| OCR Text |
Show \AUi i • b'l\ I I UtJrf /FREMONT/SEVIER SUBSISTENCE DAVID B. MADSEN Utah Slate Historical Society ABSTRACT A review of literature dealing with Fremont/Sevier subsistence indicates that (I) there is very litlle data to support any interpretations: (2) that most existing hypotheses are defined in opposition to the Anasazi (e.g., "the Fremont peoples relied on hunting more than did the Anasazi"), and (3) there has been an assumed dependency by these groups on domesticated resources. An analysis of available data suggests that subsistence varied with local environmental conditions, but that a basic distinction exists between Great Basin and Colorado Plateau groups. At present, my best guess is that on the Colorado Plateau, subsistence revolved around agriculture and was supported by hurtling and gathering. In the Great Basin subsistence revolved around marsh gathering and upland hunting, and was supported by agriculture. Similarities and/or differences in subsistence adaptation are a major aspect of any cultural taxonomy, and must play a primary role in the classification of the Fremont/Sevier. INTRODUCTION Sites representative of what has come to be called the Fremont and Sevier have been excavated and reported for nearly 80 years. Well over 100 village sites have been excavated and reported in varying degrees of analytical complexity. Given this considerable amount of work and the importance of subsistence economy in determining group, size, site location, activity scheduling, etc., one would think that it would be relatively easy to quantify subsistence data and to accurately discuss Fremont/Sevier subsistence and its implications. Sadly, I must report that this is not the case. With very few exceptions there has been little or no attempt to obtain and report subsistence information. At the majority of excavated village sites there has been no effort to obtain data beyond the fortuitously recovered and obvious fauna! specimens and plant macrofossils. Even these data are often merely reported on a presence/ absence basis with no attempt made to determine relative proportions. The problem is at its worst when dealing with floral resources. The reasons for this are twofold. First, preservation of plant macrofossils in open village sites is often minimal. IheflJily-macrofossils which are preserved are usually carbonized and consist of denser plant parts such as seeds and cobs. Leaves, roots, fruits, etc., are virtually never recovered. This bias is compounded by the fact that flotation and pollen analytical techniques have been employed only recently, and the only plants reported from most sites are those which are visually obvious. Second, floral resources (wild and/or domesticated) constitute the major portion of nearly every ethnographically identified culture. This was undoubtedly also the case with the Fremont/Sevier. As a result, that aspect of the subsistence system which is the more important (i.e., the floral resources) is also the poorest known. The problem is little better when dealing with faunal resources. The more ready preservation of bones and their relatively larger size has resulted in a larger body of data, but these data represent a hit-or-miss type of approach, and are also somewhat biased. They are hit-or- miss in that often bones have never been identified. When they have been identified, they have often been presented simply in a species list format with no attempt to provide total bone counts or to quantify the material. When total counts are given, there is often no attempt to identify minimal numbers of individuals represented. The problem is at its worst when dealing with bird bones. Bird bones have been identified at only ten vil-age sites (Parmalee n.d.); at most sites they are simply listed as "bird." Since knowledge of whether the birds are marsh or upland species may be critical in defining a subsistence system, this lack of identification hamstrings any interpretation. The bias derives from two factors. The collection of only large readily observed bones during excavation has undoubtedly militated against the recognition of smaller animals such as 25 microtine rodents, and makes any interpretation ol relative portions of the diet tentative at best. There is also a problem with the quality of identification. A re-examination of the faunal collections from several of the better excavated and reported sites suggests (1) the bird and rodent bones arc often confused, and (2) that many nondiagnostic elements of the larger species arc often recorded as being accurately identified when, in fact, they cannot be accurately