Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T04:08:23.083Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Transport Distance and Debitage Assemblage Diversity: An Application of the Field Processing Model to Southern Utah Toolstone Procurement Sites

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

R. Kelly Beck
R. Kelly Beck*
Affiliation:
State of Utah, School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration, 675 East 500 South, Suite 500, Salt Lake City, UT 84102 (kellybeck@utah.gov); and Department of Anthropology, University of Utah, 270 South 1400 East, Room 102, Salt Lake City, UT 84112
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Understanding the decisions made at toolstone procurement localities is critical to understanding lithic production systems. However, lithic assemblages at procurement sites are typically voluminous, frequently overlapping, and always complex. This paper explores the influence of expected toolstone transport distance on procurement site assemblage variability using a central place theory inspired model from Human Behavioral Ecology. Debitage assemblage diversity is examined for 43 sites in two procurement contexts with different expected overall transport distances. Twenty-six of these sites are from the Canyonlands region of southeastern Utah where toolstone transport distances are expected to be uniformly short; seventeen sites are from the Black Rock desert region of west-central Utah where transport distances are expected to be longer. Observed differences in debitage assemblage diversity from each procurement context are consistent with expectations derived from the model which suggests that procurement site assemblage variability is predictably affected by expected toolstone transport distance.

Résumé

Résumé

Entender las decisiones tomadas en las localidades de obtención de herramientas de piedra es crítico para el entendimiento de los sistemas de producción lítica. Sin embargo, los ensambles de lítica en los lugares de obtención son típicamente voluminosos, frecuentemente se traslapan y siempre son complejos. Este artículo explora la influencia de la distancia esperada de transporte de herramientas de piedra en la variabilidad de los sitios de obtención, utilizando un modelo de la teoría de lugar central inspirado de La Ecología del Comportamiento Humano. La diversidad del ensamble de desperdicios es examinada en 43 lugares en dos contextos de obtención con diferentes distancias de transportación general esperada. Veintiséis de estos lugares son de la región de Canyonlands al Sureste de Utah, donde las distancias de transporte de herramientas de piedra se espera que sean generalmemente cortas, diecisiete lugares son de Black Rock, región desértica del centro-oeste de Utah, donde las distancias de transporte se esperan más largas. Diferencias observadas en la diversidad de ensambladura de desperdicios de cada contexto de obtención son consistentes con las expectativas derivadas del modelo, el cual sugiere que la variabilidad de ensambles en los lugares de obtención es afectada como era de esperarse por la distancia de transporte de las herramientas de piedra.

Type
Reports
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 73 , Issue 4 , October 2008 , pp. 759 - 780
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References Cited

Andrefsky, William 1994 Raw-Material Availability and the Organization of Technology. American Antiquity 59:21–34.Google Scholar
Andrefsky, William 2001 Emerging Directions in Debitage Analysis. In Lithic Debitage: Context, Form, Meaning, edited by William Andrefsky, pp. 2–14. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Andrefsky, William 2005 Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Bamforth, Douglas B., and Bleed, Peter 1997 Technology, Flaked Stone Technology, and Risk. In Rediscovering Darwin: Evolutionary Theory and Archaeological Explanation, edited by Clark M. Barton and Geoffrey A. Clark, pp. 109–140. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association No. 7. American Anthropological Association, Arlington, Virginia.Google Scholar
Barlow, K. Renee 2002 Predicting Maize Agriculture among the Fremont: An Economic Comparison of Farming and Foraging in the American Southwest. American Antiquity 67:65–88.Google Scholar
Bayham, Frank E. 1979 Factors Influencing the Archaic Pattern of Animal Exploitation. The Kiva 44(2–3):219–235.Google Scholar
Beck, Charlotte, Taylor, Amanda K., Jones, George T., Fadem, Cynthia M., Cook, Caitlyn R., and Millward, Sara A. 2002 Rocks Are Heavy: Transport Costs and Paleoarchaic Quarry Behavior in the Great Basin. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21:481–507.