Utah Archaeology 2002

Fremont Basketry

FREMONT BASKETRY James M. Adovasio, David R. Pedler, and Jeff S. Illingworth, Mercyhurst Archaeological Institute 501 East 38th Street, Erie, PA 16546 Ever since the Fremont archaeological entity (Fig­ure 1) was first defined by Morss (1931), the essential nature, salient characteristics, origin(s), and fate(s) of that entity have been the subjects of endless discus­sion and debate. Not surprisingly, much of the contro­versy initially centered around the relationship of Fre­mont to Formative cultures in the so-called Greater American Southwest, especially the Anasazi. As noted by Madsen and Simms (1998:266-277), well before Fre­mont had been formally defined by Morss, early col­lecting from sites that ultimately would be subsumed under Fremont produced artifacts which appeared to represent agricultural populations related to contempo­raneous (but, at the time, unnamed) farmers occupying large portions of the American Southwest (Montgom­ery 1894:234). Early excavations in the Fremont area, both before and immediately after World War I (Judd 1917, 1919, 1926), were at least partially directed toward exploring the posited relationship between horticultural popula­tions in the eastern Great Basin and Colorado Plateau as well as those in the Southwest cultural region gener­ally. In 1924, these soon-to-be-called Fremont manifes­tations were subsumed by Kidder (1924) into his larger Southwest culture area. At the first Pecos Conference in 1927, Fremont manifestations, still unnamed, were thought to be part of the northern edge or periphery of the Anasazi (Kidder 1927), a concept that would persist in varying guises for a long time. In this view, Fremont is considered a kind of "boondocks" or "Hooterville" Anasazi-marginalized, provincial, and culturally di­luted, but nonetheless Anasazi. Curiously, given Fremont's alleged Anasazi affini­ties, when Morss (1931) finally formally defined it as a cultural entity, he distanced himself and this "new" cul­ture from the "backwoods Anasazi" perspective. Indeed, Morss viewed Fremont as a rubric to describe and in­corporate materials and sites from the Fremont River- Muddy River area of south-central Utah and immedi­ately contiguous areas to the north, excluding all other areas. Morss observed that Fremont was distinct from the Anasazi (on the basis of artifacts, basic subsistence orientation, and settlement pattern) and also from the agricultural groups on the eastern fringes of the Great Basin studied earlier by Judd. According to Morss, the Anasazi were fully sedentary horticulturalists while the Fremont were putatively far more mobile, at least sea­sonally, with a large foraging component to their basic subsistence strategy. As correctly noted by Madsen and Simms (1998:268-269), Morss' view of Fremont cultural unique­ness was a minority perspective. The notion that Fre­mont represented an Anasazi outlier held sway in many quarters for a long time (e.g., Gillin 1938; Gunnerson 1962, 1969; Judd 1926; Steward 1933). The period be­tween 1933 and the early 1950s saw the excavation of a number of eastern Great Basin horticultural sites which were considered to be both distinct from the Fremont (as defined by Morss) and Puebloid in the Anasazi-derivative sense (Smith 1941). The taxonomy and external relationships of Fre­mont became still more murky with Steward's (1937) ex­cavations in the Promontory Caves of northern Utah. Based on materials from these sites and the Black Rock UTAH ARCHAEOLOGY 15(1 )2002 pp. 5-26 UTAH ARCHAEOLOGY 2002 200 kmV, • Spring Creek Cave • Daugherty Cave IDAHO NEVADA • Jack Knife Cave • Little Lost River Cave, Number 1 «f> • Pence Duerig Cave WYOMING i • Swallow Shelter Hogup • Promontory Caves • ••• -ML. Cave * m # Promontor) GiMrrn^. Sa« W ( Lafce J Caldv UTAH *>» Lake . .-- fr" Caldwell Village • y * Yampa Canyon , - • •if. mjxMM ' - ^COLORADO if, \ • C [yd es Cavern ISewer ^ Lake c?,- • Old Woman '. • \ \ Paragonah • Fremont River Area F/srawsl R ': •' Evans Mound « Etna Cave • Median Village • O'Malley Shelter ,y M'^-V Figure 1. Map of Fremont sites yielding basketry discussed in text. Caves, Steward (1937) concluded that a northern pe­riphery manifestation of Southwestern Puebloid culture characterized by sedentary communities co-existed with a separate hunting and foraging culture he called "Prom­ontory." According to Steward, the Promontory folk (who incidently spoke Athabaskan, a non-Puebloid language) were fully mobile hunters and gatherers and, hence, could not be the same people who occupied the horti­cultural villages (Steward 1937:82-87). The idea that two or more separate, distinct, and penecontemporaneous cultures with different subsis­tence systems, settlement patterns, and even artifact repertoires occupied the eastern Great Basin and con­tiguous Colorado Plateau endured as a recurring theme from Steward's time to the present. However, Rudy (1953) explicitly denied the co-existence of two separate cul­tures based on limited cave excavations and somewhat more extensive archaeological reconnaissance. He also persisted in calling the Fremont "Puebloids." The Puebloid label was also favored by Wormington (1955) who, like Rudy, saw the Fremont primarily as settled horticulturalists, albeit with a large degree of hunting and gathering in their subsistence strategy. By the mid-1950s, largely as a result of additional excavations and a symposium sponsored by the Soci­ety for American Archaeology, Fremont had shed its "Puebloid" and "northern periphery" personas for all but a handful of scholars (e.g., Gunnerson 1960; Meighan et al. 1956; Wormington 1955) who persisted in viewing Fremont through a Southwestern filter. Rather than being viewed as two separate cultures, Fremont was now seen as a regionally variable but distinct cul­tural entity with two expressions, the Fremont proper of the Northern Colorado Plateau and the so-called Sevier Fremont in the eastern Great Basin. Neither of these manifestations was very well defined, but both were believed to be variants of a cultural unit that was defi­nitely not Puebloid or Anasazi-derived. Once the independent taxonomic status of Fremont was conceded by all but a few diehards, such as SPECIAL DISCUSSION FEATURE: ADOVASIO ET AL. Gunnerson (1960), three parallel and more-or-less re­lated questions came to dominate the Fremont research agenda. Precisely how much internal variation existed within Fremont? Where did this entity come from? Where did it go? From the outset, the answers to these ques­tions were sufficiently ambiguous that any unanimity about the nature of Fremont quickly dissolved as yet more questions were posed. Initially, all of the horticultural groups north of the Colorado River were included within the Fremont ru­bric, and the origins of this quite variable entity seemed clear-cut to most scholars (e.g., Jennings 1956, 1966, 1974; Jennings and Norbeck 1955; Rudy 1953; Taylor 1957; Wormington 1955). Since these groups were not Anasazi migrants or suburbanites, it was concluded that they must be the lineal descendants of local Great Ba­sin/ Colorado Plateau Archaic populations who were "Formativized" by the diffusion of domesticates and related technology from the Southwest. This seemed- and, in fact, still seems-eminently reasonable to many students of the Fremont, but two scholars (Aikens 1966; Gunnerson 1960) demurred from the local Archaic ori­gins scenario almost immediately. Interestingly, both dissented for permutations of the same basic issue. Though both Gunnerson and Aikens were willing to allow for some variability within Fremont, neither could accommodate Steward's (1937) Promontory folk under the rubric of Fremont without recasting the es­sential nature of the entire Fremont entity. For Gunnerson (1960), the Promontory culture was not Fremont at all. As noted above, he reserved Fremont for the more southerly sedentary horticultural populations which he presumed to be actual Anasazi who had moved north. According to Gunnerson, the Promontory folk were not only not Anasazi, they were not even locally derived. Instead, he believed they were related to an Athabascan-speaking group (as suggested by Steward [1937:87]), specifically, the Dismal River Apache, an intrusive, Plains-derived, proto-historic group (Gunnerson 1960:10). Aikens (1966) took exception to Gunnerson's equa­tion of Promontory and Dismal River Apache, but not on the grounds of cultural affinity. Rather, he questioned the timing of the Plains incursion. For Aikens, Promon­tory was Fremont but it was not locally generated. In­stead, he viewed it as being derived from an ancestral incursion of Plains buffalo hunters that had occurred far earlier than the one posited by Gunnerson. More­over, since Promontory was part of Fremont, by exten­sion all of Fremont was ultimately Plains-derived. Aikens added another twist to this pan-Fremont Plains genesis argument. Not only did Fremont ultimately come from the Plains, after their Formative trajectory was spent, they went back there, merging with local Plains groups to become the Dismal River Apache (Aikens 1966:10). This was an exceptionally tidy scenario that also hap­pened to be quite wrong. For mainstream Fremont scholars, the origin of Fre­mont was local and the