Utah Archaeology 1991

Further Experiments In Native Food Procurement

UTAH ARCHAEOLOGY 1991 Whallon, Robert 1984 Unconstrained Clustering for the Analysis of Spatial Distributions in Archaeology. In Iarasite Spalial Analysis in Archaeology, edited by H. Hietala and P. Larson, Jr., pp. 242- 277. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Yorston, R. M., V. L. Guffney, and P. J. Reynolds 1990 Simulation of Artefact Movement due to Cultivation. Journal of Archaeological Science 17: 67- 83. FURTHER EXPERIMENTS IN NATIVE FOOD PROCUREMENT Kevin T. Jones, Utah Division of State History, Antiquities Section, 300 Rio Grande, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101- 1182 David B. Madsen, Utah Division of State History, Antiquities Section, 300 Rio Grande, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101- 1 182 INTRODUCTION Over the last decade, a number of experimental studies on the costs and benefits of collecting and processing a variety of native food resources have been conducted in the Great Basin and adjoining areas ( e. g., Fowler and Walter 1985; Jones 1981; Larralde and Chandler 1980; Madsen and Kirkrnan 1988; Simms 1984). The goal of most of these is to collect data on resource return rates- the amount of edible food or energy that could be obtained in a given amount of time. These values are expressed as a ratio, such as calories per hour. Return rates for different resources can be compared and ranked, giving insight into the energetic efficiency with which various resources can be harvested. Most of this work is guided by optimal foraging theory and related models ( see Charnov and Orians 1973; Pyke et al. 1977; Simms 1987; Smith 1983; Stephens and Krebs 1986). Information on resource return rates has proven useful in understanding prehistoric hunter- gatherer subsistence practices in the Great Basin. For example, Simms ( 1985), using information on return rates for piiion nuts, hypothesized that they should have been utilized as soon as they were available in a region. When he examined the archaeological records of selected areas he found that ground stone, likely to have been important in processing piiion nuts, was often differentially distributed with respect to site age, being skewed toward later sites, prompting investigation into curation and re- use of ground stone by later inhabitants of an area. This research also influenced the investigation of Danger Cave, and engendered a fruitful search for evidence of early pifion nut use in the area ( Madsen and Rhode 1990). The interpretation of remains excavated from Lakeside Cave would have been considerably different and inferior had experiments on grasshopper procurement not been conducted ( Madsen and Kirkrnan 1988). Current investigations in the Silver Island Range have been influenced by information on return rates for pickleweed, a plant commonly found in Bonneville Basin sites. The discovery of large quantities of pickleweed stem material, and variable processing methods reflected in coprolites from different localities has prompted refinement of earlier interpretations, and additional studies on the energetic returns of pickleweed and other local resources are underway ( Barlow 1990; Hall 1988; Madsen and Jones n. d.). A most impressive and comprehensive application of this approach was conducted in the Stillwater Marshes of the Carson Desert, in western Nevada by Christopher Raven and Robert Elston ( Raven 1990; Raven and Elston 1989). Combining biogeographical information with data and assumptions from foraging theory, they constructed a series of hypotheses about prehistoric resource use and how it should vary in different environmental circumstances. They posited that prehistoric foragers efficiently exploited the various habitat types available to them. Raven and Elston then constructed a model that identified the expected archaeological outcomes of the different foraging strategies employed in different areas, and conducted surveys to test the models. They found a strong correspondence between the hypotheses and the archaeology. The scientific approach to explaining archaeological data employed by Raven and Elston is innovative and powerful, and was made possible by experimentally- obtained resource retum rate data. Experimental return rates are now available for 30 collected resources from the Great Basin, and estimated retum rates for a variety of hunted resources have also been produced ( Simms 1984). Many of these rates are based on a single, or few experiments