4.9 Simms et al. 1997-JAS

8/6/2019 4.9 Simms et al. 1997-JAS

1/14

Journal of Archaeological Science (1997) 24, 779792

Plain-Ware Ceramics and Residential Mobility: A CaseStudy From the Great Basin

Steven R. Simms and Jason R. Bright

Department of S ociology, S ocial W ork and A nthropology, Utah S tate University, L ogan, UT 84322-0730, U.S .A .

Andrew Ugan

Department of Anthropology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, U.S.A.

(Received 5 February 1996, revised manuscript accepted 6 June 1996)

Plain, utilitarian ceramics from prehistoric farmers and foragers in north-western Utah are used to identify whether

ceramics reflect mobility. Simple methods measure the degree of investment in ceramic manufacture. Investment istreated as a general concept that subsumes other assessments of ceramic variability such as use-life and function.Investment is compared with mobility using archaeological sites with independent measures of mobility. A hypothesisproposing greater investment in the quality of ceramic manufacture with increasing residential stability, occupationalredundancy and/or the presence of a logistic system is variously supported. X-ray diffraction of ceramic temper is usedto test two hypotheses about the expected distance to raw material sources and variability in the use of sources withincreasing mobility. Variation is b est described by geograph ical pr oximity, and the n umber of u tilized sources increaseswith mobility. 1997 Academic Press Limited

Keywords: CERAMICS, MOBILITY, FREMONT CULTURE, GREAT BASIN, X-RAY DIFFRACTION.

Introduction

Archaeological ceramics ha ve long been recog-nized as useful for the chronological orderingof past cultures and for exploring the relation-

ship between form and function. Within the last fewdecades, however, there has been a significant increasein emphasis on functional analysis, pursuant to thenotion tha t at tributes of material culture are to varyingdegrees shaped by the problems of life. Dean Arnold(1985) synthesizes the processual perspective anddevelops cross-cultural generalizations r elating ceramicform with variation in behavioural and environmentalsetting. Philip Arnold (1991: 4) sees this trend as

releasing ceramics from the tyranny of culturehistory and relating ceramic studies to the broaderanthropological issues of the day.

Throughout this effort, most archaeological ceramicstudy, but especially the ethnoarchaeological, isdirected at relatively complex systems of ceramicmanufacture: cases of sedentism and craft specializ-ation producing decorated ceramic industries featuringstylistic content. Less is known about ceramic useamong foragers and in simple farmerforager systemswhere only a few types of plain, utilitarian wares areproduced (but see Whalen, 1994: 7091; Skibo &Schiffer, 1995). We investiga te va ria tion in the

morphology and raw material procurement distance of

plain-ware ceramics in a case of farmers and foragersin the eastern Great Basin (Figure 1) to identifythe extent to which ceramics can reflect residentialmobility.

Many highly mobile societies do not manufactureceramics at all, but a surprising number do. Of ethno-graphically known societies in the Great Basin/Plateauculture area, an area known for low population densityand semi-sedentary societies, 40% of them ma nufactur eceramics (Arno ld, 1985: 124). It is also well establishedthat reliance on ceramics increases among semi-sedentary groups (Arnold, 1985: 109125). In fact,some constraints on ceramic manufacture are less in

non-sedentary situations than in many cases of fullsedentism (see Arnold, 1985: 120). Thus, study ofrelatively simple instances of ceramic man ufacture maybe informative of crucial processes and transitions inprehistory.

Information about raw material procurement dis-tance also holds pro mise. In 111 ethnographical casesaround the world, potters obtain clays for ceramicmanufacture within 1 km of ho me in 33% of the cases,and within 7 km in 84% of the cases (Arnold, 1985:4950). Procurement distances for ceramic temper aresimilar, with temper obtained within 1 km of homein 52% of 31 cases. It follows that materials from

77903054403/97/090779+ 14 $25.00/0/as960160 1997 Academic Press Limited

8/6/2019 4.9 Simms et al. 1997-JAS

2/14

relatively dispersed sources will be sampled in cases ofhigher mobility accompanied by expedient ceramicmanufacture.

The above ethnographically documented patternssupport the following propositions: greater investmentin ceramics with decreasing mobility, and greatersampling of dispersed material sources with increasingmobility. T hese pr opositions are consistent with the

general a nthropo logical understanding tha t increasesin the quantity and complexity of material cultureplaces constraints u pon mobility (e.g. Sahlins, 1972:1112). The same propositions were alluded to sometime ago by Gunn erson (1969: 182, 185, 197) withreference to ceramic manufacture in the Basin/Plateauregion.

We investigate these propositions in an archaeologi-cal context by hypothesizing relationships betweenmobility, degree of investment in ceramic ma nufactur e,and variation in the use of material sources. Variabilityin ceramic morphology is to some extent conditionedby the vessels function and use-life and we propose

that these things are in turn influenced by the magni-tude of residential mobility, occupational redundancy,and the p resence or absence of a logistic system. Simpleand inexpensive means are employed to measureaspects of investment in ceramics including temper size,wall thickness, and surface preparation, enabling alarge sample size to be measured; 5345 sherds inthis study.

As for material sources, we investigate the propo-sition that more mobile people will sample a widervariety of sources, while those who are more residen-tially stable will use a select few. If this is true, then thedegree of raw material variability will increase at sites

indicating greater residential mobility, relative to sitesindicating lower mobility. Since the proposed relation-ship is relative, the actual source locations, or degreeof local variability in materials is irrelevant. Sourcevariation is investigated using X-ray diffraction,again an inexpensive technique useful for assessing

variation among materials without knowledge of theactual source locationsan expensive form of datato acquire and one that may not be necessary toanswer many questions about ceramic variability andbehaviour. A sample of 120 sherds were subject toX-ray diffraction.

If either of the above propositions are true, even inpart, then frequency pat terns for variables pertinent toceramic investment should vary among sites reflectingdifferences in mobility. Furthermore, these patternsmay cross-cut ceramic t ypes and archaeological cul-tures because the behaviour responsible for them mayalso cross-cut these categories, which are typically

rooted in a culturehistorical perspective. The hypoth-eses resulting from our assumptions are tested bycomparing variation in measures of ceramic investmentand material sources at sites for which independentarchaeological measures of occupational stability areavailable. A central goal of this study is parsimony inthe exploration of an aspect of ceramic variation notpreviously investigated in plain ceramic industries t ostimulate more detailed investigation in additionalcases.

The Research Setting

In many foraging or simple farming systems, plain,utilitarian ceramics comprise the bulk of archaeologi-cal ceramic collections. This is the case for prehistoricfarmers and foragers in the Gr eat Salt Lake area of thenorth-eastern Great Basin where rim sherds (enablingan estimation of whole vessel form) and decoratedsherds are relatively uncommon, but which exhibitshigh variability among numerous body sherds fromplain, utilitarian vessels (Figure 1).

The Fremont period ( 4001300) and subsequentLate Prehistoric period ( 1300histor ic t imes) is atime of high a dapt ive diversity with subsistence systemsranging from foraging to full-time farming and a

variety of dietary mixes in between. It is increasinglyapparent that farmer and forager systems co-existed inthe Fremont region (Simms, 1986, 1994, n.d.; Madsen,1989; Coltrain, 1993, n.d.). The F remont period iscontemporaneous with the better-known farmingsocieties of the Southwest such as the Anasazi, andthe expression of adaptive diversity in the Fremonta rea parallels tha t described for the Southwest(Upham, 1984, 1994; Rushforth & Upham, 1992:5266).