transformation of the Archaic hunting and gathering lifestyle was accomplished by grafting on to it the great triad of Southwestern culti-gens without any substantial infusion of actual South­western populations. Though these scholars seemed to agree on the genesis of Fremont, they differed sharply on its demise. Some authorities (e.g., Jennings 1960; Rudy 1953) believed the Fremont were ultimately ab­sorbed by the Numic speaking historic residents of the eastern Great Basin and adjacent Colorado Plateau. Oth­ers (Gunnerson 1969) believed they were the ancestral Numic speakers. A few, like Wormington (1955), opined that during the great Pueblo contraction, the Fremont drifted south and became the historic Hopi. Largely as a consequence of an explosion in field research generated principally by archaeologists at the University of Utah and, to a lesser extent, the Univer­sity of Colorado at Boulder and UCLA, a relatively large number of Fremont sites were excavated and published in the mid- to late 1960s and early 1970s. This research led directly to two major synthetic efforts aimed at ad­dressing formal variability within the Fremont domain. The first, and somewhat lesser known of these works, is Ambler (1966) while the second, Marwitt (1970), has become the starting point for most discussions of Fre­mont variability to the present day (e.g., Cordell 1997; Fagan 1995; Madsen and Simms 1998). Both Ambler and Marwitt inflated the number of Fremont variants from the original two to five, which were labeled (fol- UTAH ARCHAEOLOGY 2002 lowing Marwitt [1970]), San Rafael, Uinta, Parowan, Sevier, and Great Salt Lake. The first two of these vari­ants were located on the Colorado Plateau, while the other three were in the eastern Great Basin. The vari­ants essentially subsumed all of the post-Late Archaic and pre-Numic hunting and gathering, horticultural manifestations-regardless of their degree of intensity- of the Colorado River and Virgin River regions, and in­cluded the Promontory culture within one of the vari­ants (i.e., Great Salt Lake). The variants were defined geographically on the basis of allegedly distinctive settlement patterns, archi­tecture, subsistence economy, and especially on shared artifact constellations (notably pottery). The totality of these variants was explicitly taken to be a taxonomic unity fully equivalent to any of the major Southwestern Formative traditions (i.e., Anasazi, Hohokom, and Mogollon). Unlike these traditions, however, which were originally defined as unitary areal traditions and then sub-divided into branches or variants, Fremont was never defined as a formal entity but only as the sum of its parts. Despite this serious taxonomic flaw, Marwitt's scheme was accepted by most Fremont scholars as rea­sonable. It was also apparent, however, even to its cre­ator, that the internal boundaries between the variants were largely guesstimates and the external boundaries between any of the variants and the "outside world" were gradational and quite porous. Indeed, many of the hallmarks used by Marwitt (1970) to define his variants extended across internal boundaries into other variants and even outside the Fremont realm. It also soon became clear that the putatively dis­tinctive artifact constellations within each variant were largely illusory. Though flaked stone, ground stone, and ceramic artifacts occurred in all of the Fremont sub­divisions, none of the constituent types within these durable artifact classes extended across the Fremont realm. In other words, it is almost impossible to find any type of durable artifact that occurs only in one variant, let alone among all of the Fremont, enabling its makers to be readily identified as Fremont. By the mid-1970s, Fremont research had veered off into a number of alleys, the navigation of which would produce some interesting insights into, but ultimately would shed very little light upon the Fremont phenom­enon. One line of investigation centered not on Fre­mont artifacts but, rather, on Fremont subsistence prac­tices and adaptations in various ecological settings. Madsen (1979) and Madsen and Lindsay (1977) legiti­mately criticized the trait-based, five-fold classification of Marwitt, then proceeded to substitute an equally shaky scheme based on alleged differences in adaptive strategies. Berry (1972) introduced a general systems approach to Fremont subsistence and settlement studies, provid­ing a useful perspective but one which scarcely served to supply any profound insights into the reality of Fre­mont as a taxonomic entity or cultural construct. The same might be said for Madsen and Berry's (1975) ex­cursion into occupation trajectories in the eastern Great Basin, in which it was suggested that a long hiatus separated Fremont from any possible local Archaic forebearers. Though this theme would ultimately be ex­panded (Berry 1982; Berry and Berry 1976) to include interruptions in the occupation of the entire Southwest, none of these admittedly interesting but now disproved notions served to elucidate much about the Fremont (or any of their Formative neighbors). Regrettably, at least in our view, a similar epitaph could be written for much of what has transpired since the initial dissatisfactions voiced with Ambler's (1966) or Marwitt's (1970) seminal classificatory efforts. Indeed, despite two decades of extensive excavations, several symposia, a host of aca­demic and "gray literature" publications, the identity of Fremont is as elusive as it has ever been. From about 1980 to the present, there has been a growing and questionable trend to attempt to charac­terize Fremont not in terms of what it is or was "cultur­ally," but rather in terms of what it did behaviorally (Anderson 1983; Hogan and Sebastian 1980; Holmer 1980; Madsen 1979,1982a, 1982b, 1989;0'Connelletal. 1982; Simms 1986,1990). This "behavioral" or "know-them- by-their-deeds" approach is alleged by its propo­nents to be potentially more productive than traditional culture-historical reconstructions based on trait lists or, SPECIAL DISCUSSION FEATURE: ADOVASIO ET AL. indeed, any other criteria. Born of a real frustration with the inadequacy of previous efforts to characterize Fremont and leavened by more than two decades of theoretical upheaval in anthropological archaeology at large, some scholars now insist that defining a Fremont culture per se is a point­less "dead-end" exercise with no possibility of success. Instead, they offer a new grail-the characterization of Fremont by identifying and understanding the range of behavioral diversity subsumed by that label. This ap­proach, logically, has led to a concomitant diversity in what might be said to define Fremont. As Madsen and Simms (1998:277) note: "[t]he dominant current view is that Fremont can be anything we want Fremont to be, and in several recent treatises, distinctions among re­searchers and research interests have been drawn as a way to accommodate eclecticism." While we are sympathetic to the idea that novel insights may be gained by looking at the Fremont phe­nomenon through a behavioral lens, we do not for a moment concur that no coherent Fremont entity existed in culture-historical terms. Additionally, though we are in complete agreement that there are no pan-Fremont durable material culture traits, universally consistent architectural features, settlement or land use patterns, and subsistence strategies (nor, indeed, anything else), there is one class of non-durable items which all of the so-called Fremont variants produced which is unique. Moreover, this class of items results from highly stan-dardized behaviors which do reveal a consistency of pattern evidently missing from all of the rest of what passes for Fremont. We refer, of course, to the basketry industry of the Fremont, whose composition, charac­teristics, uses, and production mechanics illuminate what Fremont may have been, where they came from, and perhaps where they went. BASKETRY, BASKETMAKING, AND BASKET MAKERS The term basketry as used here applies to several very different kinds of items. In addition to rigid and semi- rigid containers, matting, and bags, the term em­braces forms as diverse as fish traps, hats, and cradles. Matting consists of items that are two-dimensional or flat, whereas baskets and many of the other forms are three-dimensional. Bags are intermediate forms because they are essentially two-dimensional when they are empty and three-dimensional when filled. As Driver (1961:159) points out, all of these artifacts can be treated as a unit because the overall technique of manufacture is the same. Specifically, all forms of basketry are manu­ally assembled or woven without a frame or loom. Being woven, they are technically a class or variety of textile. Usually, however, that term is restricted to "cloth" fab­rics with continuous-plane surfaces produced on or with the aid of some sort of auxiliary apparatus. As is noted elsewhere (Adovasio 1977:1), it is gen­erally accepted that basketry is divisible into three sub­classes of weaves that are mutually exclusive and taxo-nomically distinct: twining, coiling, and plaiting. The potential number of technological types within each subclass is relatively great. The assignment of speci­mens to subclasses or types depends