Utah Archaeology 2003

Commodity flow and national market access-Historical archaeology in Salt Lake county

COMMODITY FLOW AND NATIONAL MARKET ACCESS: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY IN SALT LAKE COUNTY Jakob D. Crockett, Department of Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208 The Commodity Flow Model is an effective method for predicting the composition aflate nineteenth and early twentieth century household assemblages. By utilizing a supply-side economic perspective, observed archaeological patterns arefirmly linked to the culturally derived variable ofmarket access, increasing our understanding ofthe spatial distribution of household consumer goods. Through an altérnate application ofthe model, a new and successful method for determining changes in consumer preference for locally manufactured household goods is demonstrated. By way ofintersite comparisons, a new pattern of changes in the national market is revealed. Primary data come from two early twentieth century trash deposits located in Salt Lake County, Utah (Seddon 2001). This research examines patterns of household consumption from a supply-side economic perspective. By explaining assemblage composition in terms ofthe geographic location (market access área) of a historie period site, this research relates observed archaeological patterns to cultural behaviors by analyzing supply-side commodity flows utilizing the Commodity Flow Model proposed by Riordan and Adams (1985). The main premises of this study are that a site's geographic location within the national market significantly affeets the composition of late nineteenth and early twentieth century household assemblages, and the Commodity Flow Model is a useful tool in predicting the spatial distribution of household consumer goods within the national market system. A revised versión of Cabak and Groover's (1993) hypothesis concerning temporal changes in the distribution of consumer goods within the national market is tested using data from two early twentieth century trash deposits located in Salt Lake County, Utah, as well as comparisons to sites elsewhere. These deposits were excavated under the direction of Matthew T. Seddon (2001) in November of 2000 by SWCA SWCA Environmental Consultants for the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) while conducting work on Interstate 15 (1-15). This study also presents a method for evaluating changes in consumer preference for locally manufactured consumer goods. COMMODITY FLOW The geographer Alien Pred (1970) studied how manufactured goods are produced and distributed, and proposed a Commodity Flow Model based on the relationships between the producers of manufactured goods and consumer access to those same goods. Geographers use the term commodity flow to describe how goods move from manufacturer to consumer. Commodity flows are composed of several factors, including the type of goods being manufactured, the geographical location ofthe producer, the geographical location of the consumer, the transportation network used to move the goods from manufacturer to consumer, and the volume of goods moving from producer to consumer. UTAH ARCHAEOLOGY 16(1)2003 pp. 37-52 37 38 UTAH ARCHAEOLOGY 2003 HIGH, INTERMEDÍATE, ANO LOW ACCESSIBILITY ÁREAS PER CENT BELOW NEW YORK CITY I Lasa Than 25 EÜ3 25-40 IZD Mora Thao 40 Figure 1. Map showing how Pred (1970) divided the country into access áreas and percentages. A particular commodity flow is the link between a manufacturer and an área of consumption. For example, one might look at a particular flow that exists between a glassmaker in New York City and a rural town in Nevada. This flow would be composed ofthe commodity type (glass), the number of goods being moved (the volume), and how those goods moved from New York City to Nevada (the transportation network). It is further possible to look at how the components of a particular commodity flow (type, volume, and/or transportation) changed over time. When looking at commodity flows on a regional, national or international level, it is the sum of particular flows that are analyzed. For example, one might investigate commodity flow from the Northeast to the Southwest or from Western Europe to America. In this case, all flows (and their components) are combined to produce an overall picture of how goods move from producer to consumer. Pred (1970) developed a typology of commodity flows based on Industry Type and Market Access. Industry Type is divided into three categories. Raw Material and Power Oriented Industries extract raw materials to be transported elsewhere for manufacture into finished goods. Market Oriented Industries serve regional and national markets. Labor Related or Agglomeration Economies manufacture finished goods that either have very low production costs per unit or are of such high valué that transportation costs are not a factor. Using a land and sea transportation network, Pred arbitrarily defines market access as the percent of access below New York City. Figure 1 shows how Pred divided the country into áreas and percentages. These COMMODITY FLOW AND NATIONAL MARKET ACCESS 39 áreas are High Access (O to 25 percent below New York City), Intermedíate Access (25 to 40 percent below), and Low Access (more than 40 percent below). In other words, Pred assumes that the residents of New York City have full access to goods manufactured in the High Access Área and that consumers living away from New York City have less than full access to those same goods. For instance, a consumer living in Utah has 50 percent less access to goods than a consumer living in New York City. At the turn ofthe century, 65 percent of all U.S. manufacturing was located in the High Access Área (Riordan and Adams 1985). Pred argües that market access is a function of both the transportation network and population size. Economy of scale causes people living in high population áreas to have greater access to goods than those in more rural áreas since small stores cannot afford a wide variety of goods (a function of both market size and demand level). Market Oriented Industries are analyzed in this study, and in High Access Áreas can distribute their goods the furthest. Industries ofthe same type located in Intermediate or Low Access Áreas are not able to compete in High Access Áreas, since they would not be able to overeóme