Ceramics of the Fremont and Late Prehistoricperiods have tr aditionally been employed for culturehistorical purposes r esulting in their use as cultural

Study area

Utah Valley

Idaho

Nevada GreatSalt

Lake

Arizona

Colorado

Sevier war es

Snak e Valley wares

Boundary ofFrem ont ceram ics

1000

km

N

Wyoming

Utah

Figure 1. Map of study area and regional context.

780 S. R. Simms et al.

8/6/2019 4.9 Simms et al. 1997-JAS

3/14

badges and chronological markers. This exercise hasproduced about a dozen ceramic types that, in the caseof the Fremont period, are spatially organized, andhence seen as synonymous with regional variants of theFr emont (e.g. R. Madsen, 1977; D. Madsen, 1986).Ceramics thought to date from the Late Prehistoricperiod are distinguished from the Fremont, typicallyon the basis of chronology alone, and assigneddifferent labels.

Recent ceramic study in the north-eastern GreatBasin shows there is considerable variability within theFremont types and between the F remont and LatePrehistoric types (Dean & Heath, 1988; Janetski, 1990;Dean, 1992; Simms et al., 1993). Furthermore, the highdegree of adaptive diversity across the Fremont andLate Prehistoric p eriods suggests the utility of analys-ing ceramic assemblages for variability. Surely anysuccess at linking ceramic and behavioural variationcan only complement our understanding of the culturehistory.

In the Great Salt Lake area, fieldwork between 1986and 1993 recorded several hundred archaeological

sites, provided excavation data from several of them(Simms & Heath, 1990; Simms et al., 1991; Fawcett &Simms, 1993) and lead to analysis of skeletal remainsfrom 85 individuals (see Hemphill & Larsen, n.d.).

The relevant ceramic types in the study area includethe F remont ware termed Great Salt Lake G ray, LatePrehistoric Gray (often termed Shoshoni ware), andthe temporally overlapping ware termed PromontoryGray (Figure 2). Small numbers of painted sherds arefound, or sherds with unusual temper based on visualexamination. These are typically interpreted asintrusive Fremont wares from elsewhere in the region(e.g. Snake Valley or Sevier, see Figure 1).

General Methodology

The degree of ceramic variation observed during theGr eat Salt La ke fieldwork indicated value in a n analy-sis of ceramics for variation in specific morphologicalcharacteristics. A total of 5345 sherds from 40 archaeo-

logical sites were studied. These include ceramics fromareas recently surveyed and tested, and samples frommuseum collections. Sites were selected because th eyalso contained independent lines of evidence indicatingoccupational stability and site function. Sites wereorganized on a continuum of high to low occupationalstability represented by four categories of site type:agricultural bases, residential bases, residential camps,short-t erm camps/special-use sites.

Site type assignments to reflect a continuum ofresidential mobility are based on the size and type ofarchitectural features, the presence, size, and typeof subsurface storage facilities, and other, specialized

features also indicative of occupational stability orredundancy. Assemblage composition and diversity,including the range of ecofacts, also play a role, takinginto account redundancy in site use. In the case ofagricultural bases, site location is also importantbecause farming is spatially constrained to the toes ofalluvial fans emanating from the mountains due totopography, hydrology, and soil salinity related to theGreat Salt Lake. In cases of previously excavated sites,we largely agree with the site type interpretations ofthe original excavators as to the degree of residentialstability the sites reflect. Since this aspect of t he work isalready developed elsewhere, the reader is referred tothe basic data reported in Simms et al. (1991), Fawcett

& Simms (1993) and the references therein for pre-viously excavated cases incorporated in this analysis.Also, Simms (n.d.) provides a general discussion ofadaptive diversity for the area during F remont andLate Prehistoric times.

The categorical distinctions employed here rely onreadily visible differences indicating variation inresidential mobility among sites. For instance, a sitewith pithouses of substantial investment, numeroussubsurface pits, and large and often dense middens,can be distinguished from sites with surface struc-tures of poles and mud, stratigraphically documentedintermittent occupation, and small-scale storage. In

turn, sites indicating residential stability can be dis-tinguished from sites with very light wickiups or brushwindbreaks and recurrent, but brief, activity-basedreuse.

We impose a categorical distinction on a continuousvariable (mobility) for heuristic purposes. While thereare no fixed criteria for rigorously categorizing thesesites, the typology itself is not the point. Rather, thevariability in sites that surveyors and excavators in theregion have long described is compared with variationin a category of material culture which ethnographicalobservations in varied contexts around the worldindicate should be responsive to residential mobility.

Late P rehistoric

Fremont

Great Salt Lake Grey

Promontory

Late Prehistoric/Shoshoni

AD 1500

AD 1000

AD 50 0

..................

................... ....

...... ..........

Figure 2. Types, chronology, and examples of form in the ceramicsfrom the study area (after Butler, 1986: 55; an d D. Madsen, 1986:208209).

Plain-Ware Ceramics and Residential Mobility 781

8/6/2019 4.9 Simms et al. 1997-JAS

4/14

The categories, the sites chosen for analysis, and thenumber of sherds analysed are reported on Table 1.

Ceramic Morphology and Mobility

Focusing on the idea of pots as tools (Braun, 1983),a variety of actualistic and experimental studies haveshown how variation in ceramic form and compositionaffect vessel performa nce (e.g. Rye, 1976; Bronitsky &Hamer, 1986; Skibo & Schiffer, 1987; Feathers, 1989;

Neupert, 1994). Morphology, paste composition,temper composition, and firing temperature a ll play animportant, interlocking role in such characteristics asthermal efficiency, abrasion resistance, resistance tothermal and mechanical stress, vessel strength, andcooling ability, to name a few. At the same time,ethnographical and ethnoarchaeological research hasexamined the dynamic processes of ceramic p roduc-tion, use, and discard. Among other things, they havenoted broad differences in the length of time varioustypes of pottery are utilized before they are broken (i.e.differences in the vessels use-life), dependent on suchfactors as size, weight, and strength of the vessel, the

cost of manufacture, frequency and form of use, andthe frequency of vessel movement (e.g. Foster, 1960;David & Hennig, 1972; DeBoer & Lathrap, 1979;D. Arnold, 1985; DeBoer, 1985; Longacre, 1985;P. Arnold, 1988).

