Cali-
fornians, although the ecological differences of
those trading is not immediately apparent. Clearly
food was a common component in traditional
exchange between and among farmers and hunt-
ing and gathering peoples, although protocols
varied with social circumstances [Winterhalder
(1997) also points out that food is, at times, an
exchange item and argues for understanding
exchange in material terms]. Ford (1983, pp. 715–
717) provides excellent insights into subtle shifts
in expectations as goods or services were provided
for relatives, friends, nonrelatives but fellow
villagers, and those from other villages or tribes.
In summary, exchange was embedded in the
social and economic fabric of band and segmen-
tary societies. It enriched lives socially and made
life more secure by reducing hostilities and the risk
of shortfalls of both food and non-food items.
Exchange cemented relations and obligated re-
cipients to offer hospitality to givers. Material
evidences of traveled goods should conjure up
images of such activities. The archaeological evi-
dence of exchange is highly variable and neces-
sarily under represents the extent of such
behavior, since perishable trade items (especially
food) are usually invisible in the archaeological
record. However, the presence of non-local ma-
terials in excavated assemblages provide an em-
pirical base for discussing the direction and
mechanisms for Fremont trade, both long dis-
tance and more local or regional.
Exchange mechanisms: some ethnographic exam-
ples in Western North America
Several models that describe mechanisms and
social contexts of prehistoric exchange are present
in the ethnographic literature for western North
America and provide potential analogues for the
 J.C. Janetski / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21 (2002) 344–370
Fremont case. Hughes and Bennyhoff (1986), for
example, discuss exchange for the ethnographic
Great Basin and conclude that exchange here was
accomplished either by casual bartering between
individuals or during festivals. The ubiquity of
casual bartering is suggested by the journals of
early Spanish explorers Dominguez and Escalante
(Warner, 1976). Southern Paiute in the St. George
area, for example, wanted to trade strings of tur-
quoise and shell and told the Spanish that their
nets had been obtained through trade from groups
to the south (Warner, 1976, p. 81). These accounts
suggest some trade occurred on a simple encounter
basis without formal or elaborated circumstances.
Such exchange would suggest a down-the-line
model of goods moving from person to person
with only a few having direct access to the source
of the goods. However, Hughes and Bennyhoff
(1986, p. 238) state that most traditional trade
activities took place during more organized festi-
vals (see below).
Given the suggestion of Southwest influences
in the Fremont area, documented exchange
mechanisms for Puebloan and Athapaskan peo-
ples to the south of the Fremont are of interest.
Ford (1983) has described a complex system of
exchange in the Southwest intertwined with social
relations, social distance, and scale. He notes that
mechanisms or modes of exchange shift depend-
ing on whether trade is occurring within commu-
nities, between communities, or between tribes
(Ford, 1983, p. 715). ‘‘Mutual assistance, gam-
bling and gaming, ceremonial redistribution, and
trading parties’’ are identified as mechanisms for
intravillage exchange. Mutual assistance or shar-
ing along with community gambling were the
most common exchange activities within the vil-
lage, although gambling was clearly very impor-
tant during trade fairs as well (see below).
Ceremonial redistribution (the giving of gifts
during life events such as birth, puberty ceremo-
nies, marriage, and death) occurred less often, but
was important in establishing social or political
positions of prestige by lineage leaders (see
McGuire, 1995, p. 49). Trading parties, a ‘‘quasi-
market’’ held within Hopi villages, seems peculiar
to a few Puebloan communities.
Formally scheduled festivals were important
occasions for intercommunity trade and trade fairs
along with expeditions facilitated movement of
goods over long distances. Haggling and expecta-
tions regarding immediacy of payment increased
with social and literal distance. The latter could be
ameliorated by establishing quasi-kin or trade
347
partner relations with individuals in distant vil-
lages. Ford (1983) explores interesting ecological,
economic, and social nuances of these patterns,
but it is clear that exchange was important and
well-developed in the ethnographic Southwest.
The complexity and range of mechanisms op-
erating in the ethnographic Great Basin and
Southwest are daunting to archaeologists at-
tempting to understand past exchange patterns. It
seems that patterning might be most visible over
large regions which, in turn, suggests that the
ethnographic mechanisms that facilitated long
distance trade, or trade between tribes (see Ford’s
examples above), might provide the most testable
analogues. A discussion of both regional and in-
tracommunity exchange mechanisms is offered
below.
Long distance exchange: trade festivals
The social and economic events termed trade
fairs are widely documented in Australia, Alaska,
California (Jackson, 1991; Wood, 1980), and
closer to the Great Basin, at the Big Camas Prairie
on the Snake River (cf. Murphy and Murphy,
1960; Statham, 1982; Steward, 1938). In more
complex societies, feasting and trading festivals
took on a competitive air and a means for build-
ing prestige and status (various in Hayden, 1992,
1995) or a combination of prestige building and
risk reduction (Upham, 1982, p. 122). Accompa-
nying the feasting and bartering were the usual
social activities of sweat bathing, gambling, races,
and dances. Trade fairs or festivals lasted several
days and were undoubtedly high points of the
year for the participants.
Ford (1983; see also various in Spielmann,
1991) identifies festivals or trade fairs as impor-
tant mechanisms for both intervillage and long
distance exchange in the Southwest. Trade fairs
were held at Taos and Pecos as well as other
pueblos and were attended by various nomadic
groups (Comanche, Apache, etc). Here traditional
enemies met together under truce to exchange
goods, especially foodstuffs, but also objects nec-
essary for ritual activities (Ford, 1983; Simmons,
1979). The Pima held similar fairs in the Phoenix
area (Ford, 1983, p. 719). The Southwest trade
fair pattern intensified and was controlled in part
by the Spanish to enhance economic purposes in
the 1700s (see Levine, 1991). Fairs were held in the
late summer and fall when agricultural products
were ready and bison hides and meat were avail-
able (Simmons, 1979, p. 189).
348 J.C. Janetski / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21 (2002) 344–370
Fall was also the usual time for festivals in the
Great Basin as the pine nut crop was in and
rabbits were fat and available through drives (cf.
Steward, 1938). However, in areas of significant
fisheries, festivals were held in the spring during
the spawning runs. At Utah Lake on the eastern
edge of the Great Basin in central Utah, for ex-
ample, the availability of spawning fish was an
occasion for the gathering of Utes from neigh-
boring valleys. An early pioneer journal provides
important details:
We soon found out that [the] Provo River region
was the great gathering place of all Ute tribes of
central Utah valleys, too, on account of the won-
derful supply of fish moving up the stream from
the Lake to their spawning grounds every spring-
. . .While these Bands of Indians met each spring
for fishing, they engaged in good sporting as well,
horse-racing, trading, gambling, foot racing, wres-
tling, etc. Some spent weeks here. (Bean, 1945, pp.
51–52)
Compare the above with descriptions of an-
nual trade visits on the Plains of North America
between the Sioux and the Arickara by Edwin T.
Denig in the 1830s (Ewers, 1973, p. 47). The corn-
farming Arickara lived in villages on the Missouri
River and the Sioux brought buffalo robes, skins,
meat, and other commodities that they traded for
corn. Denig states, ‘‘When these nations meet,
however, the one well supplied with corn and the
other with robes, the times are lively, feasting and
dancing goes on constantly, both in the village
and camp—horse racing, gambling in many
ways.’’
Gambling during festivals is of special interest.
Wood (1980, p. 106) states that ‘‘Gambling at
trading fairs was rampant’’ Nearly all accounts of
fairs, festivals, or social gatherings mention gam-
bling and, given that archaeologically recoverable
evidences of these festivities are few, the recovery
of gambling paraphernalia, such as gaming bones
or dice, is important. At Fort McKenzie (initially
Fort Piegan), a small trade fort established on the
upper Missouri in the 1830s, excavations recov-
ered trade goods of all sorts ranging from glass
beads to dentalium shells and clay pipes (Shu-
mate, 1973; Wood, 1977). Among items recovered
were numerous gaming bones representing the
four-stick-game or travois gambling (Wissler,
1911). Hunt (1985) reports identical gaming bones
from Fort Union several hundred km down the
Missouri at the mouth of the Yellowstone. These
bone counters alone document the ubiquitous
gambling activities that occurred there and, by
extension, the large social gatherings at these
historic trade centers. The gambling was in itself a
mechanism to redistribute goods among trade fair
attendees (Wood, 1980).
Intracommunity exchange
Although an annual festival model could ex-
plain significant portions of Fremont trade activ-
ity (especially that between more distant groups),
Ford’s (1983) description of intracommunity ex-
change suggests that sharing and gaming among
members of a village may have been the most
common mechanisms at work in the past. These
behaviors would have moved items from house-
hold to household based on luck and good will.
Archaeological consequences of these activities
relative to the distribution of exotics and other
goods would be to almost randomize their oc-
currence within the community.
Ceremonial redistribution in the aboriginal
Southwest, although apparently less common than
gambling and sharing, was important not only for
the exchange of material goods, but, as noted
above, also as a means to validate social position.
As in the Southwest, Great Basin aboriginal peo-
ples made gifts on the occasion of birth, puberty
rites, marriage, and death. Ute and Southern
Paiute fathers often gave up first gambling win-
nings following the birth of a child (Stewart, 1942,
p. 307). Bride wealth payments, although not
formalized, were common among the Southern
Paiute (Kelly, 1964, p. 99) and were the tendency
among many Great Basin groups. With the ex-
ception of death, these events and the associated
social actions may be difficult to identify in the
archaeological record. Nonetheless, the assump-
tion made here is that such activities occurred and
commodities were circulated as a result. Burial
goods, of course, mark the final life event and are
sometimes provided to symbolize the status of the
deceased (for a discussion, see Brown, 1981). The
traditional wisdom regarding the relationship be-
tween status and burial goods is that individuals of
higher special status (achieved or otherwise)
would be accompanied in death by greater quan-
tities or different kinds of goods and/or unique or
prestigious burial locations (Brown, 1981, p. 29).
Summary and archaeological implications
At a minimum, these ethnographic patterns
suggest directions for building models that might
 J.C. Janetski / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21 (2002) 344–370
describe cultural contexts for past systems of ex-
change, although they should not be applied in-
discriminately. Hughes (1994, p. 377) has noted
the limitations of such models for understanding
the past, but clearly the ethnographic data offer a
starting point. Given that exotics are more obvi-
ous trade items in the archaeological record, ef-
forts at modeling long distance trade may be more
successful than would be identifying patterns of
intravillage commodity exchange.
Renfrew (1977); see also Renfrew and Bahn
(2000) has described several rather different
models for long distance trade and the archaeo-
logical consequences or expectations in terms of
the distribution of items across the landscape or
from site to site. Two seem useful in a discussion
of Fremont acquisition of exotics: (1) down-the-
line trade and (2) directional trade. Down-the-line
trade is governed by the law of monotonic de-
crement, which states that the abundance of the
goods being traded will remain somewhat stable
within the supply zone and then diminish in geo-
metric fashion as one moves away from the source
of goods (Renfrew, 1977). This pattern would
suggest little in the way of elaborate social or
economic mechanisms to move goods. In contrast,
directional trade describes a pattern wherein
goods flow to a central place, bypassing smaller or
secondary settlements, and are distributed from
there. Rather than a direct fall-off in abundance of
goods as one moves away from the source, di-
rectional trade results in ‘‘departures’’ from the
fall-off curve. This pattern could argue for the
presence of a festival model especially if combined
with evidence for communal activities such as
gambling. The contrast between these two models
is presented in Fig. 2. The data available to test
these models are presented below.
Fig. 2. Predictions of spatial distribution of goods dis-
tributed via down-the-line versus directional trade (after
Renfrew, 1977).
349
Fremont trade
Evidence for long distance trade
Long distance or inter-regional trade is defined
here as the acquisition of non-local or exotic
goods through transactions between people within
the Fremont area and others, such as the Anasazi
or unnamed groups to the west, north or east.1
Intra-regional exchange, on the other hand, would
move those goods from group to group within the
region. The exotic commodities that can be doc-
umented archaeologically are marine shell, prin-
cipally Olivella, turquoise, and Anasazi ceramics.
The occurrence of these in Fremont sites is dis-
cussed below. Fig. 3 displays the region under
discussion and the location of archaeological sites
mentioned in the text. Included in Fig. 3 are sev-
eral Anasazi sites mentioned later in the paper to
illustrate Fremont—northern Anasazi differences.
Fig. 3 also makes clear that the Fremont culture is
largely restricted to Utah north of the Colorado
and Virgin Rivers.
Marine shell
Marine shell is common in Fremont contexts
throughout Utah, although quantities tend to be
low (see Table 1 for numbers and references).
Olivella (O. biplicata, O. baetica and O. dama) is
by far the most abundant genus, but abalone,
clam, and cerith shell ornaments also occur, albeit
rarely (Fig. 4). Numbers vary from site to site with
the normal occurrence being a few beads or pen-
dants per structure. At Five Finger Ridge (one of
the Clear Creek sites), for example, 20 Olivella
shell beads were scattered over 11 structures for
an average of 1.8 beads per structure. A single pit
structure at Woodard Mound in north central
Utah, on the other hand, contained 22 Olivella
beads, while 112 were recovered from various
contexts at Baker Village. The 164 Olivella beads
at Caldwell Village in the Uinta Basin came from
a single necklace.
1
The challenge here is to avoid ethnic assumptions for
‘‘Fremont people.’’ Ethnic diversity in the region could
be as complex as that seen within the northern Rio
Grande Pueblos, for example, or as simple as that in the
ethnographic eastern Great Basin. By stating that long
distance trade was between the Fremont and Anasazi,
the implication is that these are two distinct ethnic
groups and such may have not been the case, although
the archaeological record demonstrates both material
and non-material differences.
350 J.C. Janetski / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21 (2002) 344–370