transportation costs, and are therefore confined to regional markets within the same Access Área. THE COMMODITY FLOW MODEL Timothy B. Riordan and William H. Adams (1985) developed Pred's Commodity Flow Model further. They hypothesize that "when located in different geographic regions, sites having the same access to the national market will show greater similarity to each other than to sites having different access, even when located in the same región" (1985:8). Comparing artifact frequeney by access área, they measured the total volume of goods moving from local, regional, and national manufacturers to a particular consumption área. This volume of goods is independent ofthe actual number of flows. For example, a single manufacturer in a given access área producing 1,500 objeets of a particular type would be the same as ten manufacturers in the same access área each producing 150 objeets of the same type. It is the volume of goods moving that is important. Riordan and Adams predict that sites in High Access Áreas will be comprised mostly of artifaets originating within the High Access Área, with few artifaets from other áreas. Sites within the Intermediate Access Área will show a high percentage of goods from High Access Áreas, since they can overeóme transportation costs, but will have very few artifaets manufactured in Low Access Áreas because transportation costs are too high to remain competitive. Sites within Low Access Áreas should also show a high percentage of goods from High Access Áreas, but will also have a high percentage of goods made within Low Access Áreas since transportation distances, and therefore costs, are low. Fewer goods originate within Intermediate Access Áreas at these sites, as these manufacturers can neither match the distribution of High Access Área manufacturers ñor the low transportation costs of local producers. In 2001 Adams and colleagues extended Pred's original Commodity Flow Model to include Alaska as part ofthe Low Access Área. Using data from several sites in interior Alaska, they not only compared artifact frequeney by access área, but also compared company frequeney by access área, ignoring artifact totals. When company frequeney is compared by access área, the total number of flows that exist between local, regional and national manufacturers and a particular consumption área are measured, which is independent of the volume of goods moving within these flows. For example, ten manufacturers in a given access área each producing 100 objeets of a particular type would genérate the same result as ten manufacturers in the access área each producing 500 objeets of the same type. It is the actual number of links, or flows, that exist between various manufacturing locations and a particular consumption área that is important. Adams and colleagues suggest that this approach avoids biases 40 UTAHARCHAEOLOGY2003 Table 1. Past Studies, Artifact Frequeney by Access Área. Access Área Low Intermedíate High Total Low Intermedíate High Total Low Intermedíate High Total N % Silcott 222 23.0 198 20.5 546 56.5 966 100 Homestead 1 7 26.9 10 38.5 9 34.6 26 100 Peoria 1834-1880 -2 12.5 14 87.5 16 100 N % Waverly 3 67 136 206 1.5 32.5 66.0 100 Homestead 2 13 1 32 46 28.3 2.2 69.5 100 Peoria 1880- 1 8 25 34 -1910 3.0 23.5 73.5 100 N % Bay Springs - 6 15 21 - 28.6 71.4 100 Homestead 3 12 11 57 80 15.0 13.7 71.3 100 Peoria 1910+ 1 23 52 76 1.3 30.3 68.4 100 N % Sandy Ground 2 - 328 330 Logging 32 18 33 83 0.6 - 99.4 100 Camp 38.5 21.7 39.8 100 Fairbanks (artifact freq.) 53 27 110 190 27.9 14.2 57.9 100 N % Ashley Plantation 12 3.0 93 23.2 295 73.8 400 100 Railroad Camp 14 10.5 109 81.3 11 8.2 31 100 Fairbanks (company freq.) 21 24.1 15 17.3 51 58.6 87 100 and colleagues suggest that this approach avoids biases caused by reuse, artifact breakage, and individual preferences. Melanie A. Cabak and Mark D. Groover (1993) applied the Commodity Flow Model to data from Peoria, Illinois on the edge of the High Access Área boundary. Breaking the assemblage into chronological periods based on changes in the transportation network (Table 1), Cabak and Groover hypothesize that different áreas developed at different rates and that over time manufacturers in Low and Intermedíate Access Áreas will increase their commodity flows at the expense of manufacturers in High Access Áreas, since these more regional manufacturers will have had longer to develop. Their hypothesis will be explored further in light ofthe Salt Lake County data. PAST RESEARCH Past studies utilizing the Commodity Flow Model on nineteenth to mid-twentieth century artifact assemblages are introduced below to provide some background for comparison with the Salt Lake County assemblages. A major economic shift from household production to household consumption oceurred during the second half ofthe nineteenth century (Speulda and Bowyer 1996:3). Each study utilizes roughly contemporaneous assemblages that post-date this economic shift. For the purpose of this study, only the results regarding Market Oriented goods manufactured within the U.S. are presented. Due to differences in assemblage sizes, percentages of artifact or company totals are used in the analysis. COMMODITY FLOW AND NATIONAL MARKET ACCESS 41 Sandy Ground, Waverly Plantation, Bay Springs, Silcott Riordan and Adams (1985) utilize data from four sites to measure the volume of goods flowing into different consumption áreas (Table 1). Sandy Ground was founded in the 1850s by African-American oystermen on Staten Island near New York City in the High Access Área (ca. 1890 - 1910). At Waverly Plantation, located in Mississippi along the Tombigbee River within the Intermediate Access Área, four tenant farmer houses and related áreas were excavated (ca. 1900 - 1950). Bay Springs, also in Mississippi and within the Intermedíate Access Área, was a small community centered around two milis and a thread factory (ca. 1840 -1890). The general store and several domestic structures were excavated in Silcott, a rural town along the Snake River near Clarkston, Washington in the Low Access Área (ca. 1880 - 1930). At Sandy Ground, 99.4 percent of the artifaets carne from High Access Áreas and only .6 percent from Low Access Áreas. No artifaets were recovered from the Intermedíate Access Área. Waverly Plantation derived 66 percent of goods from High Access Área manufacturers, 32.5 percent