on the identifica­tion and quantification of shared attributes or clusters of attributes. Basketry attributes are features of manu­facture, and their sum total is the individual specimen. Any single attribute is the direct product of a specific set of manipulation techniques which, as noted above and as discussed below, are highly standardized or cul­turally prescribed within any basket-making popula­tion (cf. Douglas 1937,1939a, 1939b; Mason 1904). Many attributes are employed to classify basketry. Such diverse criteria as object shape, rigidity (or con­versely, flexibility) of the weave, and elements of deco­ration (to name but a few) have been used with widely varying degrees of success. We believe that subclasses or types of basketry should be defined exclusively by attributes of "wall" construction. For the purposes of this discussion, any example of basketry is assumed to have several distinct parts, the most significant of which is its "wall" or main body. In a basketry container, the wall is easily distinguished from other parts such as the rim, selvage (or edge), and the center or point of starting. In other forms, however, 10 UTAH ARCHAEOLOGY 2002 this distinction may become arbitrary. In mats and other flat or atypical forms, the "wall" is the principal or major portion of the item and subsumes virtually everything that is not clearly "edge" or "center." The wall or the main body of a specimen of bas­ketry can be constructed by only three basic manipula­tive procedures or weaves, which correspond to the three major basketry subclasses. Specifically, a basket wall can be twined, coiled, or plaited or, very rarely, produced by some combination of these techniques. Although the basket wall is by no means the only im­portant attribute of basketry, it is the basis of most mod­ern analytical taxonomies. Basketmaking is a learned behavior. Moreover, it is a nonuniversal craft that is normally but not exclusively the province of women (Driver 1961; Mason 1904). Basketmaking in aboriginal situations may be a very important aspect of local technology (see Andrews and Adovasio 1980; Andrews et al. 1986), or it may be rel­egated to the "bottom of the list" of "things to do or make." In either case, the basket maker's society main­tains- consciously or otherwise-a set of relatively fixed standards of what is and is not locally "accept­able" basketry. These standards, which are manifested in the finished specimen (for the user population), and attributes (for the analyst), are normally passed to, and inculcated into novice basket makers at a very early age. Thereafter, they are reinforced by the novice's men­tor, role models, immediate family, extended family, or some other such "standards of reference." As with many crafts normally learned at a young age in traditional, non-western societies, basketmaking is oftentimes a highly conservative technological mi­lieu within which change or innovation in the broadest sense of the term is usually minimal and almost always slow. Very rapid "turnovers" in preferred manufactur­ing techniques, finishing methods, decorative modes, forms, or configurations (which in turn reflect "turn­over" in basketmaking standards) are exceedingly rare. Indeed, except in catastrophic contact situations nor­mally involving a so-called traditional group and an in­dustrialized "modern" western society, rapid changes in basketry technology within the same culture are vir­tually undocumented ethnographically and certainly prehistorically. Indeed, as will be shown later in this paper, where such rapid changes do occur archaeologically, they almost always reflect population replacement. It is not our intention to imply that change in major or minor attributes does not occur within the basketry of any given group. Rather, we suggest that those modi­fications which do occur are generally undramatic and seldom involve more than a small percentage of the total constellation of construction attributes for any given basketry wall type. Because of the manner in which knowledge about basketmaking is normally imparted from an older to an oftentimes much younger weaver of the same local kin group, the closest resemblances in the products of any two definable basketry manufacturing entities are those that reflect the teacher-student relationship. Although the initial attempts of the "novice" may at first appear to be but the crudest approximations of the "teacher's" work, there normally will be a certain resemblance even at this rudimentary level. As the novice gains greater skill, the degree of similarity to the "model" increases until the novice produces a culturally "acceptable" fac­simile. Unfortunately-or mercifully, depending on one's patience and perspective-space precludes a detailed discussion of the myriad processes and manipulations involved in the production of a "mixed" assemblage of twined, coiled, or plaited baskets. An example of the manufacturing process leading to a single coiled bas­ket, however, perhaps would sufficiently illustrate that the complexity and number of individual choices on the part of the weaver exceeds by far those experienced in the production of any stone tool, or indeed, any ce­ramic vessel. To produce one coiled vessel, the weaver must determine in advance the overall shape and size of the desired piece from a potential inventory of forms which literally is constrained only by the limitations inherent in the coiling technique itself. Next, and at the proper time of year, the weaver must select the appropriate kind and quantity of raw materials for the selected ves- SPECIAL DISCUSSION FEATURE: ADOVASIO ET AL. 11 sel form. While the inventory of potential raw materials in the Great Basin is relatively large, it has been demon­strated that only a small percentage of available plants was actually used for basketry manufacture in any sub-region of the Great Basin (Adovasio 1986a:203). The selection process for individual baskets may well involve different plant sources of different physi­cal dimensions, colors, and properties for rods, stitches, bundles, or decorative embellishments. Non-plant ma­terials such as feathers may also be required for the selected form. After collection, the plant materials are sorted, soaked, or otherwise pretreated. They may also be deco­rticated, longitudinally split, or in the case of bundles, retted and twisted or even combined with other raw materials. While the desired shape of the vessel in some ways controls or dictates the form of the work surface (i.e., the vessel surface into which the awl is inserted to make a path for the next stitch), it must be remembered that either concave or convex work surfaces may be evi­denced in virtually any vessel form. The center or point of initiation of the coiled basket may be one of at least four basic varieties (i.e., normal, oval, plaited, or overhand knot), it may be reinforced with accessory stitches or unreinforced, and it may or may not have a central aperture. The stitching or work direction may be right-to-left or left-to-right. The basket wall of the vessel may be composed of individual coils that are closely spaced (close coiling) or physically separated (open coiling). There is also considerable choice involved in the selection of foun­dation material, the arrangement of foundation elements, and the type of stitch employed in their construction. For example, within the four major coiling foundation varieties (i.e., single element-rod, single element-bundle, multiple element horizontal, or multiple element stacked), over 100 varieties have been documented ethnographi­cally and archaeologically (cf. Adovasio 1977; Mason 1904; Morris and Burgh 1941). Stitches may be simple or intricate, interlocking or non-interlocking, and may encircle and/or pierce the foundation. Stitches also may be accidentally or intentionally split on either one or both surfaces. The addition of new stitches via splicing involves dozens of possible permutations, as does the choice of designs, the execution of design mechanics, and, finally, the type and method of execution selected for the rim finish. For any of this to make sense in the present con­text, it must be stressed that every aspect of this very complex operation is, to a very large degree, controlled by or constrained within a set of norms that is passed en bloc to the weaver by his or her instructor(s). The numerous choices inherent in the operation, from the collection and preparation of raw materials through the clipping of the very last rim stitch, are part-and-parcel of a learned behavior that is directed toward a very specific, well-defined end: the coiled vessel proposed several paragraphs above. Obviously, there are variations in the exact meth­ods of transfer or transmission of information on basketmaking from "master" to "novice" in aboriginal North American groups. Nonetheless, the existence of recognizable standards of manufacture, for all intents and purposes, is a universal among all basket-making populations. Indeed, at the turn of the present century, Mason noted that in basketry manufacture, "the form, technique and intricate patterns must all be fixed in the imagination before the maker takes the first step" (Ma­son 1900:57; emphasis added). In fact, so "fixed" are these "forms, techniques and intricate patterns" that despite the complexities intro­duced by conscious or unconscious borrowing, trade, alien spouse acquisition, and/or the assimilation or cap­ture of foreign or non-local weavers (see Mason 1904), it is possible for a student of ethnographic basketry to distinguish with relative ease the work of a Kawaiisu from that of a Kwakiutl or the products of a Hopi from those of a Hupa. Indeed, it is even possible to distin­guish a vessel made by weavers of one group following the exact specifications and design of another group, as in the well-known case of Navajo "wedding trays" which, because of onerous ritual prohibitions, are now produced on order by Ute weavers. Though the basic shape and design of these trays is clearly "Navajo," all of the construction mechanics-including foundations, 12 UTAH ARCHAEOLOGY 2002 stitching, and splices-are recognizably Ute. An early Navajo-made wedding basket may bear a superficial re­semblance to a Ute copy, but they are readily distin­guishable when set side-by-side. This is not to suggest that there is a one-to-one relationship between specific basket wall types alone and particular American Indian ethnic groups. The con­stellation of basket wall types as well as other construc­tion attributes habitually used by any one group can be distinguished, however, from those employed by any other group if adequate and representative examples exist for comparison from both groups. Despite almost wistful protestations to the contrary, this is a hard fact recognized by scholars of perishable technology for nearly 100 years (see Barrett 1908; Dawson and Deetz 1965; Dixon 1902; Douglas 1937,1939a, 1939b; Driver 1939, 1961; Driver and Massey 1957; Drucker 1937; DuBois 1935; Elsasser 1978; Essene 1942; Gifford and Kroeber 1937; Kelly 1930; Kroeber 1922,1925; Mason 1904;O'Neale 1930,1932; Voegelin 1942). Having elaborated on the potential of basketry analysis in helping to define prehistoric cultural bound­aries (both temporal and spatial), it is now appropriate to return to discuss the cultural significance of similar­ity and dissimilarity in basketry assemblages by exam­ining some concrete examples. In the following pages, the technical characteris­tics, distribution, origins, and demise of Fremont bas­ketry are discussed, and comparisons are offered with earlier, contemporary, and later basketry assemblages from the same area. It should be noted that the senior author has examined virtually every piece of Fremont basketry in existence, in both public and private collec­tions, and it is upon this analysis that the following comments are predicated. TECHNICAL CHARACERISTICS Two of the three major subclasses of basket weaves are represented in the Fremont basketry assemblage: coiling and twining. The third subclass, plaiting, is wholly absent. Over the course of the past 30 years, the senior author has examined all known examples of Fremont coiling and twining. The salient technical features noted for these items are presented below by subclass. (Those unfamiliar with the descriptive terminology employed herein are advised to consult Adovasio [1977].) Coiling Coiling is the numerically dominant subclass of Fremont basketry and is represented at all Fremont sites where basketry has been preserved. All extant examples of Fremont coiling were analyzed, where feasible, for the following attributes: 1. Basket wall (foundation) technique 2. Stitch type 3. Method of starting 4. Work direction 5. Work surface 6. Rim finish 7. Splice type 8. Decorative patterns and mechanics of decoration 9. Form 10. Wear patterns-function 11. Material The results of the attribute analysis are presented be­low. Basket Wall (Foundation) Technique. Eight bas­ket wall or foundation techniques are represented in Fremont coiling (Table 1). The frequency of these tech­niques by site is presented in Table 2. As indicated, four foundation types (i.e., close coiling, half rod and bundle stacked foundation; close coiling, half rod and welt stacked foundation; close coiling whole rod founda­tion; and close coiling three rod bunched foundation) account collectively for 95.74 percent of the sample. Of these, one technique-close coiling, half rod and bundle stacked foundation-accounts for 50 percent of the entire sample. This particular foundation is represented at all but two Fremont sites and appears to be the pre­ferred or standard Fremont coiling technique (see Adovasio 1970a, 1970b, 1971,1974). The four remaining coiling foundations are statistically insignificant and, SPECIAL DISCUSSION FEATURE: ADOVASIO ET AL. 13 Table 1. Coiled Basketry Types, Frequency, and Structural Schematics for Specimens in the Fremont Range, basketry Type frequency (% c Structural Schemati Close Coiling, Whole Rod Foundation, Interlocking Stitch 28.4 Close Coiling, Half Rod and Bundle Stacked, Non-Interlocking Stitch 50.5 ffiP Close Coiling, Whole Rod and Welt Stacked, Non-Interlocking Stitch 11.2 Close Coiling, Three Rod Bunched, Non-Interlocking Stitch 5.3 Close Coiling, Bundle Foundation, Non-Interlocking Stitch 1.4 Close Coiling, Rod-in-Bundle, Non- Interlocking Stitch Close Coiling, Two Rod and Bundle Bunched, Non-Interlocking Stitch Open Coiling, Whole Rod, Intricate Interlocking Stitch 0.7 1.0 1.4 14 UTAH ARCHAEOLOGY 2002 Table 2. Fremont Coiling Foundation Types by Site Site Hogup Cave Promontory Caves Evans Mound Median Village Paragonah Caldwell Village Fremont River Area Yampa Canyon Old Woman Etna Cave O'Malley Shelter Little Lost River Cave No. 1 Pence Duerig Cave Jack Knife Cave Spring Creek Cave Daugherty Cave Clydes Cavern Swallow Shelter Total tJ odan K &M .5 y "3 CO U OJ Close Bund 9 7 15 1(7) P 27 11 25 2 22 2 1 5 - - 2 9 6 144 -j odan tf Half bu Tj ilin ;k& rO9 ^s Close Welt, 4 - 21 - - - P - - 1 2 3 - 1 - - 32 Rod CD Who do c "Oo Close 1 5 20 - 18 4 31 - - 1 - 1 81 Coiling Foundation Type Thret M ilin Uo -QaJ Close Buncl 5 - - - - - - 2 - - 8 15 i> Bund ch C "Uc Close - - - - 2 - - _ - - 2 4 ^ Bund i= Rodi e£ ilin Uc Close -- - - - - ! [ - - - 2 T J od an & 0 d5 -s -5 P. rO3 C^Q U o> Close Bundl - - - - - - - 3 - - - - 3 Rod u J E bS r3 ' o U Open - - - - - - - 1 - 1 - - 2 - 4 Total 19 12 56 1(7) P 47 15 56 3 27 2 5 7 3 1 3 11 17 285 SPECIAL DISCUSSION FEATURE: ADOVASIO ET AL. 15 as will be shown below, are probably intrusive. Stitch Type. Five types of stitches occur in Fre­mont coiling. These include interlocking, noninterlocking, split intentionally on the non work surface, split on both surfaces, and intricate interlock­ing. Of these, the most common are noninterlocking, split intentionally on the nonwork surface, and inter­locking. The latter stitch type is restricted entirely to whole rod foundation basketry that is sewn with no other type of stitch. Methods of Starting. All extant Fremont coiled bas­kets have been initiated with a normal or continuous coil center (Table 3). Direction of Work. In the vast majority of Fremont coiled baskets (80 percent), the sewing proceeds from right to left, though the reverse technique is not un­known. Work Surface. All Fremont trays are worked on the concave surface, as are shallow bowls, whereas deeper bowls and carrying baskets are worked on the convex surface. Rim Finish. Most Fremont coiled baskets are fin­ished with self rims, though false braid rims either in a 1/ 1 or 2/2 herringbone do occur occasionally (see Table 3). Splice Type. Marked preferences for specific splice types are readily discernible in Fremont coiling. In all instances, the preferred splicing techniques are identi­cal to those employed by preceding Desert Archaic populations from the same area. Dominant types in­clude fag ends and moving ends bound under, fag ends clipped short and moving ends bound under, and less commonly, fag ends and moving ends clipped short (see Table 3). Decorative Patterns and Mechanics. Only two baskets in the entire sample are decorated in any way. These include a bowl fragment with a chevron design produced by sewing feathers onto the convex surface and a tray fragment with a single circuit of stitches which have been dyed red. Form. The Fremont produced a wide range of ves­sel forms including very shallow circular trays, shallow to moderately deep globular bowls, and deep circular carrying baskets. Of these, the nearly flat tray is the most frequently encountered form. Wear Patterns-Function. Analysis of wear patterns on Fremont coiling indicates that virtually 100% of the shallow trays were employed in parching, whereas the other forms seem to have been used for general storage and transportation. No indications of cooking in bas­kets are apparent. As noted elsewhere (see Adovasio 1970a, 1970b), half rod and bundle, close coiled baskets are naturally watertight due to the expansion of the bundle when damp; hence, the use of containers pro­duced via this technique for water storage can be safely inferred. Material. Throughout the range of the Fremont culture, the preferred material both for rods and stitch­ing in the manufacture of coiled basketry was Salix. Bundles were generally composed of Apocynum or Asclepias or, more rarely, of Juniperus or Yucca. Twining Basketry produced via twining techniques is rela­tively uncommon in most Fremont sites and frequently is not represented