Fig. 3. Locations of Fremont and Anasazi sites mentioned in the text.

What was the source of these shells? Olivella
occurs on the Pacific Coast of California as well as
in the Gulf of California. These small shells were
widely used and traded by the Indians of Cali-
fornia and the western Great Basin (Bennyhoff
and Hughes, 1987; Hughes and Bennyhoff, 1986)
and were likely obtained by Fremont peoples via
trade networks. Both northern and southern trade
routes for moving shell into the eastern Basin have
been proposed by Hughes and Bennyhoff (1986)
(see also Lyneis, 1984; Malouf, 1940; Tower,
1945). The northern route crossed the Sierras in
the vicinity of Lake Tahoe and the Great Basin
via the Humboldt River reaching the Wasatch
Front by skirting the northern shore of the Great
Salt Lake. An additional northern route into Utah
may have been up the Columbia—Snake River
system and then south by the Portneuf and Malad
Rivers. The southern route traveled directly east
from Los Angeles to the Colorado River then
northward into Utah along the Virgin River and
the Wasatch Front. Other routes certainly existed,
but these river ways were probably the primary
avenues for the movement of people and trade
goods. Given that northern shells such as Denta-
lium and O. baetica are more scarce than those
 J.C. Janetski / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21 (2002) 344–370 351

Table 1
Occurrence of Olivella and other marine shell ornaments at Fremont sites north of the Colorado/Virgin Rivers
Location Olivella Abalone Cerith Clam Other Reference
Colorado Plateau
Caldwell Village 164 — — — — Ambler (1966)
Gilbert Site 1 — — — — Shields (1967)
Whiterocks Village 4 — — — — Shields (1967)
Huntington Canyon 11 — — — — Montgomery and Montgomery
(1993)
Snake Rock 1 — — — — Aikens (1967)
Poplar Knob 4 — — — — Taylor (1957)
Round Spring 44 1 — — — Metcalf et al. (1993)
Turner Look 10 — — — — Wormington (1955)
Bull Creek 2 — — — — Jennings and Sammons-Lohse
(1981)
Combs Village 122 — — — 36 Lister et al. (1960), author
analysis
Eastern Great Basin
Bear River No. 1 2 — — — — Aikens (1966)
42WB144 4 Simms et al. (1997)
42WB32 4 Fawcett and Simms (1993)
Woodard Mound 22 — — — — Richens (1983)
Benson Mound 13 — — — — Bee and Bee (1934–1966)
Peay Mound 3 — — — — Bee and Bee (1934–1966)
Hinckley Mounds 1 — — — — Berge (1966)
Grantsville 1 — — — — Steward (1936)
Tooele 2 — — — — Gillin (1941)
Nephi Mounds 6 — — — — Sharrock and Marwitt (1967)
Kanosh 4 — — — — Steward (1936)
Backhoe Village 1 — — — 1 Madsen and Lindsay (1977)
Five Finger Ridge 20 — — — — Talbot et al. (1997)
Radford Roost 7 — — — — Talbot et al. (1999)
Icicle Bench 2 — — — — Talbot et al. (1999)
Marysvale 3 — — — — Gillin (1941)
Baker 112 Frags(?) — — 15 Wilde and Soper, 1999
Garrison 2 — — — — Taylor (1954)
Paragonah 50+ — — — — Judd (1919, 1926); Meighan
et al. (1956)
Evans Mound 17 1 1 1 — Dodd (1982); Alexander and
Ruby (1963)

from southern waters (O. dama and O. biplicata),

the southerly route appears more important dur-
ing the Fremont period.

Fig. 4. Selected marine shell beads from Baker Village.
Turquoise
Although less common than marine shell, tur-
quoise is present in several Fremont sites (Table 2,
Fig. 5). Turquoise occurs almost always as beads
or pendants with even small fragments exhibiting
some modification. Since turquoise was not
available in surface mines in Utah, all turquoise
from Fremont sites is exotic and obtained from
mines in Nevada, California, Arizona, Colorado,
or New Mexico (Harbottle and Weigand, 1992).
352 J.C. Janetski / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21 (2002) 344–370
Table 2
Occurrence of turquoise from Fremont/Anasazi occupations in Utah north of the Colorado/Virgin Rivers
Location
Colorado Plateau
Snake Rock
Round Spring
Coombs Village (Anasazi)
Eastern Great Basin
Woodard Mound
Kanosh
Pharo Village
Backhoe Village
Five Finger Ridge
Baker Village
Evans Mound
Quail Creek (42WS392) (Anasazi)
Fig. 5. Selected turquoise and lignite ornaments from
Five Finger Ridge, central Utah.
Two Fremont sites are exceptional in terms of
the quantities of turquoise recovered: Five Finger
Ridge, a late Fremont site in Clear Creek Canyon,
south central Utah, and Baker Village on the
border of Utah and Nevada. Excavators recov-
ered 53 pieces of turquoise from 27 structures (21
pit houses) at Five Finger Ridge (Talbot et al.,
1997). The intrasite occurrence of the turquoise at
Five Finger Ridge is wide spread rather than
concentrated; e.g., no more than four turquoise
artifacts were found in any one house. All but two
of the 53 items were found in pit houses; the
majority came from fill rather than floor contexts.
There is no evidence of working turquoise and the
occurrence (almost exclusively in residences) sug-
gests no stockpiling. In other words, the inhabit-
ants of Five Finger Ridge seem to have been
consumers of turquoise ornaments rather than
producers. Thirteen pieces of turquoise came from
Baker Village where the distribution contrasts
Quantity Reference
2 Aikens (1967)
1 Metcalf et al. (1993)
218 Lister et al. (1960);
Anasazi State Park Collections
1 Richens (1983)
1 Steward (1936)
1 Marwitt (1968)
1 Madsen and Lindsay (1977)
53 Talbot (1997)
15 Wilde and Soper (1999)
2 Alexander and Ruby (1963)
67 Walling et al. (1986)
somewhat with that from Five Finger Ridge as six
of the 13 samples came from granaries with the
others from pithouses.
Neutron activation analysis of turquoise sam-
ples from Five Finger Ridge suggests Fremont -
Southwest connections (Table 3) (Harbottle, 1995;
Janetski, 1997). The analysis concluded, first of
all, that the samples were indeed turquoise. The
results also suggested that: (1) most turquoise
artifacts from the site were coming from the same
sources that were supplying both Chacoan and
Hohokam peoples, (2) at least some of the tur-
quoise found in both Fremont as well as South-
western sites may have ultimately come from
Nevada mines, (3) Fremont exchange connections
may have been as much to the southeast as to the
southwest. However, given the possibility that the
turquoise came from Nevada, connections to west
cannot be ruled out. The data here are tantalizing,
but highly preliminary, since it can be assumed
that turquoise ornaments were rather carefully
curated (although one wonders why so many were
lost at Five Finger Ridge) and widely traded.
Consequently, these ornaments may have a long
and well-traveled history and suggesting direct
trade or contact with the matches detailed in
Table 3 would be simplistic.
Anasazi ceramics
Anasazi ceramics occur in low numbers (less
than 1% of the ceramic assemblage) throughout
the Fremont area as far north as Utah Valley (cf.
Woodard Mound, Richens, 1983). Exceptions are
the Bull Creek sites where significant percentages
of Anasazi ceramics, especially Tusayan wares,
 J.C. Janetski / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21 (2002) 344–370
Table 3
Results of neutron activation analysis of turquoise from Five Finger Ridge (42SV1686)
Sample/FSNo Site Provenience (42SV1686)
TQA106/FS1123 Pit Structure 29, Floor
TQA107/FS1135 Pit Structure 29, Floor
TQA198/FS2130.1 Pit Structure 20, Floor
TQA109/FS2130.2 Pit Structure 20, Floor
TQA110?FS8239 Secondary Pit Structure 51, Floor
occur (see McDonald, 1994, p. 224 for a sum-
mary, although Geib, 1996 suggests the quantities
of Anasazi wares here may be much lower) and
the Great Salt Lake sites (Bear River 1, 2, and 3,
Levee and Knoll, Injun Creek) where no Anasazi
sherds were recovered. Anasazi ceramics are
scarce (less than 1%) even in Parowan Valley,
despite the close proximity to Anasazi sites to the
south (various, but see Dodd, 1982; Marwitt,
1970).
Interesting evidence of interaction between
Fremont and Anasazi comes from Coombs Vil-
lage, a Kayenta Anasazi site on the Colorado
Plateau (Lister et al., 1960). Here excavators
found 22 whole or restorable Ivie Creek Black on
White bowls indistinguishable from Ivie Creek
ceramics found 80 km north at Snake Rock (Ai-
kens, 1967, p. 21; Lister et al., 1960, p. 216) and
five Fremont jars. Jennings (1966, p. 56) points
out that 10% of the whole vessels from Coombs
are Fremont. Although the proveniences of the
Fremont vessels at Coombs appear unremarkable
in that they were found in rooms and burials in
contexts similar to Kayenta vessels, the numbers
of bowls is surprising given the usual percentages
of painted to gray wares in Fremont sites (Lister
et al., 1960, pp. 215–216). Some movement of
material goods from Coombs to the north is also
evident at Snake Rock Village where a few
Coombs Variety sherds were found. Whether the
bowls were trade items or contained goods that
were being traded is not known (the latter seems
more likely given the disposal pattern of the
bowls). Certainly, however, here is evidence of
contact and the movement of exotic goods (in
this case Fremont ceramics) moving into the
Anasazi sphere from the Fremont region. What
might have moved the other direction, that is,
back to the north in exchange (if anything) is not
known. It does not appear to have been Coombs
pottery.
353
Provenience of matching samples
Artifacts from Tucson, Arizona
Central Nevada Mines as possible source, artifacts
from Chaco area
Poor match with artifacts from Arroyo Hondo,
New Mexico
Multiple matches with artifacts from Chaco Canyon
Pendant, Bald Eagle Cache, White Sands,
New Mexico
Change through time
A concern in this paper is that the data are
presented as though they are synchronic, which is
not the case. Table 4 presents the occurrence of
exotic items by coarse time periods, AD 500–900,
AD 900–1100, AD 1100–1300. The total numbers
of exotics argue for an increase in quantities
through time. However, the numbers of sites ex-
cavated from each of these time periods biases the
picture; that is, more Middle and Late sites have
been excavated than Early sites (see for example,
Janetski et al., 1997, Appendix B). The middle
period is greatly bolstered by the find of 164
Olivella beads at Caldwell Village which likely
dates to the mid tenth century AD based on the
presence of early Pueblo II ceramics. Turquoise
appears to occur late in the Fremont sequence
(post-AD 1100). Baker Village (Wilde and Soper,
1999) and Five Finger Ridge account for nearly
90% of Fremont turquoise and both sites date to
after AD 1100. Of course, the sample is so small
that the temporal distribution of turquoise could
change with even one or two additional finds. If
this tendency for the occurrence of turquoise to be
late in Fremont contexts is valid, the heaviest
Fremont use of turquoise appears to post-date the
heaviest use of the mineral in the Southwest
(Harbottle and Weigand, 1992, p. 81; McDonald,
1994; Weigand and Harbottle, 1993). The bulk of
the turquoise recovered in the Southwest is from
Chaco Canyon (cf. Toll, 1991, p. 81) and dates to
between AD 900 and 1150. The bulk of the data
presented here represent roughly a 300 year time
span (AD 1000–1300).
Evidence for local and regional trade
Obsidian
Obsidian is often used to trace the movements
of people and goods across the landscape, since it
can be sourced to specific volcanic flows. Primary
354 J.C. Janetski / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21 (2002) 344–370