from Intermedíate Access Áreas, and only 1.5 percent from Low Access Área producers. Bay Springs revealed a similar pattern, with 71.4 percent of goods originating in the High Access Área and 28.6 percent from Intermedíate Access Área producers. No artifaets were recovered from Low Access Área manufacturers. Silcott had 56.5 percent from High Access Áreas, 20.5 percent from Intermedíate Access Áreas, and 23 percent from Low Access Área manufacturers. Ashley Plantation Richard D. Brooks (unpublished, but described in Adams et al. 2001) used data from Ashley Plantation in South Carolina, located in the Intermedíate Access Área (Table 1). Combining artifaets from three tenant farmer houses, two dwellings and a mili, ca. 1876 to 1950, Brooks found that 73.8 percent ofthe artifaets originated in the High Access Área, 23.2 percent in the Intermedíate Access Área, and only 3 percent from Low Access Área manufacturers. Oregon Sites In 1996, Lou Ann Speulda and Gary C. Bowyer used data from three homesteading sites, a logging camp, and a railroad construction camp in Oregon, a Low Access Área, to test the model (Table 1). At the three homesteading sites, goods from High Access Áreas accounted for 34.6 to 71.3 percent of the assemblages, while Intermedíate Access Área goods accounted for 2.2 to 38.5 percent and 15 to 28.3 percent of the goods from Low Access Área manufacturers. The logging camp site (ca. 1922 - 1931) derived 39.8 percent of goods from High Access Área manufacturers, while 21.7 percent carne from the Intermedíate Access Área. Low Access Área contribution of 38.5 percent was nearly identical to the High Access Área. At the railroad construction camp site, occupied from 1923 to 1926, only 8.2 percent of the goods originated from within the High Access Área, whereas the majority of goods, 81.3 percent, carne from the Intermedíate Access Área. The Low Access Área accounted for 10.5 percent ofthe total goods (minus the tobáceo can data). Fairbanks, Alaska Adams et al. 2001 used data from Fairbanks, Alaska to test the Commodity Flow Model further and presented an altérnate method for evaluating commodity flow. Fairbanks was founded in 1901 and soon became the center ofthe mining district. In 1992- 1993 a cabin, two saloons, a warehouse, and a trash deposit were excavated (ca. 1901-1941). Since Pred did not include Alaska in his original model, Adams and colleagues treated Alaska as a Low Access Área. Comparing artifact frequeney by access área (Table 1), High Access Área manufacturers accounted for 58.5 percent ofthe assemblage, while only 13.3 and 28.2 percent of the artifaets carne from Intermedíate and Low Access Áreas, respectively. 42 UTAH ARCHAEOLOGY 2003 Table 2. Summary of 42SL327 Assemblage Artifaets (MNI) Associated with Identifiable Trademarks Manufacturers in High Access Áreas (42SL327) Manufacturer Type City State/Country Mfg. Date Access Área A.H. Heisey Glass Co. Glass American-Bottle Co. Glass Anchor Pottery Co. Ceramic Anchor Pottery Co. Ceramic A.S. Hinds Co. Glass Atlas Glass Co. Glass Ball Bros. Co. Glass Ball Bros. Co. (aqua jars) Glass Ball Bros. Co. Glass Ball Bros. Co. Glass Ball Bros. Co. ("BALL" w/o underscore) Glass Bell Fruit Bottle Co. Glass Buck Glass Co. Glass Burnett's Standard Flavor Extracts Glass Brockway Glass Co. Glass Bromo Seltzer, Emerson Drug Co. Glass Carpenter-Morton Co. Glass Cárter' s Glass C.C. Thompson Pottery Co. Ceramic Chas. H. Fletcher's Castoria Glass Chesebrough Mfg. Co./Vaseline Glass Chesebrough Mfg. Co. Glass Chesebrough Mfg. Co. Glass Colonial Co. Ceramic Curtice Brothers Co.: Preservers Glass Diamond Glass Co. Glass Dresden Pottery Ceramic Dr. Jayne's Vermifuge Glass Dr. Peter Fahrney & Sons Glass Dr. R.V. Pierce's Medicines Glass East Trenton Pottery Ceramic Edwin M. Knowles China Co. Ceramic Edwin M. Knowles China Co. Ceramic E.R. Durkee & Sons Glass Fairmount Glass Works Inc. Glass French China Co. Ceramic French China Co. Ceramic Glover's Imperial Mange Remedy Glass Guernsey Cooking Ware Ceramic Higgin's Inks Glass Hires Household Extract: Glass The Charles E. Hiñes Co. H. J. Heinz Co. Glass H. J. Heinz Co. Glass Homer Laughlin China Co. Ceramic Homer Laughlin China Co. Ceramic Homer Laughlin China Co. - Ceramic Golden Gate Homer Laughlin China Co. Ceramic Newark Chicago Toledo Trenton Trenton Bloomfíeld Washington Muncie Muncie Muncie Muncie Muncie Fairmount Baltimore Boston Brockway Baltimore Boston Erie East Liverpool NYC unknown NYC NYC/Brooklyn East Liverpool Rochester Royersford East Liverpool Philadelphia Chicago Buffalo Trenton East Liverpool East Liverpool NYC Indianapolis Sebring Sebring NYC Cambridge Brooklyn Philadelphia Pittsburgh Pittsburgh East Liverpool Newell East Liverpool East Liverpool East Liverpool Newell OH IL OH NJ NJ NJ PA IN IN IN IN IN IN MD MA PA MD MA PA OH NY NY NY NY OH NY PA OH PA IL NY NJ OH OH NY IN OH OH NY OH NY PA PA PA OH WV OH OH OH WV 1893 - 1958 1905 - 1929 1894 1908 1875 1896 1858 1888 1888 1908 1920 1910 1909 1855 1925 1891 1904 1850 1910 1890 1870 1870 1870 1903 1870 1888 1908 1894 1867 1870 1888 1900 1901 1877 1930 1898 1905 1870 1909 1850 1876 1926 1927 * 1964 1904 1937 * 1922 1937 * 1961 1900 -1920 . * . * -1947 - 1929 . * - 1915 - 1900 -1915 - 1905 - 1948 -1963 -1904 -1945 -1929 -1915 . * -1923 1860-1869 1888-* 1869-* 1897-1918 1897- 1905 1900- 1910 High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High 3 4 2 2 2 4 3 76 22 I 11 1 2 2 1 15 1 2 1 2 2 4 2 1 9 18 1 2 2 1 1 2 4 1 4 4 2 1 1 2 2 3 10 20 2 1 COMMODITY FLOW AND NATIONAL MARKET ACCESS 43 Manufacturer Homer Laughlin China Co. Homer Laughlin China Co. Homer Laughlin China Co. Homer Laughlin China Co. Homer Laughlin China Co. Homer Laughlin China Co. Homer Laughlin China Co. Horlick's Malted Milk Hygeia Illinois Glass Co. Kerr Glass Mfg. Co. Kivlan & Onthank Knowles, Taylor and Knowles, Knowles, Taylor and Knowles, Knowles, Taylor and Knowles, Knowles, Taylor and Knowles, Knowles, Taylor & Knowles Knowles, Taylor & Knowles Knowles, Taylor and Knowles, Knowles, Taylor & Knowles Knowles, Taylor & Knowles Knowles, Taylor and Knowles, Knowles, Taylor and Knowles, Larkin Co. Lewis Boyd L.H. Thomas Lysol: Lehn and Fink Inc. MAINE (Knowles, Taylor and Mayer Pottery Co. Maryland Glass Co. National China Co. Ohio China Co. Onondaga Pottery Co. Owens Bottle Co. Owens-Illinois Owens-Illinois (Duraglas) Parke, Davis & Co. Philips Milk of