at all. All extant Fremont twining was analyzed for the following attributes: 1. Number and composition of warps engaged at each weft crossing 2. Number and composition of wefts 3. Spacing of the weft rows (open or close) 4. Twist of the weft rows (S or Z) 5. Method of starting 6. Insertion of new elements 7. Selvages 8. Form 9. Wear patterns-function 10. Decorative patterns and mechanics of decoration 11. Material The results of this attribute analysis are presented be­low. Construction Techniques. Seven basic twining tech­niques were employed by Fremont weavers (Table 4). The incidence of these techniques by site is presented 16 UTAH ARCHAEOLOGY 2002 Table 3. Structural Schematics of Additional Fremont Coiling Techniques. Name Schematic Normal (Continuous Coil) Center. (Shown on a Two Rod and Bundle Bunched Foundation.) Tapered Self Rim. (Shown on a Two Rod and Bundle Bunched Foundation.) False Braid (1/1 Interval) Rim. (Shown on a Two Rod and Bundle Bunched Foundation.) Splice with the moving end and the fag ends bound under. MOVING END Splice with the moving end bound under and the fag end clipped short. MOVING END Splice with the moving and fag ends clipped short. MOVING EN0 SPECIAL DISCUSSION FEATURE: ADOVASIO ET AL. 17 in Table 5. Only one technique, open diagonal twining with Z-twist wefts, occurs with any frequency, and then only at a single site. The remaining techniques occur in very limited numbers, and only one technique, open diagonal twining with S-twist wefts, occurs in as many as three sites. The greatest variety in twining is appar­ent in the assemblage from Yampa Canyon, where four techniques occur, followed by Hogup Cave and the Prom­ontory caves, which are represented by three techniques each. Warps are generally single elements in all types of simple twining and paired elements in all instances of diagonal twining. Wefts are inevitably paired in all types of twining (no examples of trebled or other multiple weft patterns have ever been found). Cordage is commonly utilized for wefts in the construction of matting. Though both S- and Z-twist wefts occur in Fremont twining, with notably marked preferences that vary from one site to another, S-twist generally predominates in the as­semblage. Space does not permit discussion of other con­struction details such as method of starting, insertion of new elements, and the like. For these particulars, the reader is encouraged to consult Steward (1937) and Burgh and Scoggin (1948). However, some comments on selvages are warranted. Fremont selvages tend to be extremely varied; no one side or edge finish is clearly in the majority. At most sites, warps are simply truncated after the final weft row or folded back into the body of the fabric and then truncated. More elaborate end selvages occur in the Promontory caves' assemblages; these include a vari­ety of reinforced edges sewn with cordage (see Stew­ard 1937). Side selvages on mats invariably have weft rows folded down parallel to the lateral margins and sewn back to form the next weft row. Form, Wear Patterns, and Function. The majority of Fremont twining is in the form of matting or, much more rarely, flexible bags. Rigid twined containers are virtually unknown. No diagnostic wear patterns are ap­parent on any type of twining, though frequent indica­tions of mending, notably in the bags, attest to heavy use and subsequent re-use. Decorative Patterns and Mechanics of Decora­tion. As with Fremont coiling, the use of any decorative embellishment, with the exception of modified selvages, is wholly lacking in the twining industry. Material. Warps in Fremont twined matting are generally made of Scirpus americanus, or more rarely, Phragmites communis, Rhus trilobata, or Salix. Wefts are usually formed of Juniperus utahensis or, in the case of cordage wefts, ALSclepias, Apocynum, or Artemisia. Salix is likewise used occasionally for wefts. In the pro­duction of bags, Scirpus again is the favored material for both wefts and warps. DISTRIBUTION, CHRONOLOGY, AND INTERNAL CORRELATIONS Distribution Typical Fremont coiled basketry is represented in all five of the Fremont regional variants defined in Utah (see Marwitt 1970) as well as in southeastern Nevada and northwestern Colorado. Beyond the "normal" lim­its of the Fremont culture proper, Fremont coiling has been recovered in southern Idaho and southwestern Wyoming. As reported elsewhere (Adovasio 1972), Fre­mont coiling is virtually never encountered south of the Colorado or Virgin Rivers, nor is it known in northeast­ern Nevada. Fremont twining is severely limited in oc­currence and is generally confined to northern Utah and northwestern Colorado. Although it is reasonable to conclude that twining was manufactured throughout the range of the Fremont, evidence to that effect is lack­ing. Chronology Coiled basketry was produced throughout the en­tire time span of the Fremont culture; that is, from ca. A.D. 400 to ca. A.D. 1300. The industry disappeared or was replaced by intrusive industries (see below) differ­entially, becoming extinct in the Uinta area ca. A.D. 950 and in other areas by the end of the thirteenth century. Presumably, twining was also produced over this time span, at least in the northern sections of the Fremont 18 UTAH ARCHAEOLOGY 2002 Table 4. Twining Types, Frequency, and Structural Schematics for Specimens in the Fremont Range. Type Frequency (%) Structural Schematic Close Simple Twining, S-Twist Wefts 10.5 Open Simple Twining S-Twist Wefts Close Simple Twining Z-Twist Wefts unknown Open Simple Twining Z-Twist Wefts 14.0 Close Diagonal Twining S-Twist Wefts 7.0 Open Diagonal Twining S-Twist Wefts 5.4 Open Diagonal Twining, Z-Twist Wefts 54.4 Note: Close Simple Twining, Z-Twist Weft is present, but the exact number of specimens is unknown. SPECIAL DISCUSSION FEATURE: ADOVASIO ET AL. 19 Table 5. Fremont Twining Types by Site Site Hogup Cave Promontory Caves Evans Mound Median Village Paragonah Caldwell Village Fremont River Area Yampa Canyon Old Woman Etna Cave O'Malley Shelter Little Lost River Cave No. 1 Pence Duerig Cave Jack Knife Cave Spring Creek Cave Daugherty Cave Clydes Cavern Swallow Shelter Total 1 H .1 ^ to "S o H U to - - - - - - 4 2 - - - - - - - - - - 6 Open Simple Twining, S-Twist Weft 1 - - - - - - - - 4 - - - - - - - - 5 Close Diagonal Twining, S-Twist Weft 2 2 - - - - - P - - - - - - - - - 4+ Twining Type Open Diagonal Twining, S-Twist Weft 1 i - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - 3 Close Simple Twining, Z-Twist Weft - - - - - - - P - - - - - - - - - P Open Simple Twining, Z-Twist Weft - 7 - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - 8 Open Diagonal Twining, Z-Twist Weft - 31 - - - - - P - - - - - - - - - 31+ Total 4 41 - - - - 5 2+ - 5 - _ - • - - - - - 57 Note: P=presence of technique, but precise quantity unknown. 20 UTAH ARCHAEOLOGY 2002 range. Outside the Fremont "range" proper, notably in southern Idaho and Wyoming, Fremont-style basketry continued to be produced, and/or used after the decline of the industry in the eastern Great Basin and on the Colorado Plateau (Adovasio et al. 1982). The implica­tions of this persistence are discussed more fully be­low. Certain developmental trends are discernible over the 900-year period during which Fremont coiled bas­ketry was produced. Notable among these are the gradual shift from mixed to almost uniformly right-to-left work direction, the increasing preference for half rod and bundle foundation over all others, and the in­creasing tendency to employ noninterlocking or inten­tionally split stitches on the nonwork surface. As is discussed further below (see External Corre­lations), false braid rims appear on a few coiled baskets late in the Fremont sequence in the Parowan Valley. As these have no local Archaic forerunners, they are pre­sumed to be one of the few Anasazi construction at­tributes which spread, perhaps, by spouse acquisition, north of the Colorado and Virgin Rivers. At present, it is not possible to delineate any trends that may have been operative in the twining industry. INTERNAL CORRELATIONS Though not pronounced, regional preferences defi­nitely existed among the various populations of Fre­mont basket makers. As Table 1 indicates, whole rod foundation coiling was somewhat more common in the Uinta Basin and the Parowan Valley than elsewhere. Half rod and welt stacked foundation likewise enjoyed differential popularity, again being common in the Parowan Valley and somewhat scarce, or absent, in other Fremont regional centers. Preferences for specific stitch types are also dis­cernible. Interlocking stitches are generally more com­mon in the northern Fremont variants, whereas noninterlocking stitches are clearly favored in the south, particularly in the Parowan Valley. The uneven distribution of S- and Z-twist wefts in the Fremont twining industry, as well as the generally northern distribution of twining, may also reflect re­gional specialization, though this conclusion is tenu­ous at best. EXTERNAL CORRELATIONS The basic affinities of Fremont basketry, both twined and coiled, are to earlier Archaic industries from the same area. All of the basic Fremont coiling attributes, including preferred foundations, stitch types, rim fin­ishes, methods of starting, work