Table 4
Occurrence of exotic goods at Fremont sites by time period
Exotic items time period Marine shell Turquoise Total
Late (1100–1300) 264 67 331
Middle (900–1100) 210 2 212
Early (500–900) 10 1 11
Total 484 70 554

obsidian flows exploited during Fremont times are
Topaz Mountain, Black Rock, Mineral Moun-
tains, Modena (all in western Utah), and Malad in
southern Idaho (Fig. 6) (various in Hughes, 1984,
1994; Nelson, 1984; Nelson and Holmes, 1979).
Amounts of obsidian in chipped stone assem-
blages from Fremont sites vary from site to site as
do the sources represented. Table 5 lists selected
Fremont sites and percentages of obsidian in
the total chipped stone assemblage (tools plus

Fig. 6. Obsidian sources within and adjacent to the Fremont area (after Nelson and Holmes, 1979) and location of Utah
Valley and Clear Creek study areas.
 J.C. Janetski / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21 (2002) 344–370 355

Table 5
Obsidian frequency at selected Fremont sites
Site % Obsidian km to nearest km to nearest km to farthest Reference
source utilized source utilized source
Eastern Great Basin
Levee 56.9 100 (MD) 100 (MD) 100 (MD) McDonald (1994)
Knoll 78.2 95 (MD) 95 (MD) 95 (MD) McDonald (1994)
Bear River 1 50 98 (MD) 98 (MD) 98 (MD) McDonald (1994)
Bear River 2 66.5 97 (MD) 97 (MD) 97 (MD) McDonald (1994)
Bear River 3 45.4 102 (MD) 102 (MD) 102 (MD) McDonald (1994)
42SL98 12.3 145 (MD) 145 (MD) 225 (BR) Talbot et al. nd
(Block 49
Hinckley 2 124 (TZ) 190 (BR) 250 (MD) McDonald (1994)
Mound
Woodard 4.2 107 (TZ) 107 (TZ) 150 (BR) Richens (1983)
Mound
Kay’s Cabin 5.6 95 (TZ) 95 (TZ) 170 (MM) Burnside (2000)
Backhoe Village 24.2 60 (BR) 60 (BR) 70 (MM) McDonald (1994)
Mukwitch 7 60 (BR) — — Talbot and Richens (1993)
Village
Icicle Bench 13 45 (MM) 45 (MM) 50 (BR) Talbot et al. (1999)
Radford’s Roost 14 42 (MM) 42 (MM) 43 (BR) Talbot et al. (1999)
Five Finger 24 39 (MM) 39 (MM) 41 (BR) Talbot et al. (1995)
Ridge
Lott’s Farm 11.7 42 (MM) — — Hawkins and Dobra (1982)
Topaz Slough 73.4 40 (TZ) 40 (TZ) 80 (BR) McDonald (1994)
Garrison 49.4 107 (BR) 107 (BR) 120 (MM) McDonald (1994)
Baker 61 115 (BR) 115 (BR) 130 (MO) Wilde and Soper, 1999
Village
Median 4 80 (MM) 90 (MO) 90 (MO) McDonald (1994)
Village
Evans Mound 14.2 80 (MM) 80 (MM) 89 (MO) McDonald (1994)
Colorado Plateau
Caldwell Village 0 280 (TZ) — — Ambler (1966)
Huntington Cyn 0.1 165 (BR) — — Montgomery and
Montgomery (1993)
Windy Ridge 0.1 177 (BR) — — McDonald (1994)
Innocents Ridge 0.1 140 (BR) — — McDonald (1994)
Old Woman 0 120 (BR) — — Taylor (1957)
Poplar Knob 0.1 120 (BR) 120 (BR) 120 (BR) McDonald (1994)
Snake Rock 0 130 (BR) — — Aikens (1967)
Mickey’s Place 22.9 97 (MM) 97 (MM) 102 (BR) Adams (1996)
Round Spring 0.1 114 (MM) 114 (MM) 135 (BR) McDonald (1994)
Bull Creek 0.1 180 (MM) — — McDonald (1994)
MD: Malad Source, TZ: Topaz, BR: Black Rock, MM: Mineral Mountains, MO: Modena.

debitage), distance to closest source of docu-
mented use, and distance to closest and most
distant sources utilized. Source analysis was not
always performed so data on sources utilized is
variable. Only sites that quantified all chipped
stone and amounts of toolstone material were
used. If obsidian was present in very small quan-
tities, a value of 0.1% was used. Distances are
linear measurements from the site to the sources.
Some patterning is apparent in Table 5. First,
it is clear that Fremont sites on the Northern
Colorado Plateau seldom contain much obsidian,
while those in the Great Basin reflect a much
greater use of this toolstone. Logically, this pat-
tern seems best explained by proximity. All Utah
obsidian sources are located in the Great Basin
and people on the Plateau simply did not have
easy access. However, the pattern is more com-
356 J.C. Janetski / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21 (2002) 344–370
plicated than proximity dictating abundance. A
look at the distances to the nearest source for
Great Basin sites demonstrates that some were
using obsidian from sources at least as far away as
they are from Plateau sites. In fact, if one tests the
intuitive notion that there is a simple linear rela-
tionship between obsidian use (represented by
percent of obsidian in the chipped stone assem-
blage) and distance to nearest obsidian source for
all sites we find a negative relationship, albeit
modest in strength (Pearson’s r ¼ 0:3453,
p ¼ 0:076), suggesting a tendency for an inverse
relationship between these two variables. If one
looks at only the Great Basin sites where the
source data are much better, one finds little cor-
respondence (r ¼ 0:1276) between percent of
obsidian in the lithic assemblage and distance to
nearest obsidian source.
An exception to the pattern of scarce obsidian
on the Colorado Plateau is Mickeys Place, a sea-
sonal site situated in the Fish Lake Basin at 9000
ft asl. Here 23% of the total lithics were obsidian
(Janetski et al., 1999). This is in decided contrast
with Round Spring (a large structural site 15 or so
km to the east of Mickeys Place) where obsidian
constituted less than 1% of the total toolstone
(Metcalf et al., 1993). An explanation for this
difference could be functional (summer residential
camp versus a more permanent residential site) or
geographical. Fish Lake is on the headwaters of
the Fremont River, therefore in the Colorado
River drainage, but also it is also easily accessed
from the west, whereas Round Spring is well
within the Colorado River drainage. The obsidian
data suggest that people spending summers at
Fish Lake during the Fremont period were more
strongly connected to residential sites and social
groups to the west than were people at Round
Spring, although both obtained obsidian from the
same sources.
McDonald (1994, p. 239), who provided some
of the data for Table 5, concluded that higher
percentages of obsidian from sites in the eastern
Great Basin argue for direct access while the lower
percentages at Plateau sites suggest indirect access.
An example of directly accessing obsidian comes
from the Clear Creek area in south-central Utah.
Here nearly 100% of the obsidian samples ana-
lyzed (tools and debitage, n ¼ 98) came from the
closest sources, Mineral Mountains and Black
Rock, both about 50 km to the west (Talbot et al.,
1997). However, in some areas such as Utah Valley
obsidian was not usually obtained from the nearest
source (Topaz), but rather came primarily from
Fig. 7. Contrasts in obsidians from Fremont and Late
Prehistoric archaeological sites in Utah Valley in north-
central Utah.
Black Rock along with significant percentages
from Malad and Mineral Mountain (Fig. 7). These
patterns suggest a different mode of obsidian ac-
cess for the Fremont of Utah Valley. McDonald’s
(1994, p. 241) comment that decreased mobility
during the Fremont period argues for more inter-
group interaction (exchange) and fewer cases of
direct access may apply here and is explored in
more detail below (see also Earle, 1994, p. 422).
Minerals
Various minerals for use in pigments or deco-
rative items were evidently sought out by Fremont
peoples. Reporting of minerals tends to be limited
to culturally modified items, although it is clear
that raw minerals were being transported to sites
for several purposes. Seventeen different minerals
(including turquoise) were identified from Five
Finger Ridge that were used to make pipes, beads,
pendants, pigments, etc. (Talbot et al., 1997).
Minerals were found at other Clear Creek Canyon
sites, Icicle Bench and Radford Roost, as well as
locales to the east (Round Spring Huntington
Canyon, Bull Creek, Snake Rock). Most popular
was hematite crushed into a red powder and used
as a pigment to paint ceramic vessels, grinding
stones, bone tools, and other items. Also common
are various cuprous stones such as malachite and
azurite (and turquoise) of a blue or green color.
Occupants of Five Finger Ridge carved chunks of
chalky calcite to mimic Olivella shell ornaments
(Fig. 8), although uses of sulphur, quartz pebbles,
etc., remain undetermined. Most minerals recov-
 J.C. Janetski / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21 (2002) 344–370 357

ered from Five Finger Ridge were likely obtained

Fig. 8. Calcite artifacts from Five Finger Ridge carved
to resemble Olivella shell pendants.
through direct access within 25 km of the site,
while turquoise, jet, carnotite, and lignite (a low
grade coal) came from outside this radius (Fig. 9).
The closest lignite source was probably Salina
Creek 60 km northeast of Clear Creek Canyon,
while jet and carnotite occur on the Colorado
Plateau well to the east (Bullock, 1981). Lignite
seems to have been mined solely for the produc-
tion of beads and caches of this material occurred
at Bull Creek (Jennings and Sammons-Lohse,
1981, p. 63) and beads in varying stages of pro-
duction were found here and in the Clear Creek
Canyon sites (e.g., Talbot et al., 1999, p. 112).