This study seeks to merge these two issues byexamining the relationship between investment inceramic manufacture and constraints on a ceramicvessels use-life. We proceed from the commonlypostulated assumption that pottery techniques whichproduce inefficient or frequently broken vessels, or that

require substantial investments in labour and material,will be displaced by those which do not. Anotherassumption is that the choice of raw material andmanufacturing t echnique will involve a compromiseaccording to their labour and material costs, and thedesired vessel life expectancy, relative to the need ordemand for the final product (Braun, 1983: 109, 112,italics a dded). To this we add the idea of constraint: thecharacter and degree of residential mo bility will imposean external constraint on vessel use-life and potters willmodify their level of ceramic investment accordingly.As duration of occupation increases, the ability toget continued use from a vessel should increase

Table 1. Summary of ceramic data and sample size by site

Site # Site typeMedian wall

thickness (mm) NPercentage rough

sherds N

Maximum sizeof temper

particles (mm) N

42WB40 R esidential camp 5000 36 19444 36 020 5242WB48 R esidential base 5750 14 11796 17 220 2242BO73 R esidential camp 3900 28 21429 28 050 4642BO110 R esidential base 4500 97 7767 103 050 10342WB184 R esidential camp 4500 16 26316 19 090 2942WB185a R esidential base 5000 19 50000 20 080 3842WB185b R esidential base 5000 4 60000 5 055 842WB185c1 R esidential base 4450 236 48133 241 070 43942WB1852c2 R esidential base 4700 81 5495 91 050 10542WB244 Short-term camp 5400 48 23636 55 150 9342WB263 R esidential camp 4900 9 70000 10 200 1842WB269 R esidential camp 5000 153 31169 154 040 16742WB270 R esidential camp 4900 346 46410 390 070 66842WB317 R esidential camp 5400 246 25897 390 100 45742WB318 R esidential camp 4800 50 59701 67 150 9342WB319 Short-term camp 4800 23 10714 28 100 7342WB322 R esidential camp 5000 102 11429 105 040 13242WB323 R esidential camp 4700 5 0000 5 030 742WB324 R esidential base 5000 102 3922 102 030 10742WB325 Short-term camp 5400 1 100000 1 190 142BO579 Short-term camp 5100 1 100000 1 100 142BO599 Short-term camp 5400 17 70588 17 170 3442WB32 R esidential camp 5200 512 11494 522 050 56842BO55 Short-term camp 5200 198 25126 199 080 20042BO57 R esidential camp 4800 203 25616 203 100 20342BO98 R esidential base 5000 227 24561 228 100 228Grantsville Agricultural base 4800 127 0000 127 030 12742WB34 R esidential base 5250 196 19192 198 050 19842BO109 R esidential base 5000 180 46111 180 050 18042BO107 R esidential base 4700 193 13918 194 050 19542BO120 R esidential camp 5100 119 45223 157 100 236Tooele Agricultural base 4100 136 0000 136 020 126Warren R esidential base 5000 102 5825 103 050 103Willard Agricultural base 4500 275 0360 278 020 278

Totals 4102 4410 5335


8/6/2019 4.9 Simms et al. 1997-JAS

5/14

correspondingly and greater investment in potterytechnology should result. These generalizations aremeant to be applied to a continuum of high to lowresidential mobility, but this basic relationship can beexpected to be altered by at least two other approachesto mobility; t he utilization of a system of logistical

mobility, or the recurrent use of a site.Many if not most pots are undoubtedly broken

somewhere other than where they were made. Amongsites that are logistically connected, pots constructed atmore stable sites such as agricultural bases may wellfind their way to special activity sites and vice versa.Furthermore, residential and short-term camps whichare repeatedly occupied but which are not associatedwith a logistic system may also exhibit greater ceramicinvestment. These sites are good candidates forcached techno logy (sensu Binford , 1977), and higherquality pots may be produced and stored in theexpectation that they will be used repeatedly over a

span of time.Vessel function is another facet of intended use thatproduces variability in ceramic assemblages. Vesselfunction is also related to the more abstract notion ofinvestment. We expect a greater variety of ceramictypes to be manufactured at residentially stable occu-pations. Our measures of ceramic investment are onemeasure of this, since an assemblage containing care-fully manufactured, relatively thin-walled open bowls,handled pitchers, and a variety of sizes and qualities ofstorage jars will show a greater degree of investmentusing the measures employed here.

We do not argue that mobility alone is responsiblefor variation in ceramic materials and manufacturing.

However, the use-life of vessels utilized for similarpurposes have been found to vary by as much as anorder of magnitude among ethnographically knowngroups (Nelson, 1991: 176, 180; see also R ice, 1987:2967, table 9; Mills, 1989: 137, table 4). Nelson (1991:176) notes that differences in paste, temper, firing, andproduction technique may well account for some ofthis variability. We seek to explore the role thatmobility strategies may play in making a variety ofdecisions about ceramic manufacture that can begeneralized in terms of investment, a measure withdistinct theoretical content implying the reasons for theselection of some traits over others.

Sampling and measurement of sherds

As large a portion of the ceramic assemblage from eachsite as time and money allowed was selected foranalysis Table 1. In the case of sites with large ceramiccollections, including pre-existing museum collections,samples were drawn randomly and covered the com-plete r ange of traditional po ttery types. Thus, samplesrange from 100% of collections from recently recordedsites (the vast majority of those in the study) to 24% ofthe Knoll site collection, 70% of the Orbit Inn collec-tion, and a low 7% from the Levee site collection. In

the case of the Warren and Willard sites, which wereexamined prior to the 1960s and are now destroyed, therelationship of our subsample to these sites is notknown. However, we examined all available sherdsfrom these two sites.

The choice of variables for measurement was based

on a desire to explore t he ut ility o f simple, inexpensive,and easily taught methods. Given that much of thevariation we quantify here has long been observed inthe field, parsimony dictates that simple measures ofceramic investment should be explored, enabling us toexploit the benefits of a larger sample than is possibleusing time-consuming and expensive means of ceramicanalysis.

The first variable is temper particle size. The choiceof temper materials and their size is important to theperformance of ceramic vessels. Finer temper increasesresistance to crack initiation as a result of thermal andmechanical stress (Kingery et al., 1976: 768813;

Kirchner, 1979: 112). It also permits the productionof vessels with thinner walls, which not only reducesweight but also increases thermal conductivity andthermal shock resistance (Rice, 1987: 227). Although amore heterogeneous paste containing larger pieces oftemper increases resistance to crack propagation, thereare limits. These are apparently set by t he difference inrates of thermal expansion between paste and tempermaterial, with such differences being exacerbated byincreasing temper size (Rye, 1976: 116118). Thus,investment increases when th e goal is to con tro l the sizeand consistency of temper, a process that can involveextra preparation of temper and paste. Since the criti-cal variable appears to be the maximum particle size,

the largest piece of temper was measured to the nearesttenth of a mm for each sherd. These data were subse-quently log-transformed (to reduce skewness) andutilized to assess differences in degree of residentialmobility.

The second variable is sherd t hickness. As pr eviouslymentioned, thinner walls offer advantages in terms ofweight, resistance to thermal stress, thermal conduc-tivity, and heating efficiency. Since thinner walls re-quire more effort for a given vessel size, we see thinnersherds as representing greater investment.

There are two confounding factors: increasing vesselwall thickness with increasing vessel size, and the

tendency to employ th icker walls for cooking pot s. Asfor the former, Shapiro has noted that larger, morestable sites from the Mississippian period in the mid-western United States have more large sized pots(1984: 7035). If true generally, finding of thickersherds at sites associated with higher mobility shouldbe more unusual rather than less, and offer additionalsupport for our general hypothesis. As for vesselfunction affecting wall thickness, greater use ofcooking vessels would be expected with increasingsedentism, again demonstrating the relationshipbetween vessel function and investment. However,even at sites indicating greater mobility, cooking


8/6/2019 4.9 Simms et al. 1997-JAS

6/14

vessels may predominate where redundant use of thesite places a premium on utility. In those cases, diver-sity in vessel form should be lower than in the moresedentary cases. We hypothesize that in the mobilecases, all forms of ceramics will tend to be more crudeand hence tend to have thicker walls. Various factors

influence wall thickness, but we argue that several ofthese conspire to produce a tendency toward thickwalls when large samples are assessed.