of limited duration and in a limited array of circumstances. We know, however, that a range of REPORTS 69 variation in the productivity, nutritional content, ease of harvesting, individual gathering and processing ability, and other factors is present ( e. g., Madsen and Kirkman 1988). This variation is to be expected, and is an important facet of data to be considered when using return rate in modeling subsistence. We encourage additional experimentation on native resources, including resources for which information is currently available. In the following sections we present some information relevant to understanding the range of variation in some Great Basin resources. We report on experimental gathering of the Mormon Cricket ( Anabrus simplex), and present the results of additional experiments on cattail ( Typha latifolia) rhizomes and Indian Ricegrass ( Oryzopsis hymenoides) seeds. MORMON CRICKETS Ethnographic and ethnohistoric data suggest that crickets ( Anabrus simplex) were the most commonly collected insect resource in the eastern Great Basin ( e. g., Egan 1917; Fowler and Fowler 1971; Gottfredson 1874). Collection strategies varied widely, but drives into trenches, brush corrals, or streams seem to have been most commonly employed. Less efficient methods, such as picking by hand, were also used. In our experiments with cricket collecting, we focused on two different methods in order to assess the range of variation in cricket return rates. Our experiments took place in the Diamond Mountain area northeast of Vernal, Utah on July 1, 1986, and June 17, 1987, ( Table 1). In both cases, the crickets were in a near- adult instar ( the period between molts), and were migrating in bands. Average weight per cricket in our sample was 2.77 g, but in other studies in the same area adult weights averaged 3.56 g ( DeFoliart et al. 1982) and 3.03 g ( Tyus and Minckley 1988). Cricket bands often cover 1 km2 and have been estimated to contain up to 30- 60 metric tons of crickets ( Tyus and Minckley 1988). Two separate analyses of crickets collected in our experiments yielded energy values of 1062 Calkg ( calories per kilogram) and 1361 Calkg ( live weight), and 3270 Cal/ kg and 3630 Cal/ kg ( dry weight). These values are similar to results obtained by DeFoliart et al. ( 1982) of ca. 3700 Callkg ( dry weight). Here we use the average weight and energy values determined in our analyses: 2.77 glcricket, and 1212 Cal/ kg live weight. Our frrst test involved picking crickets individually from the ground surface and vegetative cover during their most active period. Crickets become more active with warmer temperatures; when cold or excessively hot they become more lethargic and are easier to collect by hand ( Young 1978). We conducted our experiments during the mid- day period when crickets were quite active. The terrain was relatively flat, and the ground cover consisted of low sage and grasses. We conducted five tests involving three individuals, one of whom made three of the collecting runs. All were males in good health ranging from 36 to 65 years of age. Individual A collected 46 crickets in 15 minutes, or 184/ hr. Individual B collected 221 crickets in 15 minutes, or 884/ hr. Individual C collected 56 crickets in 15 minutes, or 224/ hr, 150 crickets in 15 minutes, or 600 / hr, and 242 crickets in 10 minutes, or 1452 crickets/ hr in successive tests. This latter set of tests suggests a clear learning curve. Subjectively, it became easier to collect the crickets as we learned to judge their movements. The range of variation for collecting crickets in these five tests is 618 Cal/ hr ( calories per hour) to 4875 Calm, with an average return rate of 2245 CaVhr. In the second experiment we collected crickets in the shallow water of a small reservoir where they had concentrated in a 3 m wide band of low Juncus along the water's edge. The crickets were not driven into the water, but were found there as part of a natural migration pattern. The crickets were collected by picking them fiom Juncus and the water surface. It was clear that with the right equipment the return rate could have been substantially increased. A large mouthed, tapered vessel containing holes large enough for water to pass readily through, but small enough to trap the crickets ( e. g., a conical carrying basket) would have been perfect for the job. Three tests were conducted by two individuals, a 41 year old male and a 3 1 year old female. Individual A collected 260 crickets in 5 minutes, or 3120 