Fig. 9. Probable source areas for minerals recovered from Fremont sites in Clear Creek Canyon.
358 J.C. Janetski / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21 (2002) 344–370
The frequency with which minerals occur in
Fremont contexts argues that they were important
and sought after, although the mode of access for
many minerals remains problematic. The simplest
explanation is that acquisition was embedded in
hunting or other kinds of forays. Some sources are
so remote from the site of occurrence that trade
seems probable.
Ceramics
Fremont trade also involved non-local, painted
and corrugated, Fremont ceramics. This has been
suspected for some time, but not rigorously tested.
Geib and Lyneis (1996) have cautioned against
assuming trade based on macroscopic inspections
of temper alone. However, Richens (1997), relying
on temper analysis and refiring experiments, has
argued that approximately 95% of corrugated and
53% of painted sherds (Fig. 10) recovered from at
Five Finger Ridge in Clear Creek Canyon was
made outside of Clear Creek Canyon and most
likely was imported from Parowan Valley to the
south (see also Talbot et al., 1998, p. 48). Similar
numbers of imports were found at Radford Roost
(87% of corrugated, 75% of painted) and Icicle
Bench (98% of painted, no corrugated at Icicle
Bench), also located in Clear Creek Canyon (Tal-
bot et al., 1999). Ceramics from Baker Village
appear to argue even more strongly for ceramic
trade. Wilde and Soper (1999) (see also Schuster,
1996; Wells, 1993) concludes that at least 35% (and
perhaps as high as 85%) of the floor contact ce-
ramics at Baker were imported. These findings are
strong arguments for the movement of ceramics,
especially decorated wares, between locales within
Fig. 10. Percentage of imported ceramics from floors in
Clear Creek Canyon Fremont houses.
the Fremont region (however, see conclusions by
Simms et al. (1997, p. 789) that suggest minimal
trade in ceramics).
A model of long distance Fremont trade
The above data argue for the movement of
goods within the Fremont region and between the
Fremont and people to the south and perhaps to
the west across the Great Basin. How do these
data support (or not) the models of long distance
trade presented earlier: (1) down-the-line trade or
(2) directional trade? To test the down-the-line
model, some assumption must be made regarding
the source of materials. Previous discussions sug-
gested the source of exotic goods (turquoise and
Olivella) in Fremont sites lies south and west (e.g.,
Lyneis, 1984). If the direction and source of those
goods is accurate and a down-the-line mechanism
is operating, we should expect to see greater
numbers of exotics in the southwestern portion of
the Fremont area and fewer and fewer as one
moves to the north and east. To clarify the pat-
tern, all sites are collapsed to a southwest to
northeast straight line. Fig. 11 graphically dem-
onstrates a gradual, although somewhat noisy,
fall-off in raw numbers of exotics (combined tur-
quoise and marine shell) from southwest to
northeast (Caldwell Village with its single neck-
lace is an exception). This distribution could be
interpreted as empirical support for goods moving
from the south to the north in down-the-line
fashion.
However, within the larger pattern of general
decline from south to north there is an additional
spatial pattern of sites with relatively larger
amounts of exotics interspersed among sites with
fewer exotics. If raw numbers are adjusted for
volume (e.g., exotics/excavated residence), the fall-
off pattern is less clear, while a pattern of higher
frequencies in the context of lower frequencies
emerges (Fig. 12). Put another way, the pattern is
one of occasional blips of high frequency in a
landscape of low frequency. A conservative in-
terpretation of this pattern would maintain that
such blips are a function of sampling size and/or
fortuitous finds. On the other hand, spatial pat-
terning in the distribution of goods being traded
can be informative about the mechanisms in-
volved in the exchange. This pattern resembles
Renfrew’s directional trade model (Fig. 2).
If the departures from the fall-off model rep-
resent a valid pattern (i.e., directional trade),
 J.C. Janetski / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21 (2002) 344–370
Fig. 11. Frequency of exotic items from Fremont sites, straight line distribution, southwest to northeast.
it could be argued that the pattern supports the
notion of central places on the Fremont land-
scape. In other words, the locales exhibiting
higher frequencies of exotics hint at the possibility
that these are places where people with items to
trade might have congregated. Again following
Renfrew (1977, p. 85): ‘‘The central place is a lo-
cus for exchange activity, and more of any mate-
rial passes through it (per head of population)
than through a smaller settlement.’’ He goes on to
say, ‘‘If the archaeological record is formed in
proportion to the quantity of material handled,
the central place will show a greater frequency
than its population alone would warrant, since it
is acting as a supply center’’ (Renfrew, 1977,
p. 85). In this last statement, Renfrew is making
reference to either central place redistribution or
central place market exchange both of which re-
quire control of goods and neither of which has
been documented for the Fremont, which are
traditionally described as egalitarian (Sammons-
Lohse, 1981; however, see Barker, 1994; Hockett,
1998; Janetski and Talbot, 1997 for discussions of
Fremont social complexity). This pattern could be
argued as support for the trade fair or festival (see
359
below). However, it is not being argued that fes-
tivals are markets nor is there a suggestion of es-
tablished control of the trade of items; they
provide a time and place for people to congregate
and for goods to change hands either through
direct bartering or gambling.
Discussion
This paper argues that Fremont peoples were
involved in exchange among themselves and with
people to the south, specifically with the Anasazi.
(This does not deny trade in other directions, but
data to support such connections are few at
present.) The amount of exotic goods involved is
modest. However, it is often assumed that ex-
change in perishables such as food or hides, robes,
slaves, or other archaeologically invisible com-
modities was occurring and most likely made up
the bulk of trade goods (cf. Davis, 1974; Ford,
1983; Hughes and Bennyhoff, 1986; Wood, 1980);
therefore, the exotics and more durable goods
(minerals) are likely only symptomatic of the lar-
ger volume of trade [however, Plog (1989) has
argued for caution in such assumptions]. Previous
360 J.C. Janetski / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21 (2002) 344–370
Fig. 12. Distribution of exotics/excavated Fremont house, straight line distribution, southwest to northeast.
discussions of exchange in foodstuffs (e.g., Davis,
1974; Spielmann, 1991 and also Small Scale
Societies and Exchange section above) argued that
trade in food increases in the context of ecological
or other contrasts (e.g., farm products vs hides).
Kelly’s (1964, p. 90) example of non-farming,
Kaibab Southern Paiute trading deer hides to St.
George Southern Paiute farmers for corn is a case
in point. The former lived in more upland country
with few perennial streams while the latter lived in
the lower elevations along the Virgin River. The
popular model of Fremont variability (Madsen
and Simms, 1998) emphasizes strategy differences
across space and through time. Strategies shifted
depending on the costs of farming versus gather-
ing of wild foods (see also Barlow, 1997). If such
variability were operating, one would expect food
items to be an important item of exchange much
like that seen among the Southern Paiute as well
as across ethnic boundaries as exemplified by the
Plains and Southwest. Kelly (1964, pp. 86–91)
does not specifically mention exchange mecha-
nisms for trade between Southern Paiute bands,
but her accounts suggest informal encounter ex-
change. However, the context for the Plains and
Southwest intertribal exchange was the trade fair
or festival model (Ford, 1983).
The festival model is attractive for conceptu-
alizing how the Fremont might have implemented
exchange between communities and with the
Anasazi or other neighbors. Given that resource
availability was a critical factor, the timing of
festivals in the central and southern portion of the
area would most likely have followed the general
Great Basin pattern, i.e., in the fall. The locations
of such festivals would have depended on resource
availability and could have shifted depending on
the productivity of certain resources. Places such
as Parowan Valley near Cedar City in south-
central Utah, the Sevier River Valley in central
Utah near Richfield, Utah Valley, and others, are
possible choices based on ethnographic patterns,
site densities, and/or resource availability. Loca-
tions such as the Baker Village site, positioned on
what is considered the periphery of the Fremont
area seems an especially attractive locale for fes-
tivals that could include not only Fremont but
also non-farming neighbors to the west. Steward
(1938, p. 130), for example, identified nearby
Garrison, Nevada, as a location for Western
Shoshone festivals. The aggregations in Utah
Valley were noted earlier.
The application of a trade fair/festival model
can provide useful insights into temporal shifts in
 J.C. Janetski / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21 (2002) 344–370
obsidian distribution in the eastern Great Basin.
Sourcing of obsidians from Utah Valley in central
Utah documented a shift in the direction of ob-
sidian movement through time. During the Fre-
mont era, obsidian came primarily from southern
sources (Black Rock and Mineral Mountains);
during the subsequent Late Prehistoric, northern
obsidians (particularly from Malad) dominate the
collections, and obsidian from Brown’s Bench in
Idaho and the Yellowstone region appear for the
first time (Fig. 7) (Janetski, 1994; Nelson, 1984;
Nelson and Holmes, 1979). Importantly, Topaz
Mountain obsidian, which is closer to Utah Valley
than either the Black Rock/Mineral Mountain or
Malad sources, is only present in modest amounts
during either period. These patterns suggest two
things: (1) the inhabitants of Utah Valley did not
directly access obsidian during either the Fremont
or Late Prehistoric periods but obtained this
commodity through intermediaries, and (2) for
some reason relations shifted to the north after
A.D. 1300 or 1400. One has only to invoke a
change in who was attending festivals to account
for the shift in goods present. A more northerly
swing of social and economic relations following
the demise of farming would account for the surge
in northern obsidians in Utah Valley during the
Late Prehistoric. It is possible the variable pat-
terning in obsidian in lithic assemblages (which
seems unrelated to proximity to obsidian sources)
could be explained in part by socio-economic re-
lations; however, an additional critical variable
would be the availability and proximity of other
toolstone quarries. This possibility remains to be
explored.
Recognizing exchange activities archaeologi-
cally (other than through the presence of nonlocal
items) is challenging as is devising material tests of
the festival model. The earlier discussion of trade
and exchange in small scale societies provides
ethnographic models that might be testable,
however. For example, nearly all accounts of
festivals or gathering include references to gam-
bling activity (see above), and gambling para-
phernalia, especially bone dice, may be evidence
of this activity. Bone dice, usually referred to as
gaming counters in the Fremont literature (e.g.,
Dalley, 1970), are common in Fremont worked
bone assemblages. In fact, next to bone awls, dice
are the most abundant artifact recovered from
Fremont sites (Table 6). The dice range in style
from being carefully polished with rows of dots or
incisings to rather roughly made specimens; center
drilling is common (Fig. 13). The abundance of
361
dice is evidence of the importance of gambling
and attendant community interaction perhaps at
both the intra- and inter-village level, and the
occurrence of these gaming pieces along with ex-
otic goods may be primary archaeological resi-
dues of events such as trade festivals (cf.
Gunnerson, 1969, p. 141; McDonald, 1994, p. 54).
The ethnographic data also predict that direct
trade in foodstuffs might be greatest across eco-
logical and ethnic boundaries. Although, recog-
nizing ethnic boundaries is a complex issue,
ecological differences are more apparent in the
area under discussion. The sharpest natural
boundary within the Fremont region is that be-
tween the Great Basin on the west and the Colo-
rado Plateau on the east and differences in
Fremont material culture from east to west have
been noted from the beginnings of Fremont stud-
ies (Judd, 1926; Madsen, 1982; Marwitt, 1970;
Morss, 1931). Further, Madsen (various, but see
especially 1979) has argued that Fremont farmers
living in the eastern Basin relied more on marsh
and other wild foods while those living on the
Colorado Plateau were more committed to corn
farming. It is more likely that the better watered
eastern Basin had access to a richer resource base,
including farm products, and supported a larger
population than the Plateau, and these differences
in resource availability might have encouraged
east-west exchange in consumables. Food might
have been traded against deer or mountain sheep
hides as in the Southern Paiute case, for example.
This expectation is not well met based on the ob-
sidian data presented earlier, however. In fact, the
obsidian data suggests the Basin/Plateau boundary
was a barrier of sorts. Although some obsidian
from western sources found its way onto the Pla-
teau, quantities fall off sharply from west to east
(Table 5). It is possible, of course, that the obsidian
data are not a reliable indicator of the degree of
interaction or of the movement of foodstuffs.
Olivella shell, for example, is about equally com-
mon in Basin and Plateau sites (Table 1). The
ceramic data seem to suggest that interaction was
more north to south than east to west, a conclusion
also reached by McDonald relying on multiple
variables (1994; see the several maps of proposed
micro-interaction spheres from pp. 289–296).
On a different note, the suggestion that ce-
ramics and perhaps other bulky items such as
hides were produced for trade provokes interest-
ing questions. How, for example, were pots
moved from one village to another? A possible
ethnographic analogue for the movement of
 362
Table 6
Quantities of certain bone artifacts from selected Fremont structural sites
Site Awls Eyed Weaving Pendants Beads Rings Tubes Dice Figurines/ Antler Harpoons Antler Whistles