The third variable is the degree of surface smooth-ing. Whether for purely aesthetic reasons or for morefunctional ones such as increased resistance to abrasion(Skibo & Schiffer, 1987: 93), or the propagation ofsubsurface imperfections, smoothing and polishingof the internal and/or external surface of a ceramicvessel represents increased labour investment. Eachsherd was initially categorized as smooth, smooth-undulating, rough, or rough-undulating. These fourcategories were later conflated into smooth and

rough for the purposes of analysis. Similar to ourargument about wall thickness, we suggest that themorphologically diverse assemblages expected atsedentary sites, and the fact that we are attempting tomeasure degree of investment, a fundamental conceptof which function is only one aspect, leads to anexpectation of greater smoothing with the increasedinvestment associated with residential stability. Itshould be noted that corrugated cooking vessels areextremely rare in the study area, hence the categoryrough does not indicate t he presence of corrugatedcooking vessels, only poorly finished plainwares.

ResultsWe assessed the three variables for all sherds andsummarize the results for each site on Table 1. Thesame information is ranked from sites with the highestinvestment to those with the lowest and presentedgraphically in Figures 35. To test for significantdifferences in investment at each level of mobility,sherds were grouped by site type. A MannWhitney Utest was then used to detect differences in the mediantemper size and wall thickness for adjacent levels ofmobility, while a simple binomial test was used toassess differences in the frequencies of surfacepreparation. This information is presented in Table 2.

The trend evident in Table 2 across all variables isfor a decrease in the level of investment as mobilityincreased, consistent with our hypothesis. Maximumtemper particle size increases incrementally from aminimum o f1609 (log-transformed data) to a maxi-mum of 0000, wall thickness (also log-transformed)from 1504 to 1649, and frequency of rough sherdsfrom 0185 to 26578%. Of the three variables, tempersize reflects investment most strongly and consist-ently (Figure 3). D ifferences in vessel wall t hickness(Figure 4) are also consistent indicators, th ough no t asmarked, while surface preparation oscillates betweenstrongly supportive and contradictory (Figure 5). The

more temperate differences in wall thickness maywell be an effect of other design considerations, butthe cause of the discrepancy in the percentage ofrough sherds remains less certain. The small numberof short-term sites, their relatively limited ceramicrepresentation, and the variability of their ceramicassemblages may all play a role.

2.5

0.0

Tooele

Site

Maximumtempersize

(mm) 2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

Willard

42WB40

G

rantsville

42WB324

42WB323

42WB322

42WB269

42BO110

42

WB185c2

42BO107

42BO109

42WB34

Warren

42WB32

42BO73

42WB185b

42

WB185c1

42WB270

42WB185a

42BO55

42WB184

42BO98

42BO57

42BO120

42WB317

42WB319

42WB48

42WB263

42WB325

42BO599

42WB244

42WB318

42BO579

Figure 3. Medianmaximum temper size by site. : Agriculturalbase;: residential base;: residential camp; : short-term camp.

6.0

3.5

Tooele

Site

Wallthickness(m

m)

5.5

5.0

4.5

4.0

42WB185c1

Willard

42BO110

42WB184

42BO107

42WB323

Grantsville

42BO57

42WB318

42WB319

42WB270

42WB263

42WB324

Warren

42BO98

42BO109

42WB185a

42WB185b

42WB40

42WB269

42BO120

42BO579

42BO55

42WB34

42WB317

42WB48

42WB325

42BO599

42WB244

42BO73

42WB322

42WB32

42WB185c2

Figure 4. M edian wall thickness by site. : Agricultural base;: residential ba se;: r esidential camp; : short-term camp.


8/6/2019 4.9 Simms et al. 1997-JAS

7/14

Table 1 and especially Figures 35 illustrate thevariability in all measures of investment at individualsites. This variability is neither surprising nor at oddswith our general prediction and conclusions. However,it does serve to illustrate the potential danger ofdrawing generalizations from specific cases, especially

where sample sizes are small. This point is mostpertinent in those instances where a relationship isposited between a particular ceramic type, some per-ceived level of investment (particularly in terms ofsurface preparation and temper material), and achronological and/or cultural association. Our dataclearly show th at observed variability in ceramic in-vestment cross-cuts both temporal and typologicalboundaries, undoubtedly because many aspects ofhuman behaviour, including mobility, do so as well.With that in mind, we can only echo the well-rehearsedadage that adequate site specific interpretations mustalways draw upon multiple lines of evidence.

Material Source Variation and Mobility

The second part of our study explores whether vari-ation in the material sources used to manufacture

10 0

Tooele

Site

Percentageofroughsherds

40

30

20

10

42WB323

Willard

42WB324

Warren

42BO110

42WB319

G

rantsville

42WB32

42WB48

42BO107

42WB34

42WB40

42BO73

42WB244

42BO98

42BO55

42BO57

42WB317

42WB269

42BO120

42BO109

42WB270

42WB185a

42WB318

42WB185b

42WB325

42BO579

42BO599

42WB263

42WB322

42WB184

42

WB185c1

42

WB185c2

0

50

60

70

80

90

Figure 5. Percentage of ro ugh sherds by site. : Agricultural base;: residential base; : r esidential camp; : short-term camp.

Table 2. Test for differences between groups in three measures of ceramic investment

Mann-Whitney U test for ln (max temper)

Site type Median N Difference PPercentage of

observed variation*

Agricultural base 1609 541Residential base 0693 1726 0916 0001 23385Residential camp 0357 2676 0336 0001 8578Short-term camp 0000 402 0357 0001 9114Total 5345

Mann-Whitney U test for ln (wall thickness)

Site type Median N Difference PPercentage of

observed variation*

Agricultural base 1504 538Residential base 1589 1451 0085 0001 4743Residential camp 1609 1825 0020 0001 1116Short-term camp 1649 288 0040 0001 2232Total 4102

Z-test for surface preparation (% of rough versus smooth sherds)

Site type % R ough N Difference P

Agricultural base 0185 541Residential base 24157 1482 23972 0001Residential camp 28284 2086 4127 0001Short-term camp 26578 301 ** **Total 4410

*This measurement is ob tained by dividing the difference between groups into the empirically observed range of the given variable in order toprovide some measure of p ractical as well as statistical significance.**As can be seen, the frequency of rough sherds at short-term and special use sites does not follow the predicted trend. No statistical test wasperformed.


8/6/2019 4.9 Simms et al. 1997-JAS

8/14

ceramics reflects residential mobility. The ethnographi-cal findings cited previously show that among theworlds p otters, ra w material procurement distancestend to be short, hence local sources are favoured.