directions, forms, ma­terial preferences, and particularly splice types, are du­plicated in earlier Archaic assemblages from Utah. Simi­larly, all of the twining attributes may be observed in Archaic assemblages from the eastern Great Basin (Adovasio 1970a, 1970b, 1971, 1974, 1980a, 1980b, 1986a, 1986b). Although the persistence of one or another of the aforementioned technical attributes from Late Archaic into Fremont times could be dismissed as fortuitous, their persistence in toto or as an integral constellation constitutes a powerful body of evidence that Fremont basketry and its makers are derived part and parcel and directly out of local Archaic industries and populations. Moreover, this technology is utterly dissimilar to bas­ketry industries elsewhere in the Great Basin, the South­west, and with one interesting and late exception, the Idaho Plateau. In short, whoever the ancestors of the Fremont were and whenever they entered the eastern Great Basin and contiguous Colorado Plateau, their bas­ketry was genetically local in origin and not remotely derivable from any other source. It should be stressed that it is completely immate­rial whether there was an occupational hiatus between the end of the Late Archaic in the eastern Great Basin and the beginnings of Fremont (Aikens 1976; Madsen 1979; Madsen and Berry 1975). If the eastern Great Ba­sin was uninhabited briefly or for a long interval prior to the crystallization of the Fremont (which, as noted above, few, if any, now believe), then the first Formative SPECIAL DISCUSSION FEATURE: ADOVASIO ET AL. 21 "colonists" in the area "returned" with a basketry tech­nology exactly the same as that present in the area before the alleged hiatus. In stark contrast to the Fremont-Late Archaic bas­ketry "connection" is the general lack of technical ties to any later or contemporary industries. Upon cursory examination, one might conclude as Gunnerson (1969) has, that there is a close relationship between Fremont and Anasazi basketry. In point of fact, there is virtually no relationship between the perishable fiber industries of the Anasazi and Fremont. Contemporary Anasazi coiling techniques include numerous varieties of both close and open stitch types as well as multiple stitch and wrap permutations (Morris and Burgh 1941) never found among the Fremont. Additionally, there is a much greater range of foundation combinations than those employed by the Fremont. The standard Basketmaker foundation technique, two rod and bundle bunched, with non-interlocking stitches, never appears in Fre­mont sites, despite Gunnerson's (1969) allusions to the contrary; nor do any of the standard PI-PIII techniques ever appear in any frequency (Morris and Burgh 1941) in any part of the Fremont range. Unlike the Fremont, the Basketmaker-Anasazi weavers made extensive use of false braid rims, a variety of decoration devices, and employed splice types wholly unlike those to the north. Work direction is always right-to-left and favored forms include many types completely unknown in the Fre­mont area. Morever, as the evidence from Sand Dune, Dust Devil, and Cowboy Caves (Jennings 1980; Lindsay 1986) indicates, the antiquity of the basic Basketmaker-Anasazi coiling techniques extends nearly as far as the basic Fremont varieties, thus indicating a separation of the two textile making areas for a very long period (Adovasio 1970a, 1972,1974,1975,1980a, 1980b, 1986b). This sepa­ration is reinforced by the total absence of Basketmaker- Anasazi style twining or plaiting in the Fremont range throughout the co-existence of those two traditions. While it is true that an occasional single specimen of probable Basketmaker-Anasazi coiling does occa­sionally appear in the southern periphery of the Fre­mont area (notably in the Parowan Valley), only one Fremont specimen has ever been noted in any collec­tion from the Anasazi area, despite the thousands re­covered. Similarly, though as noted above, false braided Anasazi rim finishes are occasionally evidenced in Parowan Valley Fremont coiling, they occur on other­wise Fremont specimens with no other Anasazi con­struction attributes. This parallels the occasional oc­currence of half or whole rod and bundle stacked foun­dation baskets among the Virgin Branch Anasazi that appear to be badly executed and readily recognizable local copies of Fremont prototypes. In short, the evidence derived from detailed com­parative analysis of Fremont and Anasazi textiles indi­cates that not only are the two industries wholly unre­lated, but also that they have been for a very long time. Nor is there a relationship between Fremont bas­ketry and that of any of the ethnographic cultures that claim to be derived from them. This specifically includes the Zuni and the Hopi as well as the Rio Grande Pueblos of Nambe, Zia, and Laguna. The basketry known from all of these groups has nothing in common with Fre­mont beyond the fact that all are manufactured via some kind of coiling (Tanner 1983). Moreover, it is clear that the ethnographic basketry of the above-listed culture groups, especially the Hopi and the Zuni, derive from ancient Anasazi roots or a mixed Anasazi/Mogollon substrate (Adovasio and Andrews 1985;Teiwes 1996). The foregoing underscores the fact that no textile complex boundary is more sharply defined that the one separating the Fremont and the Anasazi. The sharp­ness of this boundary, incidentally, also holds for the descendants of both groups. The boundary to the west in the general direction of the Lovelock culture heart­land is almost equally well defined with virtually no sharing of technology whatsoever (Grosscup 1960; Heizer and Napton 1970; Hester 1973). As noted earlier, the situation to the north of the traditionally defined Fremont area is somewhat more ambiguous because early basketry is generally lacking, rare, or poorly dated. A few specimens of decidedly Fremont affinities have been recovered from late con­texts in both the Idaho Plateau and Wyoming (Adovasio 1970,1974; Adovasio etal. 1982). Butler (1981,1983, 22 UTAH ARCHAEOLOGY 2002 1986) suggests that these pieces demonstrate the exist­ence of a Fremont-Shoshoni continuum and that, in ef­fect, the basketry industry of at least some of the north­ern Fremont was directly ancestral to the basketry of the Numic speakers. Again, contrary to Butler's obser­vations, connections between Fremont and Numic bas­ketry industries are, in a word, nil. As detailed at length in Adovasio and Pedler (1994:119-121), the ethnographic basketry of Great Ba­sin populations, whether Numic or non-Numic-speak-ing (e.g., Washo), has been the subject of intense schol­arly interest since the end of the last century (cf. Barret 1917; Fowler and Matley 1979; Kelly 1932,1964;Lowie 1909,1924; Mason 1885; Merriam 1902-1942; Park 1933- 1940; Steward 1934, 1941, 1943; Stewart 1941, 1942; Zigmond 1978). While there is no volume-length com­pendium of ethnographic or prehistoric Numic basketry technology per se, Fowler and Dawson (1986) provide an excellent synopsis of the historic Numic basketry industries. Careful perusal of this highly detailed work and the others cited above clearly indicates that certain basketry types (sensu stricto), forms (i.e., configura­tions), and in some cases decorative embellishments are distinctively Numic and, moreover, form a coherent and ethnically sensitive body of material culture. With the exception of the non-Numic Washo and perhaps the Ute, the basketry technology of the ethno­graphic Great Basin is dominated by twining, especially during the early Historic period, when coiling was ei­ther rare or nonexistent (Fowler and Dawson 1986). A minimum of 14 twined forms were produced by the Numic speakers of the Great Basin and immediately contigu­ous areas. Several of these forms occur in all or most of the basketry inventories of the various Numic groups (cf. Fowler and Dawson 1986:Table 2). These pan-Numic or, if we may be permitted the excess, pene-pan-Numic items include: open-twined burden baskets, twined cradles, open-twined winnowing/parching trays (except among the Ute), paddle-shaped twined seed beaters (except among the Plateau Bannock), close-twined wa­ter bottles (except among the Ute), and close-twined hats (except among the California-influenced Kawaiisu). Of these, the ubiquitousness of the twined paddle-shaped seed beater and deep triangular winnowing/ parching tray are, as is correctly stressed by Bettinger and Baumhoff (1982:496-497), the perishable hallmarks of the ethnographic Numic speakers. Both simple and diagonal (twill) twining are repre­sented in the Numic perishable inventory, usually though not exclusively with S-twisted weft rows. Though there is some variation from group to group in terms of starts, over-and-under selvages, and specific vessel configuration, the twined products of the ethnographic Numic speakers are remarkably similar and "nearly uni­form in forms, weaves, functions, and nomenclature" (Fowler and Dawson 1986:728). More variation exists among ethnographic Numic coiling but, as has been noted by several researchers (Adovasio 1986a; Andrews et al. 1986; Fowler and Dawson 1986; Fowler and Matley 1979), Numic coiled vessels are unique in their attributes and forms. Fowler and Dawson (1986: Table 2) distinguish