assigned to one or anothei species. Obviously, interpretations based on data of this quality must necessarily be limited. This may seem to be an overemphasis on the lack of data and on the poor quality of the data which does exist. However, given the present state of knowledge, we can do little more than list elements which were probably a part of the Fremont/Sevier diet, and make no inference that the list is anywhere near completion. Such a list in no way constitutes an analysis of the subsistence economy. Was corn a major or minor portion of the diet? Was the collection of pinyon nuts critical to survival? Were marsh resources available to all or only a portion of the Fremont/Sevier? What elements of the subsistence system can be analyzed in terms of the law of the minimum or optimal foraging theory? It is not yet possible to objectively answer these questions, and as a result we cannot estimate group size and fluidity, permanency of site occupation, activity scheduling, or any of the other aspects of a subsistence system. Any conclusions concerning subsistence are highly speculative. In large measure they have been a product of assumptions (nearly always implicit assumptions) more than of an objective analysis of the data. Lest 1 sound too pompous, I must admit that 1 have been guilty as any other in drawing such highly speculative conclusions. My excuse is that I hope to provide an alternative to longstanding assumptions to illustrate that other explanations of Fremont/ Sevier settlement patterns, village size, etc., are possible. Given the limitations of the available data, the conclusions outlined below must be considered tentative and subject to revision. They too consist ol speculations. A SHORT HISTORY OF SUBSISTENCE RESEARCH AND PAST SPECULATIONS Throughout the history of Fremont/Sevier research several threads of interrelated assumptions are evident. This is made most evident by a series of short excerpts: "The prehistoric house builders of the region . . . were primarily farmers." "Those numerous metates . . . were doubtless intended primarily for the grinding and crushing of maize." "Agriculture, and especially the cultivation of corn, has always been associated throughout the southwestern United States with fairly permanent places of abode." (Judd 1926: 149). (Judd refers here to the Great Basin, Colorado Plateau, and Anasazi areas.) "Although the culture was partly and perhaps predominantly agricultural, the inhabitants of the Fremont region were also dependent in a good part on the game supply." ". . . the people about, in all probability living on the fiats in the summer and cultivating corn, and in the winter camping in sheltered canyons around the mountains and devoting themselves to hunting." {Morss 1931: 76). (Morss refers here only to the Colorado Plateau.) "The relative scarcity of horticultural products and the relative abundance of objects connected with bow and arrow point to a people who relied in great measure upon hunting and gathering for their food." (Steward 1936: 61). (Steward here refers primarily to the Great Basin.) ". . . only limited horticulture seems to have been practiced by the Puebloid people . . . Hunting and gathering must have continued as an important means of subsistence." ". . . the Puebloids were gathering-hunting peoples relying only secondarily upon horticulture . . ." (Rudy 1953:169). (Rudy here refers to the Great Basin only.) "The Fremont people were agriculturalists and grew corn, beans, and squash." "They depended on hunting to a greater extent than is usual for agriculturalists" (i.e.. the Anasazi) (Wormington 1955:173). (Wormington here refers to the Colorado Plateau.) "The economy of the Fremont peoples was based on maize-beans-squash horticulture, supplemented by hunting" (Aikens 1966b: 3). (Aikens refers here to both the Great Basin and Colorado Plateau.) "Pharo Village is interpreted as a small permanent settlement of horticulturists whose diet was supplemented by, and perhaps seasonally dependent upon, the exploitation of animal resources." "Evidence of horticulture includes. . . numerous grinding implements . . . and the fact that . . . storage structures outnumber dwellings by more than two to one." (Marwitt 1968:5). (Marwitt here refers specifically to one Great Basin site.) "Like the neighboring Anasazi, the Fremont were essentially sedentary farmers, growing corn and other crops . . ." "They are distinct from the contemporary Anasazi, however, in a number of traits such as more emphasis on hunting . . ." (Ambler 1970: 7). (Ambler here refers to both the Great Basin and Colorado Plateau.) "Subsistence