cricketsb, individual B collected 471 crickets in 5 minutes, or 5652 crickets/ hr and individual A collected 823 crickets in 5 minutes, or 9876 cricketsb in a third test. Again, learning from both experience and observation appeared to play a role. The energetic return rates for collecting crickets from 70 UTAH ARCHAEOLOGY 1991 Table 1. Cricket Collecting Experiments Individual Time ( hr) Number Weight at Calories at Calories/ hour Collected 2.77 g each 1212kg Hand Picking, Open Field Sum 1.17 715 1,980 2,400 Mean 2,245f1.758 Hand Picking, Water's Edge Sum 0.25 1,554 4,305 5,217 Mean 20,869* 11,458 Total- Both Experiments Sum 1.42 2,269 6,285 7,617 Mean 9,229f 1 1,497 a natural water trap ranged from 10,475 to 33,156 CaVhr, with an average rate of 20,869 CaVhr. The return rates obtained in these experiments place crickets well above most gathered resources, but they are likely lower than what could have been obtained by an experienced gatherer, as the apparent effect of learning suggests that a practiced collector might do considerably better. The crickets collected in these experiments were not processed for consumption or storage, so it is important to note that the inclusion of processing time would reduce the apparent return rate, perhaps appreciably. To examine how closely our experimental return rates may mirror ethnographic values, we calculated the return rate for an 1864 ethnohistoric account described by Gottfredson ( 1874: 15): The squaws [ placed] baskets in the ditch for the crickets to float into. The male Indians with long willows strung along about twenty feet apart whipping the ground behind the crickets driving them towards the ditch. . . [? he crickets] tumbled into the ditch and floated down into the baskets. . . They got more than fifty bushels. REPORTS 71 A bushel contains about 35 liters ( I), so 50 bushels would contain about 1,750 1. Our measurements indicate that a liter contains about 200 crickets. The total taken in this episode would have been approximately 350,000 crickets, which at 2.77 g each, would amount to 970 kg. At 1212 Cal/ kg, the total caloric value would have been 1,175,000 Cal. If the group included eight people working for an hour the return rate would be 146,875 Cal/ hr. If there were eight people working for two hours it would be 73,437 C m . These figures are higher than we obtained collecting by hand, but in keeping with what we expect for mass collection techniques. A report by a range scientist on cricket bands in Elko County, Nevada states that " Pit traps 5 ft ( 1.5 m) deep and 25 ft! ( 0.7 m3) in volume have filled with crickets in 3 hours" ( Young 1978: 194). The total volume of 700 1 of crickets at 200 crickets per liter, 2.77 g per cricket, and 1212 Cal per kg, would amount to 470,000 Calories. If it took a single person four hours to dig the pit, the return rate would be over 117,500 Cal/ hr. Again, this figure does not include processing time for the crickets, but is an indication that with mass collection techniques, when large bands of crickets were available, native foragers might have obtained very high caloric returns, and had access to very large quantities of a highly nutritious food source. working singly or in groups of two or three, for 30 to 40 minutes. The results of the experiment are summarized in Table 2. Return rates for unprocessed rhizomes ranged from 0.2 kg/ hr to 2.0 kgFr, with a mean of 1.01 + 0.56 kg~ hr. Processing experiments were conducted on two of the samples. The rhizomes were rinsed in water, pounded between mano and metate, then squeezed in water to release the starch from the ropy fiber. In the first case, 800 g of rhizome was processed in 0.17 hr, and in the second case 600 g was processed in 0.33 hr. At this rate, 2.8 kg of rhizome could be processed in one hour, or 1 kg in .36 hrs. Previous experiments ( Jones 1981) have shown that processing in this manner yields an edible portion ( dry weight) of approximately 6.7% of the moist weight of the rhizome. The edible portion contains 3340 Cal per kilogram. Using these figures, the caloric retum rate for the experiments ranges from 42 Cal/ hr to 260 Cal/ hr, with a mean of 16W67 Cal/ hr. The rates obtained here are comparable with rates obtained in other experiments. Jones ( 198 1) reported a retum rate of 128 Cal/ hr for Typha rhizomes collected and processed by the same method described here. Simms ( 1987: 32) reported a retum rate of 267 Cal/ hr for rhizomes processed by scraping off the outer covering and drying the rest. Ricegrass