We employ the technique of X-ray diffraction toinvestigate variation in the sources of temper used inceramics from different kinds of sites. Ceramic temper

has long served as the key variable in defining theceramic wares of the Fremont and Late Prehistoricperiods in the region. H ence, the choice to analysetemper sources enables the results of this study to becompared with the existing ceramic typology.

Two hypotheses describe the relationship betweenmobility and patterns of raw material occurrence:

(1) If local temper sources are favoured in themanufacture of ceramics, then temper shouldvary on the basis of geographical proximity. Thisimplies that constituents of ceramic manufacturemay be similar regardless of culture or period;

(2) If decreased mobility leads to the consistent

exploitation of local raw material sources forceramic manufacture, then variability in thesources of temper found at such sites will berelatively low. Conversely, at sites associatedwith higher mobility, p otters will encounter agreater variety of sources, and variability intemper will be relatively high.

For the sake of clarity, we emphasize that ourmeasures of temper variability are relative amonggeographically distinct assemblages. Thus, knowledgeof source locations and of local variability amongsources found within site assemblages is irrelevant totesting th e hypotheses a s framed here.

M ethods

A total of 120 sherds were selected from the samecollections measured for morphological attributes(Table 3). A portion of each sherd was crushedand temper was manually extracted. In a few sherds,temper was so fine as to be indistinguishable frompaste, hence paste and temper were combined. Theresulting diffraction patt erns are similar to other sherdsfrom the same sites, suggesting the mixing of temperwith some paste had no effect.

Once a diffraction pattern is produced, its significantpeaks are matched against computerized standards listsfor identification. Initially, samples were prepared andanalysed twice to check the replicability of the method.X-ray diffraction identifies minerals, but cannot indi-cate the relative abundance among minerals. Onlythe presence and absence of minerals is important totesting our hypotheses.

Findings

Hypothesis 1 argues that temper used in a particularlocale will be similar regardless of ceramic type, cul-ture, or period. Figure 6 illustrates the representativepattern found in the Great Salt Lake sample and showsresults consistent with the hypothesis. The three typesof ceramics are highly consistent in the location ofsignificant peaks. A previous study using X-ray diffrac-tion was done in Utah Valley, located 75100 km tothe south (Hendricks et al., 1990). Figure 6 shows tha tin Utah Valley, sherds of different types also containsimilar temper. However, regardless of ceramic type,the Utah Valley sherds contain different materials from

Table 3. Tally of sherds by type and site submitted for X-ray diffraction

Great Salt LakeGray

PromontoryGray

Late PrehistoricGray

SevierGray

Snake ValleyRed-on-Buff

Orbit Inn(42Bo120) 10 5 13 0 0

Willard(42Bo36 & 30) 10 0 0 1 1

Levee(42Bo107 Levee Phase42B1110 Knoll Phase) 9 5 0 3 0

Bear River #1(42Bo55) 5 0 4 0 0

Bear River #2(42Bo56 & 57) 9 0 0 0 0

Warren(42Wb57) 10 0 0 0 0

42Wb270(Simms et al., 1991) 2 5 2 0 0

42Wb32 11 0 3 0 2

Knoll(42Bo106) 5 0 0 5 0


8/6/2019 4.9 Simms et al. 1997-JAS

9/14

the Great Salt Lake sherds. In fact, this comparisonshows there is greater variability within similar typesbetween U tah Valley and the G reat Salt Lake areathan there is between types in either region. Findingsconsistent with hypothesis 1 are suggested by investi-gations in the Uinta Basin in north-eastern Utah, andsummarized by Spangler (1995: 561), and a study bySpurr (1995) in central Utah.

Another line of evidence to explore hypothesis 1comes from the Orbit Inn and Levee sites, both situ-ated near the north edge of the Great Salt Lake. TheOrbit Inn lays in close proximity to substantial calcitedeposits, and during excavation it appeared as thoughdice-sized calcite blocks were being reduced at the sitefor use as ceramic temper (Simms & H eath, 1990: 806).The X-ray diffraction analysis indeed shows that the

600

0

500

400

300

200

100

2500

0

2000

1500

1000

500

900

0

500

400

300

200

100

700

600

800

Great Salt Lake

Uta h Valley(Hendricks et al., 1990)

10 50403020

10 50403020

10 50403020

Great Salt Lake Gray

Promontory Gra y

Sevier Gray

Figure 6. Comparison of X-ray diffraction results from U tah Valley (after Hendricks et al., 1990: 45, 47, 48) with representative patt erns fromthe ceramic types in the Great Salt Lake sample.


8/6/2019 4.9 Simms et al. 1997-JAS

10/14

highest frequency of calcite use is at the Orbit Inn, andthat the next highest frequency is from the Levee site,the next closest site to the source of calcite (Table 4).Thus, proximity to source accounts for the patterns oftemper observed in the sherds on both a regional leveland in the relationship of individual sites to localsources. This implies a relationship with mobility.

Hypothesis 2 explores whether patterns of temperuse might be informative of different degrees of resi-

dential mobility. As with the analysis of ceramicmorphology, we compare different types of sites wherethere is independent evidence of occupational stability.Our findings are consistent with hypothesis 2 and

Figure 7 illustrates the results. Sherds from the Warrensite, an agricultural base, are more homogenous thanthose from the Knoll site, a residential base, but withno evidence for maize agriculture. The Orbit Inn, aresidential camp, exhibits greater variability in mineralcomposition. This takes on greater significance in light

of the previous discussion about the high frequencyof calcite temper used in ceramics at the Orbit Inn.While sherds with calcite temper are frequent, theother minerals present are extremely varied, suggestingthat vessels made from a variety of sources areaccumulating in the refuse at the site.

Table 5 further illustrates this point. It shows tabu-lations of the most common and second most commontemper compositions, as well as the combined fre-quency of the two most popular compositions. At theagricultural bases, the two most popular temper com-positions comprise 818% of the total at the Warrensite and 777% at the Willard site. On the other hand,

at the Orbit Inn, only 289% of the sherds contain thetwo most common compositions. At the Orbit Inn,many sherds remain unaccounted for by the two mostcommon temper compositions. Thus, the number of

Table 4. Percentage of sherds containing calcite in temper by site

Site name Percentage of sherds containing calcite in temper

Warren 181Willard 222Levee 410Knoll 200Orbit Inn 786

800

0

500400300200100

700600

1000

0

500400300200100

700600

1000

0

500400300200100

700600

900800

900800

600

0

500

400

300

200

100

900

0

500400300200100

700600

800

0

500400300200100

700600

800

1000

0

500400300200100

700600

1000

0

500400300200100

700600

900

0

500400300200100

700600

900800

800

900800

Wa rr en a gr icu lt ur al ba se Kn oll r esiden tia l ba se Or bit In n r esiden tia l cam p

Figure 7. Comparison of typical X-ray diffraction patterns from three site types. Each column of patterns displays increasing variation insignificant peak location as residential mobility increases.

Table 5. Percentage of sherds accounted for by two most common temper compositions by site type

Warren Willard Levee Knoll Orbit Inn

Most common composition 636 444 176 200 218Second most common composition 182 333 118 100 71Combined 818 777 294 300 289


8/6/2019 4.9 Simms et al. 1997-JAS

11/14

temper sources represented at these sites increaseswith decreasing residential stability and duration ofoccupation.