J.C. Janetski / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21 (2002) 344–370

needles tools enigmatic flakers wedges
Injun Creek 47 1 — 3 43 — 8 3 1 15 — 9 —
Bear River 1 11 — — — — — — 4 — — — — 1
Bear River 2 57 2 — 1 — — — 8 — 1 2 2 —
Bear River 3 11 — — — — — 2 6 — 1 — — —
Levee 78 — — — — — 13 10 — 8 — 3 5
Knoll 14 — — — — — 4 — — — — — 1
Woodard Mound 47 — — 3 10 — — 12 — 1 5 1 —
Nephi 137 — — 42 13 — — 46 — 2 — — —
Pharo 95 — — — 6 — — 16 1 10 — 1 —
Backhoe 62 — — 5 8 — — 23 2 1 — — —
Mukwitch 7 — — — 1 — — 2 — — — — —
Five Finger 350 1 8 24 13 2 8 51 7 8 — 2 —
Radford Roost 38 — — — — — — 2 — — — — —
Icicle Bench 8 — — 6 5 — 1 3 — 1 — — —
Lott’s Farm 7 — — 1 — — — — 1 — — — —
Median Village 195 — — 19 4 2 54 76 — 10 — — —
Evans Mound 530 — 2 54 2 2 7 176 — 43 — 7 2
Caldwell Village 99 1 — — 1 — 6 13 — 6 — — 9
White Rocks 23 — — — 8 — 3 7 — — — — —
Wholeplace Village 14 — — 59 5 — 2 2 — 1 — — —
Snake Rock 132 — — 1 1 — 3 47 — 3 — — —
Poplar Knob 5 — — — — — — — — — — — —
Old Woman 32 — — — — — — 7 — 2 — — —
Turner-Look 158 — — 6 32 — 137 171 — — — — —
Round Spring 156 1 — 7 59 1 13 56 1 3 — 1 —
Coombs Village 129 — — — 1 — — 1 — 14 — — —
 J.C. Janetski / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21 (2002) 344–370
Fig. 13. Examples of bone gaming pieces or dice from
Fremont sites.
goods is present with the Hopi to the south of the
Fremont. Ford (1983) documents trade in ceramic
vessels, both utilitarian and decorated, among the
Hopi and between the Hopi and other tribes. In-
tervillage or intertribal trade required the trans-
port of pots by either the producers or the
consumers, but in all cases, transport would have
been by individuals on foot. In the context of this
question and the Hopi example, it is hard to ig-
nore the so-called ‘‘backpacker’’ or humpback
anthropomorphs in rock art panels often attrib-
uted to Anasazi and Fremont (Fig. 14) (Cole,
1990: various, but see Plate 60, p. 154; Schaasma,
1994, p. 60). Such panels often depict groups of
individuals, almost resembling pack trains, with
burdens on their backs as though transporting
material goods across the landscape.
Archaeological contexts for exotics: Fremont and
Anasazi contrasts
The Southwest analogue often invoked here
must be applied at a distance given the limited
information on Fremont social and religious
practices and demonstrable differences in Anasazi
and Fremont contexts for exotics. An example of
Fremont-Southwest contrasts is the scarcity of
exotics (and goods in general) in Fremont burials,
a pattern differing markedly from Anasazi mor-
tuary practices which typically included burial
goods (see Neitzel, 1989 and below). These dif-
ferences raise interesting questions, one of which
asks what the Fremont considered valuable. The
assumption here has been that exotics (especially
turquoise and Olivella shell) obtained through
trade are valuable and prestige enhancing. One
might expect, therefore, that exotics would be
present in Fremont burials of higher status indi-
viduals. That does not appear to be the case,
however. Fremont burial goods tend to be sparse
363
Fig. 14. Backpacker figures on rock art panel in Capitol
Reef National Park. (Drawn from photo loaned by Lee
Kreutzer.)
(less than 15% of all burials have offerings) and
only two of 186 reported Fremont burials (post
AD 500) contained exotics, both single Olivella
shell beads (Janetski and Talbot, 1997; see also
Roberts, 1991).2 Three of the 186 burials (not the
two just mentioned) appear to be individuals of
either higher or at least a different status. All three
are adult males and all contain significantly higher
quantities of burial offerings than other burials
with goods. However, no exotics are present in the
burial assemblages from these three interments.
Rather, birds or birdskins (only local species have
been identified), ground stone, ceramic vessels
(both miniature and regular sized, but all of local
manufacture), clay figurines, complete projectile
points, and apparently foodstuffs and other mis-
cellaneous (again, local in origin) objects are
present in the burial pit or closely associated with
it. This pattern suggests these individuals had
achieved special status, perhaps as shamans, and
that status was marked in death by their peers.
Rather than being recovered from burial con-
texts, Fremont exotics occur on house floors or in
fill, apparently as a consequence of loss or perhaps
discard of broken pieces. No caches of exotics have
been reported. The increase in the numbers of la-
bor-rich and information-rich craft items (beads,
pendants of all kinds of materials) (Clark and
Parry, 1990) during Fremont times and the greater
than expected association of those items with lar-
ger houses provides a basis for proposing an
2
This statement is offered with the following caveat.
Burials in the Uintah Basin dated to AD 100–300
contained Olivella and Dentalium shell beads as well as
hundreds of bone beads (Talbot and Richens, 1996).
These burials, which were in bell-shaped pits, are
preceramic and were therefore not included in these
generalizations about Fremont burial patterns. Of
course, this raises issues about what and when is
Fremont, a topic of importance but too broad for this
paper.
364 J.C. Janetski / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21 (2002) 344–370
emerging concern with prestige building among the
Fremont (Janetski and Talbot, 1997). The usually
mundane contexts for these exotics, however,
suggest that the goods were not laden with social,
political, or ideological symbolism. Intriguing ev-
idence to the contrary includes the previously
mentioned Olivella shell look-alike beads from
Five Finger Ridge (Fig. 8). Both preforms and
finished beads of calcite occurred here and suggest
local production. If this interpretation is correct,
that is, Fremont were mimicking exotics, one could
argue that Olivella was both scarce and valued.
As noted, the rarity of exotic goods in Fremont
burials is in stark contrast with patterns at con-
temporary Anasazi sites. All exotics increase
dramatically in Anasazi sites to the south (Lyneis,
1992; Shutler, 1961) and there are sharp differ-
ences in contexts. As noted, Olivella and turquoise
in Fremont sites are almost always found in resi-
dential structures and rarely in burials. But
Anasazi residences along the Virgin River (Dalley
and McFadden, 1985; Shutler, 1961; Walling
et al., 1986) as well as further east near Kanab
(Aikens, 1965; Nickens and Kvamme, 1981), have
yielded few exotics. Anasazi burials, on the other
hand, contain relatively massive quantities of shell
and other goods and the shift occurs in dramatic
fashion as one moves south from the Fremont
region into the Virgin and Colorado River
drainages. Walling et al. (1986) report marine
shell ornaments (Haliotis and Glycymeris) and
turquoise beads in small quantities from burials
along Quail Creek just south of the large Fremont
sites in Parowan Valley. At Willow Beach on the
Colorado River in northeast Arizona a single
(apparently Anasazi) burial (Burial 2) contained
860 Olivella beads (Schoeder (1961), more than all
the Olivella found to date in the Fremont region.
And Lost City [a Virgin Anasazi site in southern
Nevada (Fig. 3)] burials contained large quantities
of marine shell and often turquoise (Lyneis,
1992a; Shutler, 1961). Of 289 Lost City burials, at
least 45 contained either turquoise or marine shell
(Shutler, 1961, pp. 44–49). Olivella was by far the
most common, although numbers are hard to fix
as data are often in the form of ‘‘many’’ or ‘‘jar of
beads’’ (see Lyneis, 1992a, Table 65). In addition
to quantities of marine shell increasing in Anasazi
sites, the variety increases with Haliotis, Gly-
cymeris, Conus, and ‘‘clam’’ shells found rather
commonly (Lyneis, 1992a).
At Coombs Village, a Kayenta Anasazi site in
south central Utah considered within the Fremont
region, burials yielded a necklace of 122 Olivella
shell beads and a wristlet containing stone and
small, unidentified shell beads (Lister et al., 1960).
Turquoise also occurred in greater absolute
quantities, in differing contexts, and in more
variable stages of manufacture at Coombs than
seen at Fremont sites (Table 2). To date over 200
turquoise items, mostly small pendants or beads
are documented from Coombs and nearly all came
from burials (Lister et al., 1960; Larry Davis,
personal communication 2000). Recent analysis of
the collections by the author documented evidence
of on-site turquoise pendant production in the
form of preforms and production by-products,
both turquoise powder or paste and small frag-
ments. Prince et al. (1997, p. 125) report that 11
turquoise samples submitted for chemical analysis
appear to all be from the same source, although
they don’t speculate what that source might be.
What can be made of these stark differences in
the distribution and quantities of exotics in
Anasazi and Fremont sites? Explanations could
take the form of a simple proximity argument: the
Anasazi simply had better access (i.e., they were
closer) to marine shell and turquoise sources,
therefore these items are more common in Anas-
azi sites. Or perhaps the Anasazi were operating
within a different kind of social and political
structure. Rafferty (1990), for example, has argued
that the burial data argue for a ranked society
operating at Lost City; if so, the accumulation of
goods to mark differential status makes sense.
Lyneis (1992b), however, has systematically re-
futed Rafferty’s claim for ranking and argued that
the distribution of burial goods is typical of
egalitarian societies ‘‘. . .in which the differences
among burials reflects differences by age, sex
and. . ..achievement’’ (Lyneis, 1992b, p. 210). As
mentioned, Fremont scholars have also charac-
terized the Fremont as egalitarian with some evi-
dence of achieved status and emerging social
differentiation (for example, Hockett, 1998; Ja-
netski and Talbot, 1997, p. 327). If one accepts
some degree of social and political similarity in
Fremont and Anasazi societies, the differences in
treatment of the dead would be evidence of con-
trasting ideologies, a conclusion supported by
other material differences such as the widespread
occurrence of anthropomorphic figurines in the