was based on corn, bean, and squash horticulture, practiced with the aid of irrigation and supplemented by hunting and gathering activities." (Gunnerson 1969:162). "Subsistence west of the Wasatch was based on a combination of horticulture and hunting/ gathering. The emphasis probably differed somewhat from area to area depending on local environment." (Gunnerson 1969:13). (Gunnerson's initial reference is to the Colorado Plateau Fremont and the second is to the Great Basin Sevier.) "Regarding Fremont adaptations, it can now be shown the Fremont exploitative pattern was not uniform owing to the nonuniform distribution of biota and various raw 26 PINYON-JUNIPER FOOTHILLS VALLEY FLOOR DESERT Fig. 2. Parowan Fremont subsistence model (Berry 1974) 27 MARSH-WETLANDS FLORA-FAUNA EXPLOITED SEMI-DESERT GENERAL VALLEY PINYON- JUNIPER ASPEN-CONIFER fk POPULATION MOVEMENT THROUGH TIME AND ECOZONES Harvest Cultivars Plant ^V * Cultivars Fig. 3. Sevier subsistence model (interior river valleys) (Nielson 1978) 2c r materials in the Fremont culturcarea."(Marwitt 1970:4) (Marwitt here refers to both the Circat Basin and the Colorado Plateau.) This scries of quotations is certainly not exhaustive of the available literature but it does, 1 think, adequately represent both the opinions on Fremont/Sevici subsistence and the developmental trends of those opinions. I delect several assumptions which reoccur throughout ihe above assessments (as well as in others not listed here). Primary among these is that the presence of domesticates, sedentary villages, storage structures, and grinding implements indicates a dependence on horticulture. A corollary assumption is that sedentary village cannot occur in the absence of such dependence. That is, sedentary village equals a subsistence system based on corn agriculture and transient site occupation equals a dependence on wild resources. (Steward and Rudy are-notable exceptions to this pattern.) A second common thread is that subsistence is characterized in terms of similarity or difference to the Anasazi. That is, rather than provide an internally sufficient description, most analysts prefer to describe Fremont/Sevier subsistence as like unto the Anasazi, but with a greater emphasis on hunting. Another obvious trend is that most researchers recognize a basic dissimilarity between subsistence in the Great Basin and Colorado Plateau, and recognize that regional environmental diversity may be an important factor in this dissimilarity. It must be noted that all of these discussions of Fremont/Sevier are essentially informal, subjectively derived models. In the last several years, two formal subsistence system models have been presented. Both of these models are derived from unpublished masters theses, and both must be considered inadequate because they are based on insufficient and biased data (as noted above). However, I feel that they are worth considering briefly if only because they represent formal and easily visually represented models of two contrasting theses on Fremont/Sevier subsistence. The first is a subsistence model for the Parowan Fremont presented by Berry (1974) (Figure 2) and represents formalization of the thesis that sedentarism was based on corn agriculture, and that no wild species exploited by the aboriginal populations was productive enough to allow sedentarism in lieu of adequate crop yields. The second is a sub-sistance model for the central Sevier River valley by Nielson (1978) (Figure 3) and represents formalization of Steward's and Rudy's thesis that corn agriculture played a secondary role in the subsistence economy of TABLE 1 Plant 1 ypes Identified at Fremont/Sevier Sites Agropyrtm sp. <quickpass)#: ;" . ;. ; Alli'hrolfia occidentals, (picklcwecd)tf ."" - ' Amatanthusspp, (amaranlh)*+# Ami'laruhieri,pp.iser\'icebcrry)+11 Asicracca'e (astei:)ff Astragalussp. ( <-•*• )fl, • /•1m/)/e.v.spp.;(saltbush)+tf Brassicaccae (mustard ) # - Bromu's spp, (bromegrass)# { arex spp. (sedge)*?/ Caryophytlaccae{- - --j# . Chenopodium spp. (lambsquarter, goose foot, etc.)*+# Cleomespp. {bccvfccd)tt•."..; Comandra sp, (bastard toadflax)^ Cryptdntha spp. (-^^•=L?'^'-, Cucurbila spp. (squash)+A Ech'movactus sp; (cactus)*! •Echinocercus sp. (cactus)# . -. Echinochloa sp. (barnyard grass)ft Epilobium sp: (willow weed}# Equtseiumsp, (horsetail)*":. Euphorbia sp! (spurgc)# : Heliahthm annuus, (sunflowery+H Juniperds app. (juniper)*#. Mentzeliasp. (-••---)#:; L Oe no the ra sp,i e ven i rig pr imro se)# Qpumia spp, (cacms>+ \ Oryzopsis hytnerioides, (Indian ricegrass)# Phaceliasp,{-'--)tt • Phaseolusvulgaris. (beans)+# Pinus edufisjmonophyld, (pi nyon pine)// Poaeeae (blue-grass)/? v. Polygonum sp. (sma rtweed }tj •. Rubits sp. (blackberry, raspberry)# Scirpussppv(bulrush)*t# . Sclerocaciu.i sp..