Our findings about the sources of ceramic temperusing X-ray diffraction are also relevant to the issue oftrade and exchange. Analysis was performed on a

small sample of sherds which, u pon visual inspection,are classified as types considered to be exotic to thestudy area. Sevier Gray has long been seen as indica-tive of links with central U tah, (about 175 km from thestudy area), and in culturehistorical reconstruction, itis used as a diagnostic of the Sevier variant of theFremont culture (e.g. Marwitt, 1970). Thus, whenSevier Gray is found in other regions it is tempting toinfer trade and exchange. Sevier Gray is identifiedby the use of basalt temper, leaving black specksthroughout the paste (R. Madsen, 1977). We analysednine sherds from museum collections of GreatSalt Lake sites and labelled as Sevier Gray. None of

them contained any basalt. M ore interesting is thefinding that their compositions fall within the rangeof the other ceramics common to the Great SaltL ake study a rea (Figure 8 and comparison withFigures 6 & 7).

Similar results are apparent in data from UtahValley (Hendricks et al., 1990: 478). There, sherdslabelled Sevier Gray due to black temper containedminerals consistent with other ceramic types found inUtah Valley.

To explore the issue further, we analysed an admit-tedly small sample of three sherds of another exotictype, Snake Valley Red-on-Buff. This painted ware is

rare in the study area and implies links with its typelocation in south-western Ut ah (over 250 km away).However, the results were as found in the analysis ofSevier Graythe composition of the Snake Valleysherds are the same as the other sherds common to thestudy area (Figure 8).

Both of the small samples of exotic sherds analysedfor temper composition were manufactured locally.Thus, any connection among regions is, at the most,diffusion of style and lends no evidence to the actualmovement of ceramic vessels across large distances inthe case of these simple farmerforager systems. Thisis not to say there is no contact among peoplenodemographic fluidity. Rather, it is not apparent at afrequency detectable with our small sample sizes and isnot reflected in the actual movement of ceramic tech-nology (versus ot her t echno logies) as is assumed b y thetraditional approach to ceramic analysis.

Conclusions and Implications

This study compares the degree of investment inceramic manufacture at archaeological sites reflectingdifferent forms of mobility. Support is found for ahypothesis of greater investment in the quality ofceramic manufacture with increasing residentialstability, occupational redundancy implying caching ofceramics with long use-life, and/or the presence of alogistic system moving high quality ceramics to short-term camps. The fit of the data with the hypothesesis strongly apparent in the preparation of temper,

1000

0

500400

300200100

700600

800

0

500400300200100

700600

800

0

500400300200

100

700600

600

0

500

400

300

200100

700

0

500

400

300

200

100

600

600

0

500

400

300

200

100

700

0

500

400

300

200

100

600

700

0

500

400

300

200

100

600

900800

Grea t Sa lt Lake Gray Servier Gray

Snake Valley Red-on-Buff

Figure 8. Comparison of typical X-ray diffraction pat terns of Sevier G ray and Snake Valley Red-on-Buffwith Great Salt Lake Gray ceramics.Consistency in significant peak location shows high mineralogical homogeneity across all three types.


8/6/2019 4.9 Simms et al. 1997-JAS

12/14

generally apparent in measures of wall thickness, andshows mixed results with respect to surface finish.

X-ray diffraction of ceramic temper is employed totest two hypotheses about the expected distance to rawmaterial sources used for ceramic manufacture andvariability in the use of sources under different regimes

of mobility. Local sources are used to such an extentthat ceramic temper variation is better described bygeographical proximity than by differences amongeither the traditional ceramic types, cultural affiliation,or time period for the study area. As mobility in-creases, the number of sources of raw material inceramics discarded at sites increases. More mobilepeople encounter a wider range of sources. The find-ings with regard to both investment and raw materialavailability in the archaeological cases are consistentwith expectations developed from patterns recordedethnographically.

We are not arguing for a simplistic and unwavering

relationship between mobility and the particular vari-ables used to measure ceramic investment. Wall thick-ness and temper size in particular are responsive to avessels intended use or function. Rather, we are nomi-nating a relationship between mobility and investment,an idea which conceivably covers a lot of conceptualground. It may include not only effort to enhanceperformance characteristics, but effort to enhanceaesthetic characteristics. Investment can also bethought of in more general terms such as the diversityof artistic styles present in an assemblage and thevariety of functional classes of vessels. Is it easier topro duce 13 sets of d istinctly decorated china, or one setof plastic ware? Do you produce a griddle, skillet,

egg-poacher, saucepan, and cookie sheet, or a singletype of cast-iron pan?

There are two important reasons to keep these ideasin mind. The first is that constraints implied by invest-ment at one level need not necessarily confound onesconclusions, especially when assessing trends broadly.For instance, one could reasonably ask whether or notthe variation in wall thickness and temper particle sizeobserved at short-term sites might not be more readilyattributable to the function of vessels utilized at thosesites. Th e a nswer is, of course, yes. Ho wever, t hiswould necessarily imply a limited variety of functionalclasses utilized at such sites, and thus indicate a reduc-

tion in investment as discussed a bove. This relationshipis apparent in the findings that the influence of mobilityon ceramic morphology will produce significantfrequency shifts in measures of investment withincollections of sherds.

The second point is that there are conceivably manydifferent ways in which one might measure investment.Surface smoothing, wall thickness and temper particlesize are by no means the only pertinent variables.Rather, they are employed here because they havehistorically received attention by those engaged inGreat Basin ceramic research, are amenable to thecharacteristics of the ceramic assemblages found in

the region, and are simple and inexpensive, enablingthe advantage of large sample size. Other measures ofinvestment could certainly be used and this researchinvites further exploration of the relationship betweenceramic variation and aspects of behaviour offundamental interest to archaeologists in general.

With regard to sample sizes, it is appropriate tocaution against using the findings here on a sherd bysherd basis, or on small collections of sherds to makeconclusions abo ut site-specific mobility, especially inthe absence of other indicators of site function. Weconsider these findings to be applicable to sets of sitesover regions and not a recipe for classification on siterecording forms.

This study employs relatively simple and rapidanalyses on body sherds. This does not discount theadded information gained from highly detailed studiesof small samples of sherds, but underscores the import-ance of describing variability, and indicates the

sometimes unrealized benefits of parsimony.A central premise of this work is that ceramictechnology, like many aspects of culture, is shapedby the problems of life. It follows that as patternsof behaviour cross-cut periods and archaeologicalcultures, t hat morphological variability in ceramicsshould do likewise. Thus, there is more that simple,plain ceramics can be doing for us than dating sites anddevising labels for ancient cultures. On the other hand,we do not contest the culturehistorical frameworkas a heuristic for the study area. Rather, we see anopportunity to exploit ceramics better to reconstructbehaviour.

The implications of this analysis for the regions

prehistory are discussed in light of other lines ofevidence by Simms (1994, n.d.). Here, we suggest someimplications of more general interest. The relationshipbetween mobility and ceramics leads to an expectationof high ceramic variation in cases of contemporaneousfarmerforager systems and among ceramic-using for-agers who exhibit h igh ada ptive diversity. Such systemsare probably common in the world after the spreadof food-producing systems, but the ceramicmobilityrelationship seems especially applicable to the initialstages of the food producing transition such as theArchaicFormat ive tra nsition in parts of th e AmericanDesert West.