Fremont area (however, see Wilde and Soper,
1999, p. 244). It is certainly the case that Olivella,
turquoise, and other objects exotic to the Fremont
area but present in Fremont sites were available
from the Anasazi to the south and are the most
logical source of such items.
 J.C. Janetski / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21 (2002) 344–370
Conclusions
The above descriptions conjure up images of
social and economic interactions. Trade offered
means for provisioning in times of subsistence
shortfall (Upham, 1982), although, as mentioned,
caution should be taken to avoid an overemphasis
of the economic impacts of the exchange of goods.
Rather the social, and to a lesser extent the po-
litical, aspects of exchange in egalitarian (includ-
ing simple segmentary) societies should be
considered important motivations as well (see, for
example, discussions in Speth, 1991). Sahlins
(1972, pp. 186–187) makes this clear when he
states ‘‘A material transaction is usually a mo-
mentary episode in a continuous social relation.’’
Gift exchange then is a means of maintaining
social stability in acephalous societies. As noted
earlier, Madsen and Simms (various, see especially
Madsen and Simms, 1998) have argued for farmer
and forager strategies operating concurrently
during the Fremont period. If so, Fremont social
circumstances may have been analogous to the
ethnographically documented Southwest where
Puebloan farmers co-existed in tension with
hunting and gathering peoples (see above and
introductory Tewa song), yet regularly exchanged
goods with those groups in a kind of mutualistic
relationship (Spielmann various, but see 1991).
Exchange and gifting in the context of regular,
structured events may have played a role in me-
diating relations among Fremont groups who may
have been as ethnically varied as the Southwestern
farmers and hunters.
This paper has proposed several contexts for
Fremont exchange relying heavily on ethno-
graphic models borrowed from the Puebloan and
Great Basin areas. These include encounter ex-
change, gifting for varying purposes, gambling,
and festivals. A conservative interpretation of the
archaeological data, which suggests a fall off in
absolute numbers of exotics from south to north,
would be that a down-the-line mechanism such as
encounter exchange was a primary mechanism
operating in the past. However, when numbers are
adjusted to compensate for sample size effects and
the ubiquity of gambling paraphernalia consid-
ered, it seems that cultural processes other than
simple encounter exchange is responsible for
much of the patterning and a trade fair/festival
model is proposed as an additional mechanism for
the movement of goods.
The data presented here provide the basis for
several conclusions: (1) both local and long dis-
365
tance trade occurred during the Fremont period;
(2) long distance exchange relations, as suggested
by the distribution of exotics were primarily with
Southwestern contemporaries; (3) mechanisms for
both community and long distance trade may
have included both regular festivals and encounter
exchange; (4) between AD 500 or so and 1300,
quantities of exotics, and perhaps trade generally,
increased in the Fremont region, a tendency that
may reflect increasing sedentism concomitant with
a growing commitment to farming (Earle, 1994, p.
422). This period is largely coincident with the
development, expansion, and eventual contraction
of Southwest farming societies and argues that a
perspective that includes the Fremont in the larger
Southwest region is useful in understanding Fre-
mont culture history and process. Finally, (5) the
differential disposition of exotics in Fremont and
Kayenta/Virgin Anasazi contexts supports an ar-
gument for a sharp rather than a soft boundary
between these groups as suggested by Madsen
(1982); see Geib, 1996; Lyneis, 1992; Thompson
and Allison, 1988 for material support of a sharp
boundary). On a different note and scale, this
discussion of the Fremont and their Anasazi
neighbors3 is remarkable in that these two small-
scale societies may have been at once quite similar
and quite different. Material culture is similar in a
general way, both farmed, and both are consid-
ered egalitarian. Contrasts occur in the burial
patterns and kinds of goods cached, with the
Anasazi much more prone to include exotics with
the dead and to horde such items. Such variation
is indicative of the complexities of understanding
archaeologically defined, small-scale groups
whose social and political structure lies some-
where in that hazy and enormous gulf between
bands and states (Gregg, 1991).
Acknowledgments
Many have read and offered comments and
encouragements on this paper over several years.
John Clark Richard Hughes, Byron Loosle, Da-
vid Madsen, Ray Matheny, and Rich Talbot are
3
The Anasazi reference here is to the Virgin and
Kayenta branches only. Rather stark differences are
present with the Anasazi patterns in the Mesa Verde and
Chaco areas. (Be referred, for example, to various
references in a volume 66 of American Antiquity for an
excellent discussion of Chacoan economic life).
366 J.C. Janetski / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21 (2002) 344–370
among those who provided specific suggestions
and prodding to publish. Suggestions by anony-
mous reviewers resulted in significant improve-
ments and I thank them for their time. Of course,
I accept blame for this final version and for failure
to mention others who may have read and com-
mented on the paper.
References cited
Adams, P., 1996. Fish Lake obsidian analysis. Ms on
file, Department of Anthropology, Brigham Young
University, Provo.
Adovasio, J.M., 1979. Comment by Adovasio. Ameri-
can Antiquity 44, 723–730.
Aikens, C.M., 1965. Excavations in Southwest Utah.
Anthropological Papers No. 76, Glen Canyon
Series No. 27. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake
City.
Aikens, C.M., 1966. Fremont-Promontory relationships
in northern Utah. Anthropological Papers No. 82.
University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Aikens, C.M., 1967. Excavations at Snake Rock Village
and the Bear River No. 2 Site. Anthropological Papers
No. 87. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Aikens, C.M., 1969. Comment by Aikens. American
Antiquity 44, 7731–7732.
Alexander, W., Ruby, J.W., 1963. 1962 excavations at
Summit, Utah: a progress report. In: 1962 Great Basin
Anthropological Conference. Anthropological Papers
No 9. Nevada State Museum, Carson City, pp. 17–32.
Ambler, J.R., 1966. Caldwell Village. Anthropological
Papers No. 84. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake
City.
Barker, J.P., 1994. Sequential hierarchy and political
evolution along the western Fremont frontier. Paper
presented at the 24th Great Basin Anthropological
Conference, Elko.
Barlow, R.K., 1997. Foragers that farm: A behavioral
ecology approach to the economics of corn farming
for the Fremont case. Ph.D. Dissertation, Depart-
ment of Anthropology, University of Utah. UMI
Dissertation Services, Ann Arbor.
Bean, G.W., 1945. Autobiography of G.W. Bean, a
Utah pioneer of 1847. Utah Printing, Salt Lake City.
Bee, J.W., Bee, R.G., 1934–1966. Archaeological collec-
tions, Utah county, Utah. Notes and maps on file,
Museum of Peoples and Cultures, Brigham Young
University, Provo.
Bennyhoff, J.A., Hughes, R.E., 1987. Shell bead and
ornament exchange networks between California
and the western Great Basin. In: Anthropological
Papers Vol. 64, Part 2. American Museum of
Natural History, New York, pp. 82–175.
Berge, D., 1966. Archaeological investigations in central
Utah: 42UT110. Ms on file, Museum of Peoples and
Cultures, Brigham Young University, Provo.
Brown, J.A., 1981. The search for rank in prehistoric
burials. In: Robert, C., Ian, K., Klavs, R. (Eds.), The
Archaeology of Death. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, pp. 25–37.
Bullock, K.C., 1981. Mineral and mineral localities of
Utah. Utah Geological and Mineral Survey Bulletin
No. 117. Salt Lake City.
Burnside, R.C., 2000. XRF sourcing of Fremont and
late prehistoric obsidian. Ms on file, Department of
Anthropology, Brigham Young University, Provo.
Cashden, E., 1990. Risk and uncertainty in Tribal and
peasant societies. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
Clark, J.E., Parry, W.J., 1990. Craft specialization and
cultural complexity. Research in Economic Anthro-
pology 12, 289–346.
Cole, S.J., 1990. Legacy on Stone: Rock Art of the
Colorado Plateau and Four Corners Region. John-
son Books, Boulder.
Cordell, L., 1997. Archaeology of the Southwest, second
ed. Academic Press, New York.
Crown, P.L., 1991. The role of exchange and interaction
in Salt-Gila Basin Hohokam prehistory. In: Gumer-
man, G.J. (Ed.), Exploring the Hohokam. University
of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 383–416.
Dalley, G.F., McFadden, D.A., 1985. The archaeology
of the Red Cliffs site. Cultural Resource Series
No. 17. Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake
City.
Davis, J.T., 1974. Trade routes and economic exchange
among the Indians of California. Publications in
Archaeology, Ethnology and History No. 3. Ballena
Press, Ramona, California.
Dodd, W.A., 1982. Final year excavations at the Evans
Mound Site. Anthropological Papers No. 106. Uni-
versity of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Earle, T.K., 1994. Positioning exchange in the evolution
of human society. In: Baugh, T.G., Ericson, J.E.
(Eds.), Prehistoric Exchange Systems in North
America. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 419–438.
Ericson, J.E., Baugh, T.G. (Eds.), 1993. The American
Southwest and Mesoamerica: Systems of prehistoric
exchange. Plenum Press, New York.
Ewers, J.C. (Ed.), 1973. Edwin Thompson Denig, Five
Indian tribes of the upper Missouri: Sioux, Arick-
aras, Assiniboines, Crees, Crows. University of
Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Fawcett, W.B., Simms, S.R., 1993. Archaeological test
excavations in the Great Salt Lake wetlands and
associated analyses. Contributions to Anthropology
14. Utah State University, Logan.
Ford, R.I., 1983. Inter-Indian exchange in the South-
west. In: Ortiz, A. (Ed.), Southwest, Sturtevant,
W.C. (general editor.), Handbook of North Amer-