seeds CATTAIL ROOTS AND RICEGRASS SEEDS Additional gathering experiments were conducted on cattail ( Typha latifolia) roots and Indian ricegrass seeds ( Oryzopsis hymenoides). Return rates for these resources have been reported elsewhere ( Jones 198 1; Simms 1984, 1987), and the experiments reported here are intended to add information relevant to understanding the range of variabiity in returns. Cattails Cattail rhizomes were collected in October 1990 from a small marsh along the Sevier River north of Marysvale, in Piute County, Utah. Seventeen individuals ranging in age from 10 to 58 participated in the experiment. The marsh was dry and the ground was relatively hard- packed. Rhizomes were excavated with digging sticks by the participants Seeds of Indian ricegrass ( Oryzopsis hymenoides) were collected in June 1991 in a sandy field south of Sevier, Utah. The patch was of moderate density, ranging from approximately five bunches per m2 to 1 bunch per m2. The seeds had just ripened and were beginning to drop. Sixteen gatherers collected for 25 minutes each, hand- shipping the seeds from the stalks. The total collecting effort yielded 3.4 kg of seeds and chaff collected in 6.7 hrs, or a yield of 0.5 kgfhr ( Table 3). A portion of the seeds was processed by winnowing with hot coals to burn the chaff and parch the seeds, hand rubbing, and further winnowing. Beginning with 250 g of unprocessed seeds and chaff, a yield of 102 g of processed seeds ( with very little chaff) was obtained with 23 minutes of processing. This results in a processing rate of .65 kg/ hr, and a processed/ unprocessed weight ratio of .41. At this rate the 3.4 kg obtained would process down to 1.4 kg of seed in 5.2 hr. The caloric value 72 UTAH ARCHAEOLOGY 1991 Table 2. Typha Collecting Experiment Edible Processing Time Yield Fraction Time Calories Calories1 Collector, Age ( hr) ( kg) Kg/ Hr ( kg) ( hr) at 3,340 Hour m- 47 ( with f- 40) 0.50 1.00 2.00 0.07 f- 40 ( with m- 47) 0.50 1.00 2.00 0.07 f- 37 0.50 0.50 1.00 0.03 f- 49 0.50 0.60 1.20 0.04 f- 40 ( with f- 49) 0.50 0.30 0.60 0.02 f- 49 ( with f- 40) 0.50 0.30 0.60 0.02 f- 40 ( with f- 13 & f- 10) 0.50 0.53 1.06 0.04 f- 13 ( with f- 40 & f- 10) 0.50 0.53 1.06 0.04 f- 10 ( with f- 40 & f- 13) 0.50 0.53 1.06 0.04 f- 23 0.50 0.80 1.60 0.05 f- 50 0.50 0.10 0.20 0.01 f- 48 0.50 0.20 0.40 0.01 f- 48 0.50 0.30 0.60 0.02 m- 58 0.50 0.80 1.60 0.05 m- 44 0.67 0.90 1.34 0.06 f- 39 ( with f- 37) 0.67 0.30 0.45 0.02 f- 37 ( with f- 39) 0.67 0.30 0.45 0.02 Mean: 0.53 1.01 Standard Deviation: 0.28 0.56 for ricegrass seed is 2850 Cal/ kg ( Jones 1981), thus the value for the collected seed is 3962 Cal, collected in 6.7 hrs and processed for 5.2 hrs, yielding a return rate of 333 C W . This rate compares favorably with previously published rates. Simms ( 1987: 119- 120) reported rates of 301 Ca. l/ hr, 364 Calihr, and 392 Calm obtained in three separate experiments. Jones ( 1981) reported a retum rate of 336 Calihr. Data on selected Great Basin collected resources, including the experiments reported here, are summarized in Table 4. DISCUSSION Collecting experiments such as these serve several purposes. The primary goal is to obtain information on the efficiency with which various native resources could have been obtained by prehistoric peoples. This information can be used to interpret data from archaeological sites, to form predictions about resource use, settlement patterns, and seasonality, and to guide archaeological data collection. In addition, by conducting gathering REPORTS Table 3. Ricegrass Collecting Experiment Number of collectors: 16.00 Time, each ( hr): 0.42 Total time ( h): 6.67 Total yield ( kg): 3.40 Processing time ( hr): 5.30 Edible portion ( kg): 1.39 Calories at 2850kg: 3,962.00 Return rate ( cal/ hr): 333.00 Table 4. Energetic Return Rates for Selected Great Basin Collected Resources ( Data fiom Simms [ I9871 and this paper, except where noted) Return Rate ( Cal/ hr) Number of Rank Resource Standard Experiments Range Mean Deviation Grasshoppers' ( Menlanoplus sanguinipes) Mormon Crickets ( Anabrus simplex) Cattail ( pollen) ( Typha latifolia) Pandora Moth2 ( larvae) ( Coloradia pandora lindseyi) Garnbel Oak ( acorns) ( Quercus gambelli) Bulrush ( seeds) ( Scirpus acutus) Tansymustard ( seeds) ( Descurainia pinnata) Bitterroot ( roots) ( Lewisia rediviva) Shadscale ( seeds) ( Atriplex confertiflora) Salina Wild Rye ( seeds) ( Elymus salinas) 74 UTAH ARCHAEOLOGY 1991 Table 4. Energetic Return Rates for Selected Great Basin Collected