There is increasing recognition that accounting forgender improves behavioural reconstruction. Ceramicscan play a useful role in areas of the world where thereis reason to expect ceramic manufacture is done bywomen. For instance, in the Great Salt Lake case, thepresence of dozens of dated human skeletons (Simms,n.d.) enables the relationship between ceramics andmobility to be compared to evidence of sexual dimor-phism in life-time mobility patterns indicated bymechanical analysis of hu man long bones (R uff, n.d.).The biomechanical study indicates that males areengaging in more long-distance movement over diffi-cult terrain than females (R uff, n.d.). This pattern


8/6/2019 4.9 Simms et al. 1997-JAS

13/14

is not typical of other studies of prehistoric NorthAmerican populations, but is found in another GreatBasin case, the Stillwater Mar sh in western Nevada(Larsen et al., 1996: 132). In both cases, the sexualdimorphism appears to be associated with the tetheringof females to residential camps and bases in the low-

lands around various wetland habitats, contrastingwith logistic movement by males making greater useof the surrounding uplands (Larsen & Kelly, 1995;Simms, n.d.). The fit of t he biomechanical results withthis study suggests the potential for ceramics to trackthe movement of women. In the eastern Great Basin,the evidence suggests that the movement of women wasrelatively local during the Fremont and the earlyportions of the Late Prehistoric period. Whether thecontrasting p attern of long-distance movement of m enholds outside of the Great Salt Lake study arearemains to be seen, but the relationship between plainceramics and mobility indicates that artefacts may be

useful for addressing this question. For instance, acomparison of projectile points (likely mens tech-nology) with the ceramic evidence reported here maybe a promising line of study.

Studies of ceramic plain-wares are often overlookedin favour of sherds or industries with greater stylisticcontent. However, this study suggests that variabilityin plain utilitarian ceramics provides an additional lineof evidence to describe adaptive diversity: behaviouralvariation and plasticity across space and throughtime. This concept stands in contrast to explanationsdependent on bounded and monolithic concepts suchas abandonment, depopulation, and migration ofpeoples. Instead, attention is directed toward plasticity

in boundaries and the interactions of people acrossthem, both of which contribute to the character ofsocio-demograph ic fluidity. In this way, we can count erthe tendency inherent in the habits of archaeologicalclassification to construct prehistories assumed toexhibit far less plasticity a nd fluidity across social,ethnic, linguistic an d physical a ttributes tha n is foundin t he h istorically known world.

Acknowledgements

This research is part of the Great Salt Lake Wetlands

Project, supported by a National Science Foundationgrant (DBS 9223227) to S. Simms and D. ORourke,grants a nd contra cts from the U.S. Burea u of Reclamation, the State of Utah, and Utah StateUniversity to S. Simms, and a National ScienceFounda tion Gradua te R esea rch Fellowship toA. Ugan. Thanks to Laurel Casjens, Curator ofCollections at the Utah Museum of Natural Historyand Brooke Arkush at Weber State University foraccess to ceramic collections. We are p art icularly grat e-ful to Peter Kolesar, Department of Geology, UtahState University for access to the X-ray diffractionequipment, instruction, and consultation. Thanks to

Sharlyn Jackson, Jim Valcarce, and the laboratorystudents at Utah State. Patricia Dean laid the baseto move ceramic analysis in the region toward aninvestigation of behaviour. The Brown Bag with thegraduate students at the University of Utah wasinsightful. Finally, thanks to avocational archaeologist

Mark Stuart for overwhelming Simms with subtleobservations about ceramics that led to this study.

References

Arnold, D. E. (1985). Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process. U.K.:Cambridge University Press.

Arnold, P . J. III (1988). H ousehold ceramic assemblage attr ibutes inthe Sierra de los Tuxtlas, Veracruz, M exico. Journal of Anthropo-logical Research 44, 357383.

Arnold, P. J. III (1991). Domestic Ceramic Production and SpatialOrganization: A M exican Case S tudy in E thnoarchaeology. U.K.:Cambridge University Press.

Binford, L. R . (1977). Fort y-seven t rips: a case study in the character

of archaeological formation processes. In (R. V. S. Wright, Ed.)Stone Tools as Cultural Markers: Change, Evolution, andComplexity . Canberra: Australia Institute of Aboriginal Studies,pp. 2436.

Braun, D. P. (1983). Pots as tools. In (J. A. Moore & A. S. Keene,Eds) Archaeological Hammers and Theories. New York: AcademicPress, pp. 107134.

Bronitsky, G. & Hamer, R. (1986). Experiments in ceramic tech-nology: the effects of various tempering materials on impact andthermal shock resistance. American Antiquity 51, 89101.

Butler, B. R . (1986). The pottery of eastern Idaho . In (S. Griset, Ed.)Pottery of the Great Basin and A djacent Areas. Salt Lake City:University of Utah Anthropological Papers 111, 3757.

Coltrain, J. B. (1993). F remont corn agriculture: a pilot stablecarbon isotope study. Utah Archaeology 6, 4955.

Coltrain, J. B. (n.d.). Stable isotopes and Salt Lake Wetlands

diet: towards an understanding of the G reat Basin formative. In(B. Hemphill & C. Larsen, Eds) Understanding Prehistoric

Lifeways in the Great Basin W etlands: BioarchaeologicalReconstruction and Interpretation. Salt Lake City: University ofUtah Press.

David, N. & Hennig, H. (1972). The ethnography of pottery: aFulani case seen in archaeological perspective. Addison WesleyModule, 21.

Dean, P. A. & Heath, K. M. (1988). Form and function: understand-ing gray pottery in the northeastern Great Basin. In (J. M. Mack,Ed.) HunterGatherer P ottery From the Far W est. Carson City:Nevada State Museum Anthropological Papers 23, 1928.

Dean, P. A. (1992). Prehistoric Pottery in the Northeastern GreatBasin: Problems in t he C lassification and A rchaeological Interpret-ation of Undecorated Fremont and Shoshoni W ares. PhD. Disser-tation, Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon,

Eugene, OR, U.S.A.DeBoer, W. R. (1985). Pots and pans do not speak, nor do they lie:

the case for occasional reductionism. In (B. A. Nelson, Ed.) Decoding Prehistoric Ceramics. Carbondale: Southern IllinoisUniversity Press, pp. 347357.

DeBoer, W. R. & Lathrap, D. W. (1979). The making and breakingof Shipibo-Conibo ceramics. In (C. Kramer, Ed.) Ethnoarchaeol-ogy: Implications of Ethnography for Ethnography for Archaeology .New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 102138.

Fawcett, W. B. & Simms, S. R. (1993). Archaeological Test Exca-vations in the Great Salt Lak e W etlands and Associated A nalyses.Logan: Utah State University Contributions to Anthropology 14.

Feathers, J. K. (1989). Effects of temper on strength of ceramics:response to Bronitsky and Hamer. American Antiquity 54, 579588.


8/6/2019 4.9 Simms et al. 1997-JAS

14/14

Foster, G . M. (1960). Life expectancy of utilitarian pottery inTzintzuntzan, Michoacan, Mexico. American Antiquity 25, 606609.