ican Indians, vol. 10. Smithsonian Institution, Wash-
ington, DC, pp. 711–722.
Geib, P.R., 1996. Formative cultures and boundaries.
In: Geib, P.R., Glen Canyon revisited, Anthropo-
logical Papers No. 119. University of Utah Press,
Salt Lake City, pp. 98–114.
 J.C. Janetski / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21 (2002) 344–370
Geib, P.R., Lyneis, M.M., 1996. Sources of igneous
temper for Fremont ceramics. In: Geib, P.R., Glen
Canyon revisited. Anthropological Papers No.
119. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp.
167–179.
Gillin, J., 1941. Archeological investigations in central
Utah. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American
Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 17, No. 2. Har-
vard University, Cambridge.
Gregg, S.A. (Ed.), 1991. Between bands and states.
Occasional Paper No. 9. Center for Archaeological
Investigations Southern Illinois University at Car-
bondale.
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
Ethnography, Harvard University, vol. 59, no. 2.
Peabody Museum, Cambridge.
Harbottle, G., 1995. Turquoise analysis and taxonomy,
Five Finger Ridge (42SV1686). Appendix J, In: Clear
Creek Canyon Archaeological Project, Volume
Four: Excavations of Open Habitation Sites, part
3: Five Finger Ridge. Museum of Peoples and
Cultures Technical Series No. 95-8. Brigham Young
University, Provo, pp. 1155–1157.
Harbottle, G., Weigand, P.C., 1992. Turquoise in pre-
Columbian America. Scientific American 266 (2),
78–85.
Hawkins, B., Dobra, L., 1982. Archaeological investi-
gation at the Lott’s Farm site. Ms on file, Antiquities
Section, Utah State Historical Society. Salt lake City.
Hayden, B. (Ed.), 1992. A complex culture of the British
Columbia Plateau. University of British Columbia
Press, Vancouver.
Hayden, B., 1995. Pathways to power: principles for
creating socioeconomic inequalities. In: Price, T.D.,
Feinman, G.M. (Eds.), Foundations of Social In-
equality. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 15–86.
Hockett, B.S., 1998. Sociopolitical meaning of faunal
remains from Baker Village. American Antiquity 63,
289–302.
Hughes, R.E. (Ed.), 1984. Obsidian studies in the Great
Basin. Contributions, Archaeological Research Fa-
cility No. 45. University of California, Berkeley.
Hughes, R.E., 1994. Mosaic patterning in prehistoric
California —Great Basin exchange. In: Baugh, T.G.,
Ericson, J.E. (Eds.), Prehistoric Exchange Systems in
North America. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 363–
383.
Hughes, R.E., Bennyhoff, J.A., 1986. Early trade. In:
d’Azevedo, W.L. (Ed.), Great Basin. Sturtevant,
William C. (general editor). Handbook of North
American Indians, vol. 11. Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, DC, pp. 238–255.
Hunt, W.J., 1985. Bone gaming pieces, ethnic identity, and
trade: an example from Fort Union trading post,
North Dakota. Archaeology in Montana 26 (1), 44–51.
Irwin-Williams, C., 1977. A network model for the
analysis of prehistoric trade. In: Earle, T.K., Ericson,
367
J.E. (Eds.), Exchange Systems in Prehistory. Aca-
demic Press, New York, pp. 141–151.
Jackson, H.E., 1991. The trade fair in hunter-gatherer
interaction: the role of intersocietal trade in the
evolution of poverty point culture. In: Gregg, S.A.
(Ed.), Between bands and states. Center for Archae-
ological Investigations Occasional Paper No. 9,
Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, pp. 265–288.
Janetski, J.C., 1994. Recent transitions in the eastern
Great Basin: The archaeological record. In: Madsen,
D.B., Rhode, D. (Eds.), Across the West: Human
Population Movement and the Expansion of the
Numa. Anthropological Papers, University of Utah
Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 157–178.
Janetski, J.C., Talbot, R.K., 1997. Social and commu-
nity organization. In: Janetski, J.C., Talbot, R.K.,
Newman, D.E., Richens, L.D., Wilde, J.D. (Eds.),
Results and Synthesis. Clear Creek Canyon Archae-
ological Project, vol. 5. Museum of Peoples and
Cultures Technical Series No. 95-9, Brigham Young
University, Provo, pp. 363–382.
Janetski, J.C., Timican, G., Timican, D., Pikyavit, R.,
1999. Cooperative research between Native Ameri-
cans and archaeologists: the Fish Lake archaeolog-
ical project. In: Beck, C. (Ed.), Current Models in
Great Basin Anthropology. University of Utah
Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 223–237.
Jennings, J.D., 1966. Glen Canyon: A summary. An-
thropological Papers No. 81. University of Utah
Press, Salt Lake City.
Jennings, J.D., Sammons-Lohse, D., 1981. Bull Creek.
Anthropological Papers No. 105. University of Utah
Press, Salt Lake City.
Jorgenson, J.G., 1986. Western Indians: Comparative
environments, languages, and cultures of 172 West-
ern American Indian tribes. W.H. Freeman and
Company, San Francisco.
Judd, N.M., 1926. Archaeological observations north of
the Rio Colorado. Bulletin No. 82. Bureau of
American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, DC.
Kelly, I.T., 1964. Southern Paiute ethnography. An-
thropological Papers No. 64. University of Utah
Press, Salt Lake City.
Kidder, A.V., 1924. An introduction to the study of
Southwestern archaeology, with a preliminary ac-
count of the expeditions at Pecos. Papers of the
Southwestern Expedition, Phillips Academy, No. 1.
Yale University Press, New Haven.
Lee, R.B., 1979. The !Kung San: Men, women, and
work in a foraging society. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Levine, F., 1991. Economic perspectives on the Coman-
chero trade. In: Spielmann, K.A. (Ed.), Farmers,
Hunters, and Colonists. University of Arizona Press,
Tucson, pp. 155–169.
Lister, R.J., Ambler, R., Lister F.C., 1960. The Coombs
site, part II. Anthropological Papers No. 41. Uni-
versity of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
368 J.C. Janetski / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21 (2002) 344–370
Lyneis, M.M., 1984. The western Anasazi frontier:
cultural processes along a prehistoric boundary. In:
DeAtley, S.P., Finlow, F.J. (Eds.), Exploring the
Limits: Frontiers and Boundaries in Prehistory,
International Series 223. British Archaeological Re-
ports, Oxford, pp. 81–92.
Lyneis, M.M., 1992a. The main ridge community at
Lost City: Virgin Anasazi architecture, ceramics, and
burials. Anthropological Papers No. 117. University
of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Lyneis, M.M., 1992b. Social complexity among the
virgin Anasazi. Kiva 57, 197–212.
Madsen, D.B., 1979. The Fremont and the Sevier:
defining prehistoric agriculturalists north of the
Anasazi. American Antiquity 44, 711–722.
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: Madsen, David B., O’Connell, James F.
(Eds.), Man and Environment in the Great Basin.
SAA Papers No. 2. Society for American Archaeol-
ogy, Washington, DC, pp. 207–226.
Madsen, D.B., 1989. Exploring the Fremont.
University of Utah Occasional Publications No.
8. Utah Museum of Natural History, Salt Lake
City.
Madsen, D.B., Lindsay , L.W., 1977. Backhoe Village.
Antiquities Section Selected Papers, Vol. IV,
No. 12. Utah State Historical Society, Salt Lake
City.
Madsen, D.B., Simms, S.R., 1998. The Fremont com-
plex: a behavioral perspective. Journal of World
Prehistory 12, 255–336.
Malouf, C., 1940. Prehistoric exchange in the northern
periphery of the Southwest. American Antiquity 9,
319–328.
Marshall, L., 1961. Sharing, talking, and giving: relief of
social tensions among !Kung Bushman. Africa 31,
231–249.
Marwitt, J.P., 1968. Pharo Village. Anthropological
Papers No. 91. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake
City.
Marwitt, J.P., 1970. Median Village. Anthropological
Papers No. 95. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake
City.
Marwitt, J.P., 1979. Comment by Marwitt. American
Antiquity 44, 732–736.
Marwitt, J.P., 1986. Fremont cultures. In: d’Azevedo,
Warren L. (Ed.), Great Basin. Sturtevant, W.C.
(general editor), Handbook of North American
Indians, vol. 11. Smithsonian Institution, Washing-
ton, DC, pp. 161–172.
Mauss, M., 1990. The Gift. W.W. Norton, New York.
McDonald, E.K. 1994. A spatial and temporal exam-
ination of prehistoric interaction in the eastern
Great Basin and on the Northern Colorado
Plateau. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Depart-
ment of Anthropology, University of Colorado,
Boulder.
McGuire, R.H., 1995. The Greater Southwest as a
periphery of Mesoamerica. In: Champion, T.C.
(Ed.), Center and Periphery. Routledge, New York,
London, pp. 40–66.
McGuire, R.H., Adams, E.C., Nelson, B.A., Spielmann,
K.A., 1994. Drawing the Southwest to scale: per-
spectives on macroregional relations. In: Gumerman,
G.J. (Ed.), Themes in Southwest Prehistory. School
of American Research, Santa Fe, pp. 239–266.
Metcalf, M.D., Pool, K.J., McDonald, E.K., McKibbin,
A. (Eds.), 1993. The Round Spring site, vol. III.
Hogan Pass: Final Report on Archaeological Inves-
tigations Along Forest Highway 10 (State Highway
72), Sevier County, Utah. 3 vols. Metcalf Archaeo-
logical Consultants, Eagle, Colorado. Report pre-
pared for Interagency Archaeological Services, US
Department of the Interior, National Park Service,
Lakewood, Colorado. Contract No. CS-1200.-6-
B052.
Montgomery, K.R., Montgomery, J.A., 1993. Utah
Department of Transportation State Route-31 Hun-
tington Canyon Project: archaeological excavations
at Sites 42Em2109 and Em2095, Emery Country,
Utah. Abajo Archaeology, Bluff, Utah.
Morss, N., 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.
Murphy, R.F., Murphy, Y., 1960. Shoshone-Bannock
subsistence and society. Anthropological Records No.
9, University of California, Berkeley, pp. 235–273.
Neitzel, J., 1989. Regional exchange networks in the
American Southwest: a comparative analysis of long-
distance trade. In: Lightfoot, S.U.K.G., Jewett, R.A.
(Eds.), The Sociopolitical Structure of Prehistoric
Southwestern Societies. Westview Press, Boulder, pp.
149–198.
Nelson Jr., F.W., 1984. X-ray fluorescence analysis of
some western North American obsidian. In: Hughes,
R.E. (Ed.), Obsidian studies in the Great Basin.
Contribution of the University of California Archae-
ological Research Facility No. 45. Berkeley, pp. 27–
62.
Nelson Jr., F.W., Holmes, R.D., 1979. Trace element
analysis of obsidian sources and artifacts from