a minimum of 10 basic Numic coiling forms, none of which occur among all Numic speaking populations. Senior author Adovasio ([with Andrews] 1986b) has subdivided many of these basic forms into variants based on shape and finishing attributes, but again, none of these variants are as widely distributed as the major twining forms. Of the major coiling forms, the most common are winnowing/parching trays, boiling baskets, and eating bowls with a relatively circumscribed range of varia­tion. Numic coiling includes one rod (whole or halved), stacked (usually two rod), and bunched (three rod, with rods of equal size or the apex rod of a smaller diameter) foundation types as its most common components, with rare examples of other types such as three or four rod stacked and bundle foundations. Stitches are usually noninterlocking, although some work surfaces with in­tentionally split stitches do occur. Work surfaces are normally convex, and right-to-left work direction pre­dominates. Method of starting is usually continuous coil and rims are of the self type. Splice types are simple but distinctive, with moving ends often bound under the apex rod in bunched and stacked foundation types and fag ends concealed and carried in the coil. Though not nearly so standardized as their twining, Numic coil- SPECIAL DISCUSSION FEATURE: ADOVASIO ET AL. 23 ing is individually and collectively distinctive. While examples of ethnographic twining and/or coiling are known from all geographic areas and subar-eas historically occupied by Numic speaking groups, archaeological examples of basketry wares which may be confidently attributed to Numic speakers have a much more circumscribed distribution because of preserva­tion factors. Bettinger and Baumhoff (1982:496-497) and Adovasio ([with Andrews] 1986b:50-86) summarize the occurrence of certain twined and coiled forms that are almost certainly of prehistoric Numic ascription. Twined seed beaters virtually identical to their ethnographic counterparts are reported from archaeological contexts in Death Valley (Wallace and Taylor 1955), the Mojave Desert (Campbell 1931), and the Coso Range (Panlaqui 1974), while triangular twined winnowing/parching trays are known from Colville Rock Shelter in the Death Val­ley area (Baumhoff 1953:193-194; Meighan 1953:177- 178). More recently, a spectacular example of a triangu­lar winnowing tray was recovered from the uppermost portal deposits at Danger Cave, Utah (Andrews and Adovasio 1988). In all cases, these specimens occur in post-A.D. 1000 contexts. Between these two geographic extremes, archaeological basketry specimens of clear Numic affinity are known from Dirty Shame Rockshelter on the extreme northern edge of the Great Basin (Adovasio et al. 1986) and a series of sites in the Moni­tor Valley, central Nevada (Thomas 1979,1983). Dirty Shame Rockshelter is located on the Owyhee Upland in extreme southeastern Oregon. The site lies on the northern end of the ethnographic range of the Numic speakers and contains archaeological materials spanning the period from ca. 7500 B.C. to A.D. 1600 (Adovasio et al. 1977; Aikens, Cole, and Stuckenrath 1977; Andrews et al. 1986; Grayson 1977; Hall 1977; Hanes 1977; Kittleman 1977). The excavations at Dirty Shame Rockshelter produced in excess of 3,000 vegetal artifacts that have been allocated to five classes includ­ing basketry, cordage, sandals, quids, and miscellaneous fiber perishables. Although perishables from all five classes were recovered from virtually all of the site's six stratigraphic zones, we are concerned here principally with a synopsis of the materials from Zone I, which produced dates ranging from A.D. 545 * 70 to A.D. 1585 ±80. The perishable assemblage from Zone I includes representatives of four of the site's 12 cordage types and all but two of the site's 10 basketry types (see Andrews et al. [1986] for complete details.) These spe­cifically include cordage Type I: One ply, Z-spun (3 speci­mens); Type II: One ply, S-spun (7 specimens); Type III: Two ply, S-spun, Z-twist (27 specimens); and Type IV: Two ply, Z-spun, S-twist (19 specimens). The basketry assemblage includes Type I: Close simple twining, Z-twist weft (2 specimens); Type II: Open simple twining, Z-twist weft (2 specimens); Type III: Close diagonal twining, Z-twist weft (2 specimens); Type IV: Open di­agonal twining, Z-twist weft (4 specimens); Type VI: Close diagonal twining, S-twist weft (1 specimen); Type VIII: Close coiling, whole rod foundation, interlocking stitch (1 specimen); Type IX: Close coiling, two rod and welt bunched foundation, interlocking stitch (1 speci­men); and Type X: Close coiling, half rod foundation, interlocking stitch (1 specimen). Interestingly, none of the site's major sandal types is represented in Zone 1. A variety of miscellaneous perishables are also represented in Zone I, but space precludes any discussion of them here. Although all four of the Zone I cordage types are represented virtually throughout the Dirty Shame se­quence, this is not the case with the basketry types. Basketry Types I, II, III, IV, and VI do occur earlier in the occupational sequence, but the three coiling types (Types VIII-X) do not. We believe that the coiling types are Numic in as­cription and signal the arrival of the Northern Numic speakers (probably in the "person" of the Northern Paiute) to the study area. Comparative analysis of the meager Dirty Shame coiling assemblage indicates that two of the coiling foundations, whole (Type VIII) and half rod (Type X), though usually with non-interlocking stitches in contrast to the prehistoric types, are reliably reported for various populations of northern Numic speakers (see Kelly 1932; Steward 1934, 1941:241, 1943:372; Stewart 1941,1942; Wheat 1967). Furthermore, other details of construction of the Dirty Shame coiling 24 UTAH ARCHAEOLOGY 2002 such as work direction, preparation of raw materials, and execution of splices conform and correspond to the same attributes in ethnographic Northern Paiute coil­ing. Although it is remotely possible that the constella­tion of coiling attributes represented in the Zone I Dirty Shame sample could be the product of some other lin­guistic and/or ethnic entity, we reject this unlikely pos­sibility in the total absence of any supporting data for it. Herein, it should be stressed that all of the other Zone I basketry types and most of their minor attributes of construction also are reported for one or another Northern Numic group, as are the four Zone I cordage types. We do not believe, however, that the non-coiling basketry evidence is conclusive proof of Northern Numic (specifically, Northern Paiute) affinities, as the assem­blage is very small and fragmentary. It is noteworthy that the same basket wall types also are represented earlier in the sequence as well as in various non-Numic ethnographic populations such as the historic Klamath and Modoc. Unfortunately, it is not possible to specify whether any of the Zone I twining derives from forms typical of the Numic speakers. Significantly, all other Northern Great Basin coiling is confined to the post A.D. 800-900 period and is very similar in most respects to that reported for Dirty Shame Rockshelter. For example, coiling in small quantities is known for this time period from the upper levels of Catlow Cave No. 1, the upper one-third of Roaring Springs Cave, from Tule Lake and Massacre caves, and possibly from Warner and the Guano Valley caves (Adovasio et al. 1976,1977; Andrews etal. 1986;Cressman 1942). The general resemblance of coiling specimens from these sites to ethnographic Numic wares is convincing, and the former can be presumed to be direct ancestors of the latter (Adovasio 1974, 1986; Adovasio et al. 1976; Rozaire 1969). This, in turn, suggests that all of the late prehistoric Northern Great Basin coiling may be the re­sult of the spread of the Northern Numic speakers. Gatecliff Shelter and the smaller closed sites, Jeans Springs and Triple T Shelter, are located in the Monitor Valley of central Nevada just east of the small town of Austin (Thomas 1979,1983). The perishable assemblage from these sites is described and discussed in Adovasio and Andrews (1983) from which the following comments are distilled. The perishable assemblage from the Monitor Val­ley includes basketry, cordage, knotted fiber, and a va­riety of miscellaneous fiber constructions. The entire assemblage is ascribable to the period A.D. 1000-1400 (or later) and specifically subsumes four types of twin­ing including Type I: Close simple twining, S-twist weft; Type II: Close diagonal twining, S-twist weft; Type III: Open and close diagonal twining, S-twist weft; and Type IV: Close sample and diagonal twining, S-twist weft. There is one type of coiling, Type V: Close coiling, three rod bunched foundation, non-interlocking stitch, and two types of cordage including Type I: One ply, Z-spun; and Type II: Two ply, Z-spun, S-twist. The miscella­neous fiber constructions include such diverse items as modified wood bound with cordage, interlaced twigs, wrapped grass bundles, and so on. Despite the small size of the extant perishable as­semblage recovered from the Monitor Valley, it is clear that the types and forms represented, as well as the raw materials and their methods of preparation, correspond on a point-by-point basis to the perishables produced in the ethnographic period by one or another group of Central Numic speakers (Adovasio and Andrews 1983). Furthermore, as is noted below, links in the perishable industry to other non-Numic ethnographic groups are nil. Neither are there any connections between the Monitor Valley basketry assemblage and contemporary or nearly contemporary Fremont assemblages to the east. Taken as a unit, the Monitor Valley perishables generally, and the basketry in particular, suggest that the Central Numic speakers had arrived in that portion of the Great Basin by A.D. 1000 or slightly later. Within the Fremont realm, prehistoric Numic bas­ketry is virtually non-existent until well after the Fre­mont collapse, but the earliest ethnographic specimens from this area bear absolutely no relationship to the basketry industry of the their Fremont predecessors. Put most simply, there is as great a technological dis­continuity between the chronologically successive bas­ketry industries of the Fremont and the Numic speakers SPECIAL DISCUSSION FEATURE: ADOVASIO ET AL. 25 as there is between the contemporaneous basketry in­dustries of the Fremont, Anasazi, and Lovelock cultures. It should be stressed that this observation extends to the basketry industries of literally all of the ethnographic Numic speakers, both across and beyond the Great Ba­sin, including the Paiute of Utah, the Kaibab Band of Paiutes, the Northwestern Band of Shoshone, the Skull Valley Band of Goshute, and the Northern, Southern, and Ute Mountain Utes, to name but a few of the extant groups. CONCLUSIONS Whereas the extant architecture, settlement pat­terns, subsistence practices, or durable artifact inven­tories of the Fremont do not lend themselves individu­ally or collectively to the recognition or definition of a Fremont culture distinctive from and basically unrelated to contemporary groups like the Anasazi or Lovelock culture, this is not the case with the basketry data that is of in, and by itself conclusive. As noted previously (Adovasio 1970a, 1970b, 1974, 1975, 1986b), and re­peated ad nauseam to the present work, Fremont bas­ketry, though it exhibits some internal variation, geo­graphically and temporally, constitutes as a unit the most distinctive variety of prehistoric basketry in the entire Great Basin with the possible exception of the signature artifact of the Lovelock culture, Lovelock wickerware. We reiterate with a growing sense of futility that because it is a long established fact (see Adovasio 1977; Adovasio and Gunn 1977; Adovasio with Andrews 1986b; Adovasio and Pedler 1994; Baumhoff 1957; Ma­son 1904; Rozaire 1969; Weltfish 1932;) that basketry is probably the most sensitive indicator of prehistoric or ethnographic cultural integrity in the artifactual record, and further, because no two unrelated prehistoric or ethnographic cultures ever produced exactly or even nearly the same kinds of basketry with the same range of construction attributes, the definition of a distinctive Fremont basketry industry is at once a recognition and delineation of a Fremont cultural entity. More specifically, the basketry of the Fremont is as unique and taxonomically distinct as the basketry of the Anasazi, Hohokam, or Mogollon; hence it warrants in our jaded archaic, culture-historical perspective, the same level of taxonomic distinction as those entities. If Anasazi, Hohokam, or Mogollon are valid prehistoric cultures, so is Fremont. Even though some, notably Madsen (personal com­munication, 2001) and Madsen and Simms (1998), think it strains credulity to define a prehistoric culture on the basis of a single industry or craft, namely basketry, this thesis is precisely our point. Simply stated, if it is ac­cepted that Mono, Paiute, Panamint, Ute, Hupa, Havasupai, Yurok, Karok, or any other variety of ethno­graphic or prehistoric basketry can be taxonomically distinguished and recognized as the ethnic signatures of distinct cultural entities, so can Fremont basketry. In fact, given the demonstrated internal diversity within Fremont as regards other apparent aspects of its mate­rial culture, subsistence practices, and architecture, bas­ketry presents itself as the best means to identify Fre­mont components. As pointed out several times previously (e.g., Adovasio 1986b), the student of Fremont basketry is advised to consider the basketry of a well-known eth­nographic, linguistic, and ethnic entity in the South­west- the Apache. Despite the fact that great differ­ences in most categories of material culture and subsis­tence processes are evident from band-to-band or tribe-to- tribe, particularly as one moves from west to east, the basketry of any or all of these groups is still recog­nizable as Apache (Douglass 1934; Ferg 1987; Tanner 1982, 1983). Additionally, though the basketry of one Apache speaking entity may differ significantly from another such entity (much more so than any of the Fre­mont varies from each other), a specialist cannot con­fuse Apache basketry with the basketry of any of its neighbors despite very close similarities not only in this craft but also many other aspects of material cul­ture. Indeed, even in highly artificial situations such as the post-contact forced co-residence of the Yavapai on the San Carlos Apache reservation, the basketry of these two groups retained sufficient distinctive qualities to 26 UTAH ARCHAEOLOGY 2002 be readily separable (Tanner 1983:180). While we are in no way suggesting any relation­ship whatsoever between Fremont and Apache or, in­deed, Fremont and anyone else except for their direct Archaic forebears, we are stating that for comparative purposes, the Apache example is similar. By definition then, any band that makes Apache basketry is, per force, Apache, and any population that constructs Fremont basketry is Fremont, no matter what the disparity be­tween their subsistence practices or, indeed, any other behaviors. To our collective knowledge, there exist no exceptions to this precept in the archaeological or eth­nographic literature. In retrospect, the salient features of Fremont bas­ketry are: 1. Based on construction attributes, a Fremont bas­ketry industry consisting of both twined and coiled wares can be distinguished in the archaeological record of the eastern Great Basin and the adjacent Colorado Plateau north of the Colorado and Virgin Rivers. 2. The Fremont basketry industry ranges in age from ca. A.D. 400-1250 within the Fremont range and slightly later to the north and northwest. 3. Fremont basketry is derivable in toto from locally antecedent Late Archaic industries. 4. Fremont basketry can be readily distinguished from the basketry of the Anasazi, Hohokam, Mogollon, or any penecontemporaneous Idaho or Great Basin forag­ing cultures and, hence, may be confidently used as an ethnic boundary signature of their makers. 5. Fremont basketry, specifically including the later Idaho and Wyoming specimens, exhibits no relation­ship whatsoever to the basketry of any of the Numic speakers or any other known ethnographic population. This explicitly includes the Numic-speaking Paiutes of Utah; the Kaibab Band of Paiutes; the Northwestern Band of Shoshone; the Skull Valley Band of Goshute; the Northern, Southwest, and Ute Mountain Utes; the Hopi; the Zuni; and the Pueblo tribes of Nambe, Zia, and Laguna. COMMENTS ON "FREMONT BASKETRY" BY J.M. ADOVASIO, D.R. PEDLER, AND J.S. ILLINGWORTH Catherine S. Fowler, Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Reno, NV 89557-0006 Adovasio, Pedler and Illingworth have assembled an impressive amount of data and argued persuasively from the perspective of basketry technology for: 1) a basic unity for the Fremont archaeological culture as presently defined; and 2) a lack of traceable relation­ships for that technology into any of the basketry tech­nologies of the nine federally-recognized tribes (Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians, the Hopi Tribe, Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians, Northwestern Band of the Shoshone Nation, Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah, Pueblo of Laguna, Pueblo of Nambe, Pueblo of Zia, Pueblo of Zuni, and the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation) who are claiming Fremont affiliation under NAGPRA. In their introductory comments Coulam and Simms note the importance of establishing Fremont iden­tity in setting up a potential claim situation, but also suggest that the question of affiliation will be decided on the "preponderance of the evidence." Other studies commissioned under NAGPRA in this case are examin­ing data from chronometric evidence, geography, oral history, linguistics, folklore, and biology. Given that Adovasio, Pedler and Illingworth do an excellent job of establishing a "Fremont identity," and their evidence is equally compelling for rejecting specific affiliations, then it is obvious that the "preponderance of the evidence" for Fremont affiliations will not include evidence from basketry - at least not unless total reanalysis of the basketry technologies of the nine claimants turns up evidence that the authors have missed. Apparently there will not be an alternative of "no affiliation."