Gunnerson, J. H. (1969). The Fremont Culture: A study in CultureDynamics on the Northern A nasazi Frontier. Papers of the PeabodyMuseum of Archaeology and Ethnology 59, No. 2, Cambridge:Harvard University.

Hemphill, B. & Larsen, C. (n.d.). Understanding Prehistoric Lifewaysin t he Great Basin W etlands: B ioarchaeological R econstruction and

Intepretation. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.Hendricks, J. D., Forsyth, D. & Jung, C. (1990). X-ray diffraction

analysis of some Formative and Late Prehistoric pottery fromUtah. In (J. Mack, Ed.) HunterGatherer Pottery From the FarWest. Carson City: Nevada State Museum AnthropologicalPapers 23, 2952.

Janetski, J. C. (1990). Wetlands in Utah Valley prehistory. In (J. C.Janetski & D . B. Madsen, Eds) Wetland Adaptations in the Great

Basin. Pro vo: Brigham Y oung U niversity Museum of Peoples andCultures Occasional Paper 1, 233257.

Kingery, W. D., Bowen, H. K. & Uhlmann, D. R. (1976). Introduc-tion to Ceramics. N ew York: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 768813.

Kirchner, H. P. (1979). Strengthening of Ceramics. New York:Marcel Dekker, pp. 112.

Larsen, C. S. & Kelly, R. L. (1995). Bioarchaeology of the S tillwaterM arsh: Prehistoric H uman Adaptation in the W estern Great Basin.New York: Anthropological Papers of the American Museum ofNatural History 77.

Larsen, C. S., Kelly, R. L., Ruff, C. (1996). Structural analysis of theStillwater postcranial human remains: behavioral implications ofarticular joint pathology and long bone diaphyseal morphology.In (C. S. Larsen & R. L. Kelly, Eds) Bioarchaeology of theStillwater M arsh: P rehistoric H uman A daptation in t he W esternGreat Basin. New York: American Museum of Natural History,Anthropological Papers 77, 107133.

Longacre, W. A. (1985). Pottery use-life among the Kalinga,northern Luzon, the Phillipines. In (B. A. Nelson, Ed.) DecodingPrehistoric Ceramics. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UniversityPress, pp. 334346.

Madsen, D. B. (1986). Prehistoric ceramics. In (W. L. dAzevedo,Ed.) Handbook of North American Indians 11, Great Basin.

Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution P ress, pp. 206214.Madsen, D. B. (1989). Exploring the Fremont. Salt Lake City: Utah

Museum of Natural History Occasional Publication 8.Madsen, R. (1977). Prehistoric Ceramics of the Fremont. Flagstaff:

Museum of Northern Arizona Ceramic Series 6.Marwitt, J. P. (1970). M edian V illage and Fremont Culture R egional

Variation. Salt Lake City: University of Utah AnthropologicalPapers 95.

Mills, B. J. (1989). Integrating functional analyses o f vessels andsherds through models of ceramic assemblage formation. W orld

Archaeology 21, 133147.Nelson, B. A. (1991). Ceramic frequency a nd use-life: a highland

Mayan case in cross-cultural perspective. In (W. A. Longacre, Ed.)Ceramic Et hnoarchaology. Tucson: University of Arizona Press,pp. 162181.

Neupert, M. A. (1994). Strength testing archaeological ceramics: anew perspective. American Antiquity 59, 709723.

Rice, P. M. (1987). Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

Ruff, C. (n.d.). Skeletal structure and behavioral patterns of prehis-toric Great Basin populations. In (B. Hemphill & C. Larsen, Eds)

Understanding Prehistoric L ifeways in t he Great Basin W etlands: Bioarchaeological Reconstruction and Interpretation. Salt LakeCity: University of Utah Press.

Rushforth, S. & Upham, S. (1992). A Hopi Social History: Anthro- pological Perspectives on Sociocultural Persistence and Change.Austin: Un iversity o f T exas Press.

Rye, O. S. (1976). K eeping your temper under control: materials and

the manufacture of Papuan pottery. Archaeology and P hysical Anthropology in Oceania 11, 106137.

Sahlins, M. (1972). Stone Age Economics. Chicago: A ldine.Shapiro, G. (1984). Ceramic vessels, site permanence, and group size:

a Mississippian example. American Antiquity 49, 696712.Simms, S. R. (1986). New evidence for Fremont adaptive diversity.

Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 8, 204216.Simms, S. R. (1994). Unpa cking the Numic spread. In (D . M adsen &

D. Rhode, Eds) Across the W est: H uman Population M ovementand the Expansion of the Numa. Salt Lak e City: University of UtahPress, pp. 7683.

Simms, S. R. (n.d.). Farmers, foragers and adaptive diversity: theGreat Salt Lake Wetlands project. In (B. Hemphill & C. Larsen,Eds) Understanding Prehistoric Lifeways in the Great BasinW etlands: Bioarchaeological Reconstruction and Interpretation.Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

Simms, S. R. & Heath, K. (1990). Site structure of the Orbit Inn: anapplication of ethnoarchaeology. American Antiquity 55, 797812.Simms, S. R., Loveland, C. J. & Stuart, M. E. (1991). Prehistoric

Human Skeletal Remains and the Prehistory of the Great SaltWetlands. Logan: Utah State University Contributions toAnthropology 6.

Simms, S. R., Ugan, A., Jackson, S. & Bright, J. (1993). Ceramicsand behavior. In (W. B. Fawcett & S. R. Simms, Eds) Archaeo-logical Test Excavations in the Great Salt Lake W etlands and

Associated Analyses. Logan: Utah State University Contributionsto Anthropology 14, 530.

Skibo, J. M. & Schiffer, M. B. (1987). The effects of water onprocesses of ceramic abrasion. Journal of Archaeological S cience14, 8396.

Skibo, J. M. & Schiffer, M. B. (1995). The clay cooking pot: anexploration of womens technology. In (J. M. Skibo, W. H.Walker & A. E. Nielsen, Eds) Expanding Archaeology. Salt LakeCity: University of Uta h Press, p p. 8091.

Spangler, J. D. (1995). Paradigms and Perspectives: a Class IOverview of Cultural Resources in t he Uinta B asin and TavaputsPlateau. Salt Lake City: U.S. Bureau of L and M anagement.

Spurr, K. (1995). Compositional analysis of temper in Emery Grayceramics from central Utah. In (C. van Riper III, Ed.) Proceedingsof the Second Biennial Conference on Research in Colorado Plateau

National Parks. Transactions and Proceedings Series NPS/NRN AU/NRTP-95/11. Washington, D.C.: U .S. Department ofthe I nterior, N ational P ark Service, p p. 137169.

Upham, S. (1984). Adaptive diversity and southwestern abandon-ment. Journal of Anthropological Research 40, 235256.

Upham, S. (1994). Nomads of the desert west: a shifting continuumin prehistory. Journal of W orld Prehistory 8, 113167.

Whalen, M. E. (1994). T urquoise Ridge and L ate P rehistoric Residen-tial M obility in the Desert M ogollon Region. University of Utah

Anthropological Papers 118. Salt Lake City: University ofUtah Press.


Documents

4.9 Simms et al. 1997-JAS