western Utah. Antiquities Section Selected Papers
Vol. 6, No. 15. Utah State Historical Society, Salt
Lake City.
Nickens, P.R., Kvamme, K.L., 1981. Archaeological
investigations at the Kanab site. In: Fike, R.E.,
Madsen, D.B. (Eds.), Excavation of Two Anasazi
Sites in Southern Utah. Bureau of Land Manage-
ment, Utah State Office, Salt Lake City.
O’Shea, J.M., 1989. The role of wild resources in small-
scale agricultural systems: Tales from the Lakes and
the Plains. In: Halstead, P., O’Shea, J.M. (Eds.), Bad
Year Economics: Cultural Responses to Risk and
Uncertainty. Cambridge University Press, Cam-
bridge, pp. 57–67.
 J.C. Janetski / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21 (2002) 344–370
Plog, S., 1989. The sociopolitics of exchange (and
archaeological research) in the northern Southwest.
In: Kent, S.U., Lightfoot, G., Jewett, R.A. (Eds.), The
Sociopolitical Structure of Prehistoric Southwestern
Societies. Westview Press, Boulder, pp. 129–148.
Potter, J.M., 2000. Pots, parties, and politics: Commu-
nal feasting in the American Southwest. American
Antiquity 65, 471–492.
Prince, T., Latady, W.R., Spaulding, W.G., 1997.
Anasazi occupation of the northeastern portion of
the Grand Staircase/Escalante National Monument.
In: Hill, L.M. (Ed.), Learning from the Land: Grand
Staircase-Escalante National Monument, Science
Symposium Proceedings. US Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Utah State
Office, Salt Lake City, pp. 121–132.
Rafferty, K., 1990. The Virgin Anasazi and the Pan-
southwestern trade system. Kiva 56, 3–24.
Renfrew, C., 1977. Alternative models for exchange and
spatial distribution. In: Earle, T.K., Ericson, J.E.
(Eds.), Exchange Systems in Prehistory. Academic
Press, New York, pp. 71–90.
Renfrew, C., Bahn, P., 2000. Archaeology: Theories,
methods, and practice, third ed. Thames and Hud-
son, New York.
Richens, L.D., 1997. Ceramics. In: Janetski, J.C.,
Talbot, R.K., Newman, D.E., Richens, L.D., Wilde,
J.D. (Eds.), Results and Synthesis. Clear Creek
Canyon Archaeological Project, vol. 5. Museum of
Peoples and Cultures Technical Series No. 95-9.
Brigham Young University, Provo, pp. 109–132.
Richens, L.D., 1983. Woodard mound: Excavations at a
Fremont site in Goshen Valley, Utah County, Utah
1980-1981. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department
of Anthropology, Brigham Young University, Pro-
vo.
Roberts, H., 1991. A comparative analysis of human
skeletal remains from Parowan Fremont, Virgin
Anasazi, and Kayenta archaeological sites. Unpub-
lished Masters Thesis, Department of Anthropology,
University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
Sahlins, M., 1972. Stone Age economics. Aldine Pub-
lishing, Chicago.
Sammons-Lohse, D., 1981. Households and communi-
ties. In: Jennings, J.D., Sammons-Lohse, D. (Eds.),
Bull Creek. Anthropological Papers No. 105. Uni-
versity of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 111–136.
Schaasma, P., 1994. The rock art of Utah. University of
Utah Press, Salt Lake City. (originally published as
Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and
Ethnology, vol. 65, Harvard University).
Schroeder, A.H., 1961. The archeological excavations at
Willow Beach, Arizona 1950. Anthropological Pa-
pers No. 50. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake
City.
Schuster, L.J., 1996. Fremont pottery production:
Ceramic evidence from Baker Village (26WP63),
Nevada. Unpublished Master Thesis, Department of
Anthropology, Brigham Young University, Provo.
369
Sharrock, F.W., Marwitt, J.P., 1967. Excavations at
Nephi, Utah 1965–1966. Anthropological Papers
No. 88. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake
City.
Shields, W.F., 1967. 1966 Excavations: Uinta Basin. In:
Shields, W.F., Marwitt, J.P., Keller, G.N., Hunt,
J.D., Reed, E.K. (Eds.), Miscellaneous Collected
Papers 15–18, Paper no. 15, Anthropological Papers
No. 89. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City,
pp. 1–32.
Shumate, M., 1973. Fort McKenzie (1832–1843): his-
torical site salvage archaeology. Archaeology in
Montana 14 (2), 20–43.
Shutler Jr., R., 1961. Lost city: Pueblo Grande De
Nevada. Anthropological Papers No. 5. Nevada
State Museum, Carson City.
Simmons, M., 1979. History of Pueblo-Spanish relations
to 1821. In: Ortiz, A. (Ed.), Southwest. Sturtevant,
W.C. (general editor), Handbook of North American
Indians, vol. 9. Smithsonian Institution, Washing-
ton, DC, pp. 178–193.
Simms, S.R., 1986. New evidence for Fremont adaptive
diversity. Journal of California and Great Basin
Anthropology 8 (2), 204–216.
Simms, S.R., 1990. Fremont transitions. Utah Archae-
ology 3 (1), 1–18.
Simms, S.R., Bright, J.R., Ugan, A., 1997. Plain-Ware
ceramics and residential mobility: a case study from
the Great Basin. Journal of Archaeological Science
24, 779–792.
Spencer, R.F., 1976. The North Alaskan Eskimo.
Dover, New York.
Speth, J.D., 1991. Some unexplored aspects of mutual-
istic Plains-Pueblo food exchange. In: Spielmann,
K.A. (Ed.), Farmers, Hunters, and Colonists. Uni-
versity of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 18–35.
Spielmann, K.A. (Ed.), 1991. Farmers, Hunters, and
Colonists. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Spinden, H., 1993. Songs of the Tewas. Sunstone Press,
Santa Fe.
Statham, D.S., 1982. Camas and the northern Shoshoni:
a biogeographic and socioeconomic analysis. Ar-
chaeological Reports No. 10, Boise State University,
Boise.
Steward, J.H., 1936. Pueblo material culture in Western
Utah. Bulletin No. 287. Anthropological Series,
Vol. 1, No. 3. University of New Mexico, Albu-
querque.
Steward, J.H., 1938. Basin-Plateau aboriginal socio-
political groups. Bulletin of American Ethnology
No. 120, Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC
(reprinted 1970. by University of Utah Press).
Stewart, O.C., 1942. Culture element distributions
XVIII: Ute-Southern Paiute. University of Califor-
nia Anthropological Records 6 (4), 231–356.
Talbot, R.K., Richens, L.D., 1993. Archaeological
investigations at Richfield and Vicinity. Museum of
Peoples and Cultures Technical Series No. 93–15.
Brigham Young University, Provo.
370 J.C. Janetski / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21 (2002) 344–370
Talbot, R.K., Richens, L.D., 1996. Steinaker Gap.
Museum of Peoples and Cultures Occasional Papers
No. 2, Brigham Young University, Provo.
Talbot, R.K., Richens, L.D., Wilde, J.D., Janetski, J.C.,
Newman, D.E., 1997. Clear Creek Canyon archae-
ological project volume four, part 3: Five Finger
Ridge. Museum of Peoples and Cultures Technical
Series No. 95-8. Brigham Young University, Provo.
Talbot, R.K., Richens, L.D., Wilde, J.D., Janetski, J.C.,
Newman, D.E., 1998. Clear Creek Canyon archae-
ological project: Surveys and small site tests. Mu-
seum of Peoples and Cultures Occasional Paper No.
3. Brigham Young University, Provo.
Talbot, R.K., Richens, L.D., Wilde, J.D., Janetski, J.C.,
Newman, D.E., 1999. Excavations at Icicle Bench,
Radford Roost, Lott’s Farm, Clear Creek Canyon,
Utah. Museum of Peoples and Cultures Occasional
Papers No. 4, Brigham Young University, Provo.
Taylor, D.C., 1954. The Garrison Site. Anthropological
Papers No. 16. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake
City.
Taylor, D.C., 1957. Two Fremont sites and their
position in Southwestern prehistory. Anthropologi-
cal Papers No. 29. University of Utah Press, Salt
Lake City.
Thompson, C.T., Allison, J.R. 1988. Symbolism and
meaning in Fremont painted ceramics. Paper pre-
sented at the 21st Great Basin Anthropological
Conference, Park City.
Toll, H.W., 1991. Material distributions and exchange in
the Chaco system. In: Patricia, L.C., Judge, W.J.
(Eds.), Chaco and Hohokam, Prehistoric Regional
Systems in the American Southwest. School of
American Research Press, Santa Fe, pp. 77–108.
Tower, D.B., 1945. The use of marine mollusks and their
value in reconstructing prehistoric trade routes in the
American Southwest. Papers of the Excavators Club
2:3, Cambridge.
Upham, S., 1982. Polities and Power: An Economic and
Political History of the Western Pueblo. Academic
Press, New York.
Vayda, A., 1967. Pomo trade feasts. In: Dalton,
G. (Ed.), Tribal and Peasant Economies. Natural
History Press, Garden City, New York, pp. 494–500.
View publication stats
Walling, B.A., Thompson, R.A., Dalley, G.F., Weder,
D.G., 1986. Excavations at Quail Creek. Cultural
Resources Series No. 20. Bureau of Land Manage-
ment, Utah State Office, Salt Lake.
Warner, T.J. (Ed.), 1976. The Dominguez-Escalante
Journal. Brigham Young University Press, Provo.
Weigand, P.C., Harbottle, G., 1993. The role of
turquoises in the ancient Mesoamerican trade struc-
ture. In: Ericson, J.E., Baugh, T.G. (Eds.), The
American Southwest and Mesoamerica: Systems of
Prehistoric Exchange. Plenum Press, New York, pp.
159–177.
Wells, S.J., 1993. Archeological investigations at Great
Basin National Park: testing and site recording in
support of the general management plan. Western
Archeological and Conservation Center, National
Park Service Publications in Anthropology No. 64.
Tucson.
Wiessner, P., 1982. Risk, reciprocity and social influ-
ences on !Kung San economics. In: Leacock, E., Lee,
R.B. (Eds.), Politics and History in Band Societies.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 61–84.
Wilde, J.D., Soper, R.A., 1999. Baker village: Report of
excavations, 1990–1994 (DRAFT). Museum of Peo-
ples and Cultures Technical Series No. 99-12. Brig-
ham Young University, Provo.
Winterhalder, B., 1997. Gifts given, gifts taken: the
behavioral ecology of nonmarket, intragroup
exchange. Journal of Archaeological Research 5,
121–168.
Wissler, C., 1911. The social life of the Blackfoot
Indians. Anthropological Papers Vol. 7, Pt. 2.
American Museum of Natural History, New York.
Wood, G.C., 1977. Fort McKenzie (24CH242): a study
in applied historical and archaeological methods.
Archaeology in Montana 18 (1), 43–62.
Wood, W.R., 1980. Plains trade in prehistoric and
protohistoric intertribal relations. In: Raymond
Wood, W., Liberty, M. (Eds.), Anthropology on
the Great Plains. University of Nebraska Press,
Lincoln, pp. 98–109.
Wormington, H.M., 1955. A reappraisal of the Fremont
Culture. In: Proceedings of the Denver Museum of
Natural History 1. Denver.