(cacius}# Sphaeratcea spp..(globe mallow)+# Sporobolus spp. (sand dropseed)S . Typha latifplw, (cattail)* Yucca sp. (--~)*t; Zed maize (cbrn)*+# # Identified from plant macrofossils * Identified from abnormally high pollen counts + Present in coprolites the Basin. This second model is also based on evidence that one or more wild species were sufficient to allow sedentarism and were, in fact, heavily utilized by some if not all Basin villagers (e.g., Madsen and Lindsay 1977; Madsen 1979a). At present neither of these models can be substantiated, but subjectively, I feel that in the proper area both may be valid. That is, 1 think Berry's model, with some revision, may be applicable to the Plateau Fremont, and that Nielson's model, again with some revision, may be applicable to the Great Basin Sevier. Discussion of why 1 am currently thinking along these lines follows a brief treatment of what little we do know. FLORAL RESOURCES As I noted above, it is extremely difficult to deal with plant resources within the overall subsistence system with any degree of objectivity. Only carbonized, relatively dense, easily recognized species have been collected and, even where sampling has been extensive, it has been limited to carbonized seeds. As a result, I can only provide a species list at present (Table 1). Even this list must be approached with caution since items such as juniper berries may have been used for decoration and/or medicine as well as food. Items denoted by an asterisk have been identified only through pollen analysis, but have been found in high enough proportions, to suggest their use as food resources. Species listed are from village sites only. 2c TABLE 1) Faunal Remains from Selected Fremont/Sevier Sites 4>7 a • - > . ' t-:: "3 c s et U. Sites Bear River #1 Bear River #2 Bear River #3 Injun Creek Garrison Tooele Hinckley Mounds Woodard Mounds Taylor Mounds House site Nephi Mounds Ephraim Pharo Village Backhoe Village Marys vale Median Village Evans Mound Whiterocks Village Caldwell Village Turner-Look: 3 Emery sites Innocents Ridge Snake Rock Old Woman Poplar Knob 1 Bull Creek O 2 1 2 3 • 1 • 3 3 0 ' 3 2 %y 3 . - 3 - 2 3: 3 ; 3 3 2 .3 1 . 2 •• .2 - 2 2- 2 Mountain Sheep i 1 0 ••i?; 2 0 2 0' 0 0 2 0 2 3 0 3 : 3 0 o 2 0 2 3: 3 0 .2 Antelope 0 1 2 1 3 ' 72 ; 0 0 I 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 . 3 0 • : 3 : : 0 0 0 :m %tih o ^•2:C: Bison 3 3 3^ 0 1 2 3 3 3 >2 ; 0 .2 • • • . 2 ' - : Sot 2 1 0 0 0 ::2 ; 0 W- ;T; ftO^ ?o- 0 Elk 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 0 0 I • 3 0 0 Rabbits 2 3 1 :2'.' 2 2 3 0 2 2 2 2 3 ; 3 : ! : • 3 3 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 Squirrels, prairie dogs, gophers, etc. 0 1 0 • 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 1 2 2 2 2 2 3: 0 1 2 2 3 2 2 0 2 Mice, moles, woodrats etc. 1 1 1 I 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 .0 0 0 0 0 0 *> Dog 0 0 0: o 1 0 0 n 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 Wolf, coyote, fox. mi. lion, bobcat,: bear. etc. 1 J 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 2 1 o i l 0 0 0 l i 0 0 si E'E > VI CQ £ 2 3 3 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 '2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Aquatic species (frogs fish, bivalves, etc.) 1 3 1 2 1 0 3 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 I 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Badger, marmot, porcupine, skunk, etc. 1 2 1 1 0 2 2 0 1 0 1 2 2: 0 •2- 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Birds 3 3 3 3 2 7: 3 '2 ' 3 - 2 : 0 2 3 2 : 2:;? 2 2 2 3 2 « 1 0 : i--: I 0 2 , . • : • « :.'VW.: "• -<:a> ml : -3 D 3 ;-VS 3 ; ; 3 ; : *) ? 3 9 2 7 3 7 ;:,-3v> 9 7 7 1 7 7 7 •> O 7 7 0 " • Other marsh birds 3 3 3 3 7 7-2^ 3 7 2 7 2 7 2 7 9 7 1 7 7 7 7 0 7 7 0 ? Grouse 1 1 0 1 7 7 I 7 0 7 2 1 3 • 7 1 7 1 7 7 ? 7 0{7 7 1 0 Hawks, eagles, falcons, owls, etc. 1 1 1 I 7 7 :' 0 7 0 7 1 7 27V; 7 7 7 7 7 1 7' 0 7 7 0 ? | -, . a •'•: ,t87l) C .in '•> C '«^ >•« 1 I 0 7 1 ? 7 1 • ? • ,v2^: ') i ? t i 7 7 1 7 7 . 