Magnesia Pope-Gosser China Co. Root Glass Co. Sanford Ink Scott's Emulsión Smalley Fruit Jar Co. Smith-Philips China Co. T.A. McNicol Taylor, Smith & Taylor Co. Co. Co. Co. Co. Co. Co. Knowles) Taylor, Smith & Taylor: Verona China Taylor, Smith & Taylor Co. - Pennova Taylor, Smith & Taylor Co. Taylor, Smith & Taylor (Avona) Thatcher Mfg. Co. Tonto Co. United States Pottery Co. Whitall-Tatum & Co. Type Ceramic Ceramic Ceramic Ceramic Ceramic Ceramic Ceramic Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Ceramic Ceramic Ceramic Ceramic Ceramic Ceramic Ceramic Ceramic Ceramic Ceramic Ceramic Glass Glass Glass Glass Ceramic Ceramic Glass Ceramic Ceramic Ceramic Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Ceramic Glass Glass Glass Glass Ceramic Ceramic Ceramic Ceramic Ceramic Ceramic Ceramic Glass Glass Ceramic Glass City S East Liverpool East Liverpool East Liverpool East Liverpool East Liverpool Newell East Liverpool East Liverpool Newell Racine Millville Alton Chicago Boston East Liverpool East Liverpool East Liverpool East Liverpool East Liverpool East Liverpool East Liverpool East Liverpool East Liverpool East Liverpool East Liverpool Buffalo NYC Chicago Bloomfield East Liverpool Beaver Falls Baltimore East Liverpool Salineville East Palestine Syracuse Toledo Toledo Toledo Detroit Glennbrook Coshocton Terre Haute Chicago NYC Boston East Liverpool East Liverpool East Liverpool East Liverpool East Liverpool East Liverpool East Liverpool Elmira Providence Wellsville Millville tate/Counti OH OH OH OH OH WV OH OH WV WI NJ IL IL MA OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH NY NY IL NJ OH PA MA OH OH OH NY OH OH OH MI CN OH IN IL NY MA OH OH OH OH OH OH OH NY RI OH NJ ry Mfg. 1909 - 1914- 1915- 1916- 1917- 1917- 1917- 1883 - 1894- 1916- 1909- 1919 - 1854- 1890- 1890- 1900- 1905- 1908- 1917 - 1918 - 1923- 1925- 1926- 1850 - 1869- 1900- 1890- 1885- 1915- 1907- 1900 - 1896 • 1897 - 1911 • 1929 - * _ * 1862 - 1872 - 1903- 1901 1857 - 1890 • 1915 - 1916 - 1913 - 1901 - 1905 - 1910 - 1914 - 1916 1910 * _* 1899- 1857 - Date 1915 * 1919 1919 1919 1919 1929 * 1938 1929 1912 1925 1929 1900 1905 1907 • 1929 •1914 • 1927 • 1927 • 1927 •1927 • 1927 . * • 1950 •1930 . * • 1905 • 1930 . * • 1929 • 1902 •1935 1929 • 1954 • 1875 . * • 1958 • 1932 • 1930 . * • 1919 • 1926 • 1929 • 1915 • 1920 • 1920 • 1921 •1925 •1924 • 1920 • 1935 Access Área High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High N 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 2 2 65 1 1 4 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 58 2 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 1 1 8 2 1 2 5 1 2 2 1 3 5 1 1 6 44 UTAH ARCHAEOLOGY 2003 Manufacturer Type City State/Country Mfg. Date Access Área Whittemore William Franzen & Sons Subtotals High Access Área Glass Boston Glass Milwaukee MA WI 1904 - * 1900 - 1929 High High 3 37 526 Manufacturers in Intermedíate Access Áreas (42SL327) Adolphus-Busch Alexander H. Kerr Mfg. Co. Aurelius S. Hinds Ballard's Snow Liniment Bartlett-Collins Glass Co. Chamberlain Medicine Co. Coca Cola (General Coca Cola marks) Garrett & Co. Obear-Nester Glass Co. Schram Sealfast Streator Bottle & Glass Co. Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass St. Louis Sand Springs Portland St. Louis Sapulpa Marión & Des Moines Atlanta Norfolk E. St. Louis St. Louis Hillsboro Upland Streator MO OK ME MO OK IA GA VA IL MO IL IN IL 1904- 1915 - 1890- 1880 - 1914 - 1879 - 1886- 1835 - 1894- 1906- 1912 - 1881- • 1910 • 1946 •1925 . * . * • 1930 . * . * • 1915 •1925 1924 1905 Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Intermedíate Intermedíate Intermediate Intermedíate 14 2 1 2 2 3 2 1 1 2 1 1 Subtotals Intermedíate Access Área 32 Manufacturers in Low Access Áreas (42SL327) Alexander H. Kerr & Co. A. Schiling and Co. Ben Schloss Clover Leaf Dairy Coca Cola (Salt Lake City) Denhalter (H. Denhalter & Son) Denhalter (Trade Mark Denhalter) Empire China Co. Frank J. Hewlett Beverage Co. Illnois Pacific Glass Co. Illnois Pacific Coast Co. (was Pacific Glass Co.) J.A. Folger & Co. Kerr Kerr Glass Mfg. Co. Pacific Coast Glass Works Salt Lake City Brewing Co./ Porcelain Bottle Stopper Schramm-Johnson Drugs The Salt Lake City Soda Water Co.: Red Seal Brand Wakelee's Cameline West Side Pharmacy Wiles-Horne Drug Co. Subtotals Low Access Área Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Ceramic Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Los Angeles San Francisco San Francisco Salt Lake City Salt Lake City Salt Lake City Salt Lake City Burbank Salt Lake City San Francisco San Francisco San Francisco Los Angeles Portland San Francisco Salt Lake City Salt Lake City Salt Lake City San Francisco Salt Lake City Salt Lake City CA CA CA UT UT UT UT CA UT CA CA CA CA OR CA UT UT UT CA UT UT 1904- 1881- 1913 - 1905- 1905- 1885 - 1910- 1910- 1904- 1902- 1930- 1908 - 1920- 1904- 1902- -1871 1909- 1904- 1857- 1906- 1908- . * •1947 . * 1964 , * 1893 1947 . * , * 1930 1932 . * 1940 1909 1924 -1910 1942 , * , * 1934 1921 Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low 3 4 2 3 1 1 5 41 3 3 2 1 1 6 1 1 5 5 1 1 2 92 COMMODITY FLOW AND NA TIONAL MARKET A CCESS 45 When Adams and colleagues compared company frequeney by access área, 61.9 percent of the manufacturers shipping goods into Fairbanks were located in High Access Áreas, 11.9 percent were in Intermedíate Access Áreas, and 26.2 percent were in Low Access Áreas. If this new method of utilizing company frequencies is valid the results should be similar to those of Salt Lake County. SALT LAKE COUNTY BACKGROUND The first major wave of European-Americans settled the Salt Lake valley in 1847. Salt Lake County's population soon grew along with mining and railroad industries, expanding from just over 11,000 in 1850 to more than 86,000 by 1870 (Sillitoe 1996). According to the 1870 census (Sillitoe 1996), 69 percent ofthe heads of households in Salt Lake County were foreign born. By 1874 shortly after the arrival ofthe railroad, 25 percent ofthe population was non-Mormon, which "included most of the valley's wealthy citizens" (Sillitoe 1996:75). By the early decades ofthe twentieth century nearly 60 percent of the population was non- Mormon. In addition to the great number of immigrants from Western and Eastern Europe, the 1890 census reported 271 Chinese residents in Salt Lake City proper (Sillitoe 1996). During these early