Resources ( Data from Sirnms [ I9871 and this paper, except where noted) ( Continued) Return Rate ( CaVhr) Number of Rank Resource Standard Experiments Range Mean Deviation Nuttal Shadscale ( seeds) ( Atriplex nuttalli) PiAon Pine ( nuts) ( Pinus monophylla) Barnyard Grass ( seeds) ( Echinocholoa crusgalli) Peppergrass ( seeds) ( Lepidium sp.) Bluegrass ( seeds) ( Poa compressa) Sunflower ( seeds) ( Helianthus annus) Bulrush ( seeds) ( Scirpus paludosus) Bluegrass ( seeds) ( Poa bulbosa) Great Basin Wild Rye ( seeds) ( Elymus cinereus) Indii Rice Grass ( seeds) ( Oryzopsis hymenoides) Bulrush ( seeds) ( Scirpus microcarpus) Reed Canary Grass ( seeds) ( Phalaris arundinacea) Scratchgrass or Dropseed ( seeds) ( Sporobolis asperifolius and Muhlenbergia asperifolia) Foxtail Barley ( seeds) ( Hordeurn jubatum) Sedge ( seeds) Carex ( species unknown) REPORTS 75 Table 4. Energetic Return Rates for Selected Great Basin Collected Resources ( Data from Simms [ I9871 and this paper, except where noted) ( Continued) Return Rate ( CaVhr) Number of Rank Resource Standard Experiments Range Mean Deviation 26 Bulrush ( roots) ( Scirpus sp.) 27 Cattail ( roots) ( Typha latifolia) 28 Saltgrass ( seeds) ( Distichlis stricta) 29 Pickleweed ( seeds) ( Allenrolfea occidentalis) 30 Squirreltail Grass ( seeds) ( Sitanion hystrix) ' Madsen and Kirkman ( 1988) ' Fowler and Walter ( 1985) experiments, we find that our understanding of the decisions faced by aboriginal foragers is enhanced in many intangible ways, such as an increased appreciation of the enormity of the problem of finding food in an inhospitable region. Besides, these experiments are just plain fun. Experimental or actualistic data are a necessary component of contemporary archaeology, but it is important that they be used as part of a systematic, theoretically- grounded approach to the study of prehistoric human behavior. Proper use of models, and critical examination of the limitations of the approach and data are crucial. Experimental data on resource return rates are simply samples of the great potential range of variation expected for all resources. We expect that for any given resource, the return rates obtained would approximate a normal distribution about some mean, with variation influenced by resource density, quality, and condition, gatherer skill, gatherer motivation, gatherer time constraints, technology, weather, competition, and other factors. By conducting a number of experiments we hope to be able to better comprehend the nature of the variability in return rates and increase the applicability and reality of hypotheses based on them. The relatively good agreement obtained between the results of different experiments may only indicate that we have been consistent in our methods, however, it is apparent that the results obtained to date are relatively robust: additional experiments on a given resource have rarely had a significant effect on that resource's placement in the rankings. We do not want to imply that additional precision is needed, as the rates and rankings currently available are adequate for the kinds of applications and models that require them ( Simms 1987: 42), Our goal is to increase the strength of predictions that use return rate data by strengthening the data upon which they draw. Criticisms of the experiments conducted to date have emphasized that collection by novices may be of limited utility ( e. g., Bettinger 1991). We are certain that the figures we have presented are lower than average native collectors could have obtained. Our gathering and processing skills are limited at best, and the participants in experiments are not motivated by the necessity of feeding a family or of storing food for the winter. We hope, however, that with UTAH ARCHAEOLOGY 1991 increased numbers of replications, we will begin to get a feel for the kind of variability to expect, and for the factors that may influence the variability. We have no doubt that, despite shortcomings of the experimental approach, it is infinitely better to have obtained data on the energetics of resource use through experiment, than to have assumed them ( e. g., Bettinger and Baumhoff 1982, 1983). ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank George Tripp, Liz Manion, Jim Kirkman, Renae Weder, Dennis Weder, DeeDee O'Brien, Laurel Casjens, Gordon Topham, the participants in the Utah Museum of Natural History Fremont Indian State Park field trip, and the participants in the Intrigue of the Past teacher training workshop for helping with these experiments. Joe Stohel prepared the tables. Steve Simms and Joel Janetski provided useful comments on the manuscript. We happily accept all responsibility for any ineptness of presentation or conceptualization. REFERENCES CITED . d Barlow, K. R. 1990 Differential Transport of Plant Parts: Experimental Data on Several Great Basin Plant Resources. Paper presented at the 22nd Great Basin Anthropological Conference, Reno. Bettinger, Robert L. 1991 Hunter- Gatherers: Archaeological and Evolulionary Theory. Plenum Press, New York. Bettinger, Robert L., and Martin A. Baumhoff 1982 The Numic Spread: Great Basin Cultures in Competition. American Antiquity 47( 3): 485- 503. 1983 Return Rates and Intensity of Resource Use in Numic and Prenumic Adaptive Strategies. American hiquity 48( 4): 830- 834. Charnov, Eric L., and Gordon H. Orians 1973 Optimal Foraging: Some Theoretical Explorations. Department of Biology, University of Utah. DeFoliart, G. R., M. D. Finke, and M. L. Sunde 1982 Potential Value of the Mormon Cricket ( Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae) Harvested as a High- Protein Feed for Poultry. Journal of Economic Entomology 75( 5): 848- 852. Egan, W. M., editor. 1917 Pioneering the West 1846- 1878: Major Howard Egan's Diary. Howard R. Egan Estate, Richmond, Utah. Fowler, D. D., and C. S. Fowler 1971 Anthropology of the Numa: John Wesley Powell's Manuscripts on the Numic Peoples of Western North America, 1868- 1880. Contributions to Anthropology 14. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C. Fowler, C. S., and N. Peterson Walter 1985 Harvesting Pandora Moth Larvae with the Owens Valley Paiute. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 7( 2): 155- 165. Gottfredson, P. 1874 Journal of Peter Gottfredson, from the Gottfredson Family History. Ms. on file, Utah Division of State History, Salt Lake City. Hall, H. J. 1988 Preliminary Analysis of Human Paleofeces from Danger and Floating Island Caves. Paper presented at the 21st Great Basin Anthropological Conference, Park City, Utah. Jones, Kevin T. 1981 Optimal Foragers: Aboriginal Resource Choice in the Great Basin. Ms. in possession of author. Larralde, Signa, and Susan M. Chandler 1980 An Archaeological Inventory in the Seep Ridge Cultural Study Tract, Uintah County, Northeastern Utah. Ms. on file, Division of State History, Salt Lake City, Utah. Madsen, David B., and Kevin T. Jones n. d. The Silver Island Expedition ( Anthropological Archaeology in the Great Basin). Anthropological Papers. University of Utah, Salt Lake City, in press. Madsen, David B., and James E. Kirkman 1988 Hunting Hoppers. American Antiquity 53( 3): 593- 604. Madsen, David B., and David Rhode 1990 Early Holocene Pinyon ( Pinus monophylla) in the Northeastern Great Basin Quaternary Research 33: 94- 101. Pyke, G. H., H. R. Pulliam, and E. L. Charnov 1977 Optimal Foraging: A Selective Review of Theory and Tests. Quarterly Review of Biology 52: 137- 154. Raven, Christopher 1990 Prehistoric Human Geography in the Carson Desert 11: Archaeological Field Tests of Model Predictions. Cultural Resource Series 4, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 1, U. S. Department of the Interior. Raven, Christopher, and Robert G. Elston 1989 Prehistoric Human Geography in the Carson Desert I: A Predictive Model of Land- Use in the Stillwater Wildlife Management Area. Cultural Resource Series 3, U. S. Fish and Wildlife REPORTS Sewice Region 1, U. S. Department of the Interior. Simms, Steven R. 1984 Aboriginal Great Basin Foraging Strategies: An Evolutionary Analysis. Ph. D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Utah. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. 1985 Pine Nut Use in Three Great Basin Cases: Data, Theory, and a Fragmentary Material Record. Journal of CalE, fonia and Great Basin Anthropology 7( 2): 166- 175. 1987 Behavioral Ecology and Hunter- Gatherer Foraging. BAR Internafional Series 381. Oxford. Smith, Eric Alden 1983 Optimal Foraging Theory in Anthropology. Current Anthropology 24: 625- 65 1. Stephens, David W., and John R. Krebs 1986 Foraging Theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. Tyus, Harold M., and W. L. Minckley 1988 Migrating Mormon Crickets, Anabrus simplex ( Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae), as Food for Stream Fishes. Great Basin Naturalist 48( 1): 25- 30. Young, James A. 1978 Mormon Crickets. Rangeman's Journal 5( 6): 193- 196. Paria Canyon Wilderness Area UTAH ARCHAEOLOGY 1991 Near Manila, northeastern Utah