7 7 0 7 7 • l#d y' 1 o = Unidentified; 1 = Rare; 2 - Present; 3 = Common Little can be said about this species list other than wild plant types obviously dominate it. These wild types come from a variety of ecosystems and indicate a rather wide-ranging gathering system. No evidence as to the relative dominance of one or more species can be discerned. However, it must be noted that corn (and only corn) has been recovered from the majority of village sites. The exceptions are important in that they form a consistent pattern. At sites in or near marsh areas adjacent to the Great Salt Lake, Utah Lake, and the Sevier River, corn is absent or only minimally represented, while marsh species such as bulrush, sedge, and cattail are prevalent. One other point concerning pinyon nuts deserves mention: There is a long-standing assumption that pinyon nuts formed a major portion of the Fremont/Sevier subsistence system. Some have even gone so far as to suggest that competition for this particular resource may have contributed to the Fremont/Sevier demise (Berry 1974, 1976; Madsen 1975b). Most of this speculation is based on the distribution of temporary Fremont/Sevier camp sites in the pinyon-juniper zone, (i.e., "These small sites... may have been occupied by Fremont people while they were gathering pine nuts." (Gunnerson 1969: 135). They are certainly not based on the presence of pinyon nut macrofossils in village sites, since such evidence is minimal. For instance the subsistence model postulated by Berry is based on a single shell fragment from Evans M ound (as well as on the distribution of temporary sites). Unfortunately, such speculation resembles the reasoning used by Thomas (1973) in his treatment of Archaic and Shoshonian subsistence models. That is both Archaic and Shoshoni sites are found in the pinyon-juniper zone; the 30 Shoshoni utilized pinyon; therefore the Archaic peoples also relied on pinyon. 1'he case is the same for both the Archaic and the Fremont /Sevier: pinyon nut shells arc noticeably absent from the majority of cave/rock shelter sites in the pinyon zone, the very sites they are most likely in be delected in, given a dependence on the nuts (al-i hough there a re exceptions [e.g. Madsen n.d.;Tuohy personal communication]). Given this absence it is extremely dillicult to support a subsistence model which includes the use DI pinyon, and n must be considered quite tentative until such evidence is marshalled. Interestingly enough, what little evidence there is for the use of pinyon nuts, is restricted primarily to the Colorado Plateau and it is conceivable that the differential use of pinyon may be an additional factor in separating the Colorado Plateau Fremont from the Great Basin Sevier. FAUNAL RESOURCES It is not much easier to quantify faunal resources in the Fremont/ Sevier subsistence systems. As noted above, this is because bones have been identified only in a limited number of sites, bird bones have been identified only at ten sites and estimates of minimum numbers of individuals are rarely given. Table II consists of my subjective evaluation of what information is available from the sites listed. Animal types are categorized as to common, present, rare, and absent. There are several conclusions which can be drawn from this compilation. First the large game animals: Deer is the most common species and appears at 25 of the 26 sites listed. They are common at 12 of these sites and the distribution appears to be generalized. Bison are found at 15 of the sites but are common at only six. All six are in the northeastern Great Basin around Utah Lake and the Great Salt Lake. Mountain sheep were recovered at 15 of the 26 sites, but are common at only five. All five of these sites are near the central/southern Wasatch Plateau. Elk were found at nine sites but were common at only two. heen identified at 23 of the 26 sites (the three exceptions are all on the Colorado Plateau). At all ten sites where birds have been identified to species, marsh birds were prevalent (Parmalee n.d.). All ten of these sites are in the Great Basin. Unfortunately birds have not been identified at the six Colorado Plateau sites where they occur and as a result the data are somewhat biased. These distributions suggest the following: With the exception of deer which were hunted throughout the Fremont/Sevier areas, the procurement of large game appears to have been dependent on locally available resources. That is, bison in the northeastern basin, antelope in the basin deserts, and mountain sheep in the mountainous areas of central and southern Utah. Small game, particularly rabbits, constituted a major portion of the faunal resource. Rabbits were sought universally and what other small game was procured depended on locally available resources. In the Great Basin there-seems to be a marked reliance on faunal species common to marsh environments while this is not true for the Colorado Plateau. By far the most prevalent small game are rabbits which were recovered at 24 of the 26 sites. They can be