years, Salt Lake County more closely approximated other larger metropolitan áreas, more so than it does today, where "the media captures the diversity maintained by small numbers and broadeasts images of varying cultures, lifestyles, and religious ideas throughout the Intermountain West" (Sillitoe 1996:6). Donald L. Hardesty (1991:30) suggests that the Intermountain West can best be understood "by interpreting the región as a dynamic periphery of an evolving American world system." THE SALT LAKE COUNTY ASSEMBLAGES In 2000 SWCA Environmental Consultants, under the direction of Matthew T. Seddon (2001), excavated two historic-period sites encountered by the Utah Department of Transportation while conducting work on 1-15 in Salt Lake County, Utah. The first site (42SL327) is located at 900 West and 2100 South, and is a large historical trash deposit. A total of 650 glass and ceramic artifaets with U.S. makers' marks traceable to the location of manufacture were recovered (Table 2). The deposit seems to be the result of a single dumping event, as stratigraphic variation was minimal. The deposit is composed mainly of domestic debris, although there may be a commercial component as well, evidenced by the presence of hotel ware and other commercial refuse. Datable artifaets, including newspapers, indicate that the deposit was created between 1915 and 1930, although the origin ofthe deposit is unknown. Archival research conducted by SWCA failed to yield any reference to the deposit. Seddon (2001:151-152) suggests that the deposit may be the result of non-edible trash from surrounding neighborhoods being used as fill during road construction in the 1920s, a practice apparently common during the first half of the twentieth century in the Salt Lake valley. The second site (42SL309), discovered at 2800 South and 1-15, may be an unofficial dump or landfill located in a marsh área. Archival research conducted by SWCA failed to yield any information regarding the site's function, although the deposit was capped with sterile clay, indicating that the site was known. A total of 3,481 traceable glass and ceramic artifaets manufactured in the U.S. were recovered (Table 3), and the Owens-Illinois companies accounted for nearly 1,500 of the glass artifaets, almost 44 percent of the total assemblage. Stratigraphic variation within the deposit was minor and seems to be the result of either a single dumping event or very rapid accumulation. Datable artifaets, including many newspapers, suggest 46 UTAH ARCHAEOLOGY 2003 Table 3. Summary of 42SL309 Assemblage Artifaets (MNI) Associated with Identifiable Trademarks. Manufacturer Type City State/Country Mfg. Date Access Área Manufacturers in High Access Áreas (42SL309) Albert Pick Co., Inc. Albert Pick Co., Inc. American-Bottle Co. Armstrong Cork, Glass Div. Anchor-Hocking A.S. Hinds Co. Atlas Glass Co. Ball Bros, (aqua jars) Ball Bros. Co. Ball Bros. Co. (Perfect Masón) Ball Bros. Co. (Hiram Walker & Sons) Ball Bros. Co. ("BALL" w/o underscore, aqua) Ball Masón Jar ("Masón" written in same cursive font as word "Ball") Bailey-Walker China Co. Best Foods Reg. Design Patent 80918 Brockway Glass Co. Bromo Seltzer, Emerson Drug Co. Buck Glass Co. Buffalo China Canadá Dry Ginger Ale Co. Carr-Lowrey Glass Co. Chesebrough Mfg. Co. Chesebrough Mfg. Co. Chester Hotel China, Taylor, Smith & Taylor Curtice Brothers Co.: Preservers Diamond Glass Co. Dr. Peter Fahmey & Sons Edwin M. Knowles China Co. Edwin M. Knowles China Co. Edwin M. Knowles China Co. (Ivory Color) Edwin M. Knowles China Co. Edwin M. Knowles China Co. Fairmount Glass Works Inc. Fairmount Glass Works Inc. Federal Glass Co. Foster-Forbes Glass Co. Fraunfelter China French China Co. Glenn A. Mengle ("R" inside of sun) Guernsey Cooking Ware Hall China Co. Harriet Hubbard Ayer Hart Glass Man. Co. Hazel-Atlas Hires Household Extract: The Charles E. Hiñes Co. HJ. Heinz Co. HJ. Heinz Co. HJ. Heinz Co. HJ. Heinz Co. Homer Laughlin China Co. Homer Laughlin China Co. Homer Laughlin China Co. Homer Laughlin China Co. Homer Laughlin China Co. Glass Ceramic Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Ceramic Glass Glass Glass Glass Ceramic Glass Glass Glass Glass Ceramic Glass Glass Glass Ceramic Ceramic Ceramic Ceramic Ceramic Glass Glass Glass Glass Ceramic Ceramic Glass Ceramic Ceramic Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Ceramic Ceramic Ceramic Ceramic Ceramic Chicago Chicago Chicago Toledo Lancaster Lancaster Bloomfield Washington Muncie Muncie Muncie Muncie Muncie Muncie Bedford Terre Haute Brockway Baltimore Baltimore Buffalo NYC Baltimore NYC NYC/Brooklyn East Liverpool Rochester Royersfield Chicago East Liverpool East Liverpool East Liverpool East Liverpool East Liverpool Indianapolis Indianapolis Colombus Marión Zanesville Sebring Brockway Cambridge East Liverpool NYC Dunkirk Wheeling Philadelphia Pittsburgh Pittsburgh Pittsburgh Pittsburgh East Liverpool Newell East Liverpool East Liverpool Newell East Liverpool East Liverpool Newell IL IL IL OH PA OH NJ PA IN IN IN IN IN IN OH IN PA MD MD NY NY MD NY NY OH NY PA IL OH OH OH OH OH IN IN OH IN OH OH PA OH OH NY IN WV PA PA PA PA PA OH WV OH OH WV OH OH WV * _ * 1926- 1905 • 1938 - 1938 - 1875 - 1896 - 1888 - 1888 • 1910 • 1919 - 1920- 1909- 1922- 1930- 1925- 1891 • 1909 - 1901 - 1930- 1920- 1870- 1870- 1908- 1870- 1888 - 1867 - 1900- 1901 • 1927- 1930 - 1931 - 1930 - 1945 - 1900- 1929 - 1923 - 1898 - 1935 - 1909- 1903 - 1907 - 1918 - 1920 - 1876 - 1860- 1872 - 1888 - 1900- 1869 - 1877 - 1900- 1915 - 1917 - • 1950 1929 •1969 . * . * •1964 •1937 . * 1959 •1969 •1937 • 1937 •1943 . * . * . * •1961 . * . * •1963 • 1947 . * •1930 . * . * 1900 1948 1963 . * •1948 1963 •1945 1960 . * . * 1939 •1929 . * •1923 . * . * •1938 • 1964 . * •1869 • 1875 . * •1943 . * . * •1910 •1919 •1919 High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High 1 6 3 17 31 5 2 41 89 2 4 8 2 3 55 15 10 7 1 4 5 4 14 1 2 53 1 16 10 4 16 6 11 29 7 2 2 2 3 1 3 3 2 412 1 5 1 32 5 16 1 3 1 2 COMMODITY FLO W AND NA TIONAL MARKET A CCESS 47 Manufacturer Type City State/Country Mfg. Date Access Área Homer Laughlin China Co. - Empress Homer Laughlin China Co. Homer Laughlin China Co. Homer Laughlin Homer Laughlin China Co. - Tudor Rose Illinois Glass Co. Knowles, Taylor and Knowles Co. Knowles, Taylor & Knowles Knox Glass Leigh Potters, Inc. Lewis Boyd Limoges China Co. Lummis Glass Co. Lysol: Lehn and Fink Inc. Maryland Glass Co. Mayer Pottery Co. Maywood Glass Co. Mount Clemens Pottery The Musterole Co. Northam Warren Corporation Onondaga Pottery Co. Onondaga Pottery Co. Onondaga Pottery Co. Onondaga Pottery Co. Owens Bottle Co. Owens-Illinois Owens-Illinois Company Owens-Illinois Glass Co. Owens-Illinois Glass Co. Plant #10 Owens Illinois - Duraglas Owens Illinois (Duraglas) Parke, Davis & Co. Philips Milk of Magnesia Pierce Glass Co. Pope-Gosser China Co. Porcelier Manufacturing Co. Pyrex Reed Glass Co. Resinol Chemical Co. Root Glass Co. Royal China Co. Salem China Co. Sanford Ink Shenango China Co. Smith-Phillips China Co. S-P Laboratories/Owen-Illinois Glass Co. Squibb Steubenville Pottery Co. Steubenville Pottery Co. China Swindell Bros. Syracuse China Co. Taylor, Smith & Taylor (Avona) Taylor, Smith & Taylor Taylor, Smith & Taylor Co. Taylor, Smith & Taylor Co. Thatcher Man Co. Thatcher Mfg. Co. Thomas Wightman Bros. & Co. Ceramic Ceramic Ceramic Ceramic Ceramic Glass Ceramic Ceramic Glass Ceramic Glass Ceramic Glass Glass Glass Ceramic Glass Ceramic Glass Glass Ceramic Ceramic Ceramic Ceramic Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Ceramic Ceramic Glass Glass Glass Glass Ceramic Ceramic Glass Ceramic Ceramic Glass Glass Ceramic Ceramic Glass Ceramic Ceramic Ceramic Ceramic Ceramic Glass Glass Glass East Liverpool East Liverpool Newell East Liverpool Newell East Liverpool Newell East Liverpool Alton East Liverpool East Liverpool Knox Alliance NYC East Liverpool NYC Bloomfield Baltimore Beaver Falls Compton Mount Clemens Cleveland Stamford Syracuse Syracuse Syracuse Syracuse Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Detroit Glennbrook St. Mary's Hamburg Coshocton East Liverpool Corning Rochester Baltimore Terre Haute Sebring Salem Chicago New Castle East Liverpool Toledo Brooklyn Steubenville Steubenville Baltimore Syracuse East Liverpool East Liverpool East Liverpool East Liverpool Elmira Elmira Pittsburgh OH OH WV OH WV OH WV OH IL OH OH PA OH NY OH NY NJ MD PA CA MI OH CT NY NY NY NY OH OH OH OH OH OH OH MI CT PA NY OH OH NY NY MD IN OH OH IL PA OH OH NY OH OH MD NY OH OH OH OH NY NY PA 1920 - * 1922 - 1929 1923 - 1929 1929 - 1929 1945 - 1955 1916- 1929 1854- 1929 1905 - * 1917-* 1927- 1932 1869-1950 1910- 1955 1940- 1955 1890 -* 1907 - * 1915- 1930 1930 - * 1915- 1987 1906- * 1912- 1960 1871 - 1966 1897- 1935 1925- 1959 1929- 1959 1911 - 1929 1929- 1954 1929- 1954 1932-1954 1936 - * 1940 -* 1940 - * 1862- 1875 1872-* 1905-1917 1903 - 1958 1927 - 1954 1915-* 1927 - 1956 1895-* 1901 - 1932 1934 - * 1929 - * 1857- 1930 1901 -* 1918- 1929 1929- 1954 1858-* 1879- 1959 1910- 1920 1869- 1959 1933 - * 1916- 1925 1920- 1972 1930-* 1935- 1981 1900- 1946 1910- 1924 1871- 1895 High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High High 2 3 2 1 3 42 2 6 8 3 150 2 3 2 131 7 3 5 3 13 9 2 1 1 22 1418 1 2 86 1 8 1 23 11 3 1 10 9 1 2 1 1 7 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 I 3 1 l l 1 48 UTAH ARCHAEOLOGY 2003 Manufacturer Type City State/Country Mfg. Date Access Área Turner Bros. Co. Warwick China Co. Wellsville China Co. Whitall-Tatum & Co. William Franzen & Sons W.M. McCully & Co. Woodbury Glass Works W.S. George Pottery W.S. George Pottery W.T. Rawleigh Mfg. Co. Subtotals High Access Área Glass Ceramic Ceramic Glass Glass Glass Glass Ceramic Ceramic Glass Terre Haute Wheeling Wellsville Millville Milwaukee Pittsburgh Woodbury East Palestine East Palestine Freeport IN WV OH NJ WI PA NJ OH OH IL 1910 1884 1910 1935 1900 1841 1882 1909 1927 1925 1929 1951 1927 1938 1929 1886 1896 1960 1927 1936 High High High High High High High High High High 3 1 1 60 2 1 17 3 1 2 3106 Manufacturers in Intermediate Access Áreas (42SL309) Adolphus-Busch Alexander H. Kerr Mfg. Co. Bartlett-Colins Glass Co. Chamberlain Medicine Co. Garrett & Co. Knox Glass Bottle Co. of Mississippi Lauren Glass Works Liberty Glass Co. Obear-Nester Glass Co. Obear-Nester Glass Co. Schram Upland Glass Co. Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass St. Louis Sand Springs Sapulpa Marión & Des Moines Norfolk Jackson Laurens Sapulpa E. St. Louis E. St. Louis St. Louis Upland MO OK OK IA VA MS SC OK IL IL MO IN 1904- 1915 - 1914 - 1879- 1835 - 1932 - 1911 - 1918- 1894- 1915- 1906- 1890 - • 1910 • 1946 . * • 1930 . * •1953 . * . * • 1915 . * 1925 1909 Intermediate Intermedíate Intermedíate Intermediate Intermedíate Intermedíate Intermedíate Intermedíate Intermedíate Intermedíate Intermedíate Intermedíate 2 5 1 1 1 3 3 1 6 29 1 2 Subtotals Intermedíate Access Área 55 Manufacturers in Low Access Áreas (42SL309) Alexander H. Kerr & Co. Ben Schloss Clover Leaf Dairy Coca Cola Bottling Co. Coors Porcelain Crown Products Corp. Sani-Clor Denhalter (Trade Mark Denhalter) Empire China Co. Gladding, McBean & Co. Glass Containers Corp. Glass Containers Corp. Illnois Pacific Glass Co. Latchford-Marble Glass Co. Long Beach Glass Co. Maywood Glass Co. Nehi Bottling Co. Northwestern Glass Co. Owens-Illinois PacificCoast Co. Pacific Coast Glass Works Pacific Coast Glass Works Purex LM (Latchford Marble Glass Co.) The Salt Lake City Soda Water Co.: Red Seal Brand Southern Glass Co. Utah Bottling Works Subtotals Low Access Área Glass Glass Glass Glass Ceramic Glass Glass Ceramic Ceramic Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Glass Los Angeles San Francisco Salt Lake City Phoenix Golden San Francisco Salt Lake City Burbank Los Angeles Fullerton Fullerton San Francisco Los Angeles Long Beach Compton Unknown Seattle San Francisco San Francisco San Francisco Los Angeles Salt Lake City Vernon Salt Lake City CA CA UT AZ CO CA UT CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA AZ WA CA CA CA CA UT CA UT 1904- 1913- 1905- 1948- 1910 - 1925- 1910- 1910- 1934- 1935- 1945- 1902- 1939- 1920- 1940- 1929- 1932- 1932 - 1902- 1925- 1939 - 1904- 1917 - * _ * . * . * • 1964 . * • 1939 • 1938 • 1947 . * • 1962 •1940 . * • 1930 •1957 • 1933 . * • 1946 . * • 1943 • 1924 • 1930 • 1957 . * • 1931 Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low 6 1 1 3 1 3 12 1 1 6 52 12 15 12 1 1 2 116 2 16 49 2 4 1 320 COMMODITY FLOW AND NATIONAL MARKET ACCESS 49 Table 4. Salt Lake County Assemblages. Artifact Freq. Artifact Freq. Company Freq. Company Freq. Access Área Low Intermedíate High Total 42SL327 N 92 32 526 650 % 14.2 4.9 80.9 100 42SL309 N 320 55 3106 3481 % 9.2 1.6 89.2 100 42SL327 N 18 12 67 97 % 18.6 12.4 69.0 100 42SL309 N % 22 19.3 11 9.6 81 71.1 114 100 a date range between 1931 and 1943. The deposit is composed mainly of domestic debris, although there is evidence of a commercial component (hotel ware, etc.) (Seddon 2001:152-154). Both deposits appear to be a sampling of Salt Lake County households (Seddon 2001:154) in terms of socioeconomic status and ethnicity. Neither deposit seems to represent a single ethnic group and the faunal analysis indicates a variety of socioeconomic classes are represented in both deposits, although middle to lower status groups form the majority. manufacturing consumer goods imported into Salt Lake County were located within the High Access Área, 18.6 percent were located within the Low Access Área, while 12.4 percent were in the Intermediate Access (Table 4). Site 42SL309 revealed a similar pattern (Table 4). Here, 71.1 percent were in the High Access Área, 19.3 percent were from the Low Access Área, and only 9.6 percent were from the Intermediate Access Área. DISCUSSION RESULTS A comparison of artifact frequeney by access área for site 42SL327 shows that 80.9 percent of the total number of recovered artifaets originated within the High Access Área, 14.2 percent ofthe goods carne from the Low Access Área, while the least number of goods (4.9 percent) were from the Intermediate Access Área (Table 4). Site 42SL309 revealed a similar pattern (Table 4). Here, 89.2 percent ofthe goods were from the High Access Área, 9.2 percent were from the Low Access Área, while only 1.6 percent of household consumer goods originated within the Intermediate Access Área. The company frequeney by access área for site 42SL327 shows that 69 percent of the companies The Commodity Flow Model If the Commodity Flow Model is a valid way of determining the degree in which the geographic location of a site within the national market influences the composition of late nineteenth and early twentieth century household assemblages, then there should be a cióse fit between the model's predicted pattern of artifact distribution and the observed archaeological pattern. In addition, the Salt Lake County assemblages should reveal a pattern similar to those of other Low Access Área sites. Specifically, when artifact frequeney is compared by access área, the highest frequeney of artifaets will originate within the High Access Área. The next most frequent manufacturing location will be the Low Access Área, with the least frequent production location of household consumer goods 50 UTAH ARCHAEOLOGY 2003 coming into the región from the Intermediate Access Área. The Salt Lake County assemblages clearly fit the pattern predicted by the Commodity Flow Model for the spatial distribution of household consumer goods within the national market and compare well with Silcott, Washington, Fairbanks, Alaska, and with two ofthe three Oregon sites. At these Low Access Área sites, the artifact frequencies of High Access Área manufacturers ranged from 56.5 to 71.3 percent, the Intermediate Access Área ranged from 2.2 to 20.5 percent, and the Low Access Área producers had a range of 15 to 28.3 percent. One ofthe Oregon homestead sites and the railroad construction site investigated by Speulda and Bowyer (1996), however, fit neither the model's prediction ñor the archaeological patterns exhibited by other Low Access Área sites. I agree with their suggestion that these differences may be the result of variables not accounted for in the Commodity Flow Model, such as site function. Additionally, I suggest the possibility that the folks living in the railroad camp were receiving company goods, bought directly from Intermediate Access Área manufacturers shipped along a transportation network owned by the company itself. The railroad camp therefore is not an open market, which the Commodity Flow Model assumes. Using the approach of Adams et al. (2001) comparing company frequeney by access área, the spatial distribution of manufacturers should be comparable to the spatial distribution of artifaets. The highest percentage of manufacturers should be found within the High Access Área, followed by Low Access Área producers and, lastly, Intermediate Access Área manufacturers accounting for the smallest percentage of represented companies. The Salt Lake County assemblages, once again, clearly fit the expected pattern, further supporting the aecuracy of both versions ofthe model. The National Market The importance of the Salt Lake County data becomes apparent when the two assemblages are compared to assess the changes over time in both the number of commodity flows between various manufacturing locations and Salt Lake County and the volume of goods from these manufacturing locations flowing into the región. These data also give insights into national economic and market changes oceurring during the early twentieth century. Using data from Peoria, Illinois in the Intermediate Access Área, Cabak and Groover (1993) suggest that different áreas developed at different rates and that over time manufacturers in Low and Intermediate Access Áreas will increase their commodity flows at the expense of manufacturers in High Access Áreas, since these more regional manufacturers will have had longer to develop. When the Salt Lake County data are added to the Peoria data, however, a new pattern emerges. Looking at changes in artifact frequeney over time, the High Access Área increased its volume of goods flowing into the área by just over eight percent, while the volume of goods from both the Low and Intermediate Access Áreas decreased. This suggests that either regional manufacturers could not compete with the established manufacturers in the High Access Área, or there was a shift in the consumer preference for goods manufactured in the East. But when Owens-Illinois is taken out of the 42SL309 assemblage, a different picture emerges. The large volume of goods flowing along this single commodity link from the High Access Área obscures what is happening nation wide. Owens- Illinois contributed 1,418 glass artifaets to the deposit. Removing these artifaets reveáis that both the High and Low Access Áreas increased their distribution of goods at the expense ofthe Intermedíate Access Área. This pattern is even clearer when we look at changes in company frequeney over time. The number of Low Access Área companies represented in the assemblages increased .7 percent (from 18 to 22). The number of companies located in the High Access Área increased by 2.1 percent (from 67 to 81). The frequeney of COMMODITY FLOW AND NATIONAL MARKET ACCESS 51 Table 5. Glass-Only Artifaets, Salt Lake County Assemblages. Artifact Freq. Artifact Freq. Company Freq. Company Freq. Access Área Low Intermedíate High Total 42SL327 N 51 32 426 509 % 10.0 6.3 83.7 100 42SL309 N 317 55 1522 1894 % 16.7 2.9 80.4 100 42SL327 N 17 12 47 76 % 22.4 15.8 61.8 100 42SL309 N % 21 23.3 11 12.2 58 64.4 90 100 Intermedíate Access Área companies decreased by 2.8 percent (from 12 to 11). Based on the above results, combined with Cabak and Groover's Peoria data, I suggest that over time Intermediate Access Área manufacturers will increase their flows at the expense of the High Access Área, but an increase in flows in Low Access Áreas will be at the expense of the Intermedíate Access Área. This result will occur because neither Intermedíate ñor Low Access Área manufacturers are able to overeóme the distribution networks already established by High Access Área manufacturers and because the transportation costs for Low and Intermedíate Área manufacturers are competitive only within their own región. Local Versus National Goods Preference The Commodity Flow Model not only reveáis the differential distribution of consumer household goods over time within the national economy, but is also a useful way of evaluating changes in consumer preference for locally manufactured goods. By applying the Commodity Flow Model to goods produced using materials and technologies independent of geographic location, changes in the preference for locally versus nationally marketed goods can be more easily studied. A good example of a manufacturing process equally available to all is the glass industry. Ceramics, on the other hand, are not good indicators of changing preference for locally produced goods because the location of these manufacturers is determined largely by raw resource availability. Consequently, comparable manufacturers are not able to develop in other access áreas, necessitating the import of these goods from non-local manufacturers, such as those in East Liverpool, Ohio, where quality clay is abundant. This method was applied to the Salt Lake County data (for consistency's sake, these glass-only assemblages are minus Owens-Illinois produets). Changes in consumer preference for locally or regionally manufactured household goods using artifaets produced with techniques and materials common to all áreas (glass in this case) were combined with the Commodity Flow Model. Table 5 lists the results of this analysis. When glass artifact frequeney is compared by access área, the residents of Salt Lake City increased the number of regionally produced goods purchased from 10 to 16.7 percent, at the expense of both the High and Intermedíate Access Áreas. When companies producing glass goods are compared by access área, 22.4 percent ofthe companies are in the Low Access Área (Table 5). This increases to 23.3 percent in the later assemblage. But, when looking at all types of artifaets in assemblage, only 18.6 percent ofthe total number of companies in the earlier deposit were from the Low Access Área and only 19.3 percent in the later assemblage (Table 4). These results clearly 52 UTAH ARCHAEOLOGY 2003 only 19.3 percent in the later assemblage (Table 4). These results clearly demónstrate that the residents of Salt Lake County preferred to purchase household consumer goods from regional companies (when available) rather than distant companies producing goods for the national market. CONCLUSIÓN The Commodity Flow Model, based on this new data from Salt Lake County, expands our ability to explain the archaeological record by relating observed archaeological patterns to the culturally derived variable of market access. The Commodity Flow Model reveáis the relationships between access to material goods, a residents' acquisition of these goods, and the subsequent composition of archaeological assemblages in an open market system. By looking at patterns of household consumption from a supply-side economic perspective we can increase our understanding of the relationships between people and material culture. Acknowledgments. I would like to thank Matthew T. Seddon, of SWCA Environmental Consultants, for generously making his data available for this study. I greatly appreciate Mark W. Crockett, Joseph M. Crockett, M. Joyce Crockett, and Ana Cristina Albu for patiently listening to my ideas, and for all their thoughtful input and comments. I thank Bretton L. Crockett, Jennifer A. Russell, and Bradley J. Parker for their comments on earlier versions of this paper. I appreciate the helpful comments given by Steven R. Simms and Donald L. Hardesty. Their suggestions greatly enhanced the quality of this paper. I thank Timothy B. Riordan for the use of Figure 1. Ana Cristina Albu kindly interrupted her busy schedule for me to re-touch Figure 1 - twice. Any errors are, of course, the fault ofthe author. REFERENCES CITED Adams, W. H., P. M. Bowers, and R. Mills 2001 Commodity Flow and National Market Access: A Case Study from Interior Alaska. Historical Archaeology 35:73-107. Cabak, M. A. and M. D. Groover 1993 The Archaeology of Urban Economic History and Industrial Networks: An Example from Peoria, Illinois. Midwest Archaeological Research Center, Illinois State University, Normal. Hardesty, D. L. 1991 Toward an Historical Archaeology ofthe Intermountain West. Historical Archaeology 25:29-35. Pred,A. 1970 Toward a Typology of Manufacturing Flows. In Economic Geography: Selected Readings, edited by F. E. Dohrs and L. M. Sommers, pp. 267- 286. Thomas Y. Crowell, New York. Riordan, T. B. and W. H. Adams 1985 Commodity Flows and National Market Access. Historical Archaeology 19:5- 18. Seddon, M. T. 2001 Consumer Cholee in Salt Lake City During the Early 20th Century: Report ofExcavation and Analysis o f Sites 42SL309 and 42SL327. (CD-ROM) Ms. on file, Utah Department of Transportation and Utah División of State History, Salt Lake City. Sillitoe, L. 1996 A History of Salt Lake County. Utah State Historical Society, Salt Lake City. Speulda, L. A. and G. C. Bowyer 1996 Out in the Country: Archaeological Correlates of Rural Consumer Strategies. Paper presented at the Northwest Anthropological Conference, Moscow, Idaho.