considered rare at none of these sites. Other small rodents such as squirrels and gophers are found at 19 sites. Microtine rodents (this category includes wood-rats and moles) are found infrequently, but as noted this may be a product of biased sampling. There is an interesting shared distribution in the categories of small aquatic/semiaquatic mammals (beaver, otter, muskrat, etc), aquatic species (frogs, fish, bivalves, etc.), and marsh birds. With few exceptions these are almost entirely restricted to the Great Basin sites. The semiaquatic mammals occur at three of the Colorado Plateau sites, but only rarely. They are found at 13 of the 17 Great Basin sites and are common or present at 12 of these. All ten sites which contain fish, frogs, and other aquatic species are found in the Great Basin as far south as the Parowan Valley. (It should be noted, however, that artifacts identified as fish-hooks have been identified at Fremont sites on the Colorado Plateau). Birds have There is another important question that is rarely considered when discussing the place of faunal resources in the overall subsistence system. That is, what is the difference between smaller animals gathered on a regular basis versus larger animals gathered irregularly or seasonally? It is always assumed that deer, mountain sheep, antelope, and bison were the more important animals in the subsistence sustem, primarily because of their size, and consequently the amount of available meat. However, with few exceptions, nearly every village site contains much larger percentages of smaller game such as rabbits, squirrels, and birds. If the larger game is available only seasonally, then given the preser-vational problems, the smaller game may have been a more important part of the day-to-day diet. Given the prevalence of iron deficiency anemia in a large percentage of the Fremont/Sevier populations (Andrews 1972), it is probable that large quantities of meat were rarely available and that the average daily diet consisted of plants spiced with occasional small game. 31 SPECULATIONS I have intentionally considered only subsistence information from village sites. One reason for this is the difficulty in relating individual village sites to specific temporary sites in an overall subsistence system (if indeed they are related). However, the primary reason is that most controversy surrounding Fremont/Sevier subsistence involves sedentarism and the proportional role domesticated and non-domesticated resources played in that sedentarism. 1 think the assumption that Fremont/Sevier sedentarism was necessarily dependent on corn-beans-squash agriculture can be dismissed out-of- hand. The existence of numerous sedentary "Archaic" sites in North America (e.g., Jennings 1974; O'Connell 1975 is a specific Great Basin example) argues cogently against such an assumption. (As an aside one must wonder about how these sites are to be categorized since by definition the Archaic consists of a "migratory hunting and gathering" type of subsistence adaptation [Wil-ley and Phillips 1958]", which varied "from season to season as it focused first on one species or community of species and then on another . . . [Jennings 1974:110])." However, even the possibility that Fremont and/or Sevier sedentarism may be based on something other than a dependency on domesticates is something that has never really been considered. The real question is not whether Fremont/Sevier peoples relied on the collection of wild resources or on domesticates. Obviously, they relied on both. The real question is to what degree they relied on one or the other. If locally available resources are insufficient to support a population of a given size, it then follows that the production of domesticates becomes the factor which allows the existence of stable village life. Given problems with field maintenance and scheduling associated with food production, it is an either/ or type of situation. Either there is sedentarism based on food production or there is migratory seasonal round based on collecting. If, on the other hand, there are sufficient locally available wild resources to support a sedentary population of a given size, it then follows that the production of domesticates becomes less critical and corns, beans, and squash merely become supplementary resources. Years of poor production would not necessarily force a reversion to a site-to-site movement. The question remains then as to whether or not there were sufficient locally available wild resources and further, whether or not the sedentary villagers were aware of them and utilized them. Recent work by Madsen and Lindsay (1977), Madsen (n.d.), Nielson (1978), and Parmaiee (n.d.) suggest that in the Great Basin, marsh resources were of sufficient quantity to allow sedentarism and the limited amount of information reviewed above makes it clear that both floral and faunal marsh resources were indeed utilized. These resources were available throughout the eastern Great Basin and were utilized as far south as the Parowan Valley. A recent evaluation of "wetlands" in Utah (Jensen 1974) describes 475,598 acres ol first and second degree marshes (i.e. permanent marshes) in Utah. Of this amount 95% (451.930 acres) are in Great Basin counties and only 5% (23,668 acres) are located in the rest of the state. Unfortunately, the relevant factors of population size and carrying capacity cannot be determined with the information at hand. However, the productivity of the marsh ecosystems was such that determination of such factors becomes less critical. In one 50-mile stretch of the Sevier River Valley alone there were up to 55 million pounds of cattail flour available at any one time (Madsen 1979). I do not wish to imply that cattail was the primary resource, since a variety of other marsh resources was also collected. However, figures such as this make it evident that the carrying capacity of the marshes was sufficient to support relatively large sedentary populations. In the Great Basin, the placement of village sites suggests a reliance on both these marsh resources and domesticates. Villages are found on alluvial fans suitable for floodplain farming, but are also placed within a ready collecting distance of a marsh ecosystem. On the Colorado Plateau the settlement pattern does not suggest that proximity to marsh resources was a critical factor. This may simply be a result of the limited availability of such resources on the Colorado Plateau. However, the lack of marsh floral and faunal remains in Colorado Plateau village sites suggests that they were relatively unimportant in the Colorado Plateau subsistence system and that there was no concerted attempt to locate sites near such resources or to procure them. They are not found on suitable alluvial fans away from marsh areas. In sum, there seems to be a marked difference between Great Basin and Colorado Plateau subsistence systems. In the Great Basin, marsh resources were available and were utilized. On the Colorado Plateau, marsh resources were not available and were not utilized. What little information there is on the possible utilization of pinyon is almost wholly derived from the Colorado Plateau; evidence of pinyon nut procurement on the Great Basin is virtually nonexistent. These factors suggest that the subsistence system model constructed by Berry (1974) may be more applicable to the Colorado Plateau, while the model provided by Nielson (1978) is more valid for the Great Basin. It appears that in the Great Basin the production of domesticates may not have been a necessary prerequisite for sedentary village life, but that on the Colorado Plateau the production of sufficient quantities of domestic resources may have been critical to continued sedentarism. What this difference means in terms of activity scheduling, group size, and fluidity, etc., remains to be worked out, 32 but clearly it created significant differences in the ovei-all cultural pattern. There are readily detectable differences in village size, site density, and possibly even length of site occupation. These factors suggest possible differences in social organization, which, in conjunction with subsistence difference, may warrant separating the Great Basin Sevier from the Colorado Plateau Fremont on a higher level than has been considered previously. This brings up one final point. It was pointed out in an earlier paper by Hogan and Sebastian (1978) that one of the major draw-backs to the interpretation of the Fremont and the Sevier has been the attempt to force these groups into phylogenetic classification schemes. 1 must agree and I suggest that it will be more beneficial to locus on differences and/or similarities in subsistence, settlement patterns, group size, activity scheduling, etc., than on questions of genetic origins or on whether or not various groups should be separated on higher or lower levels of a particular taxonomic scheme. Questions of similar or separate origins are less relevant than are questions of how these people lived, worked, and related to each other. On this basis the villagers on the Colorado Plateau and the villagers in the eastern Great Basin -were sufficiently different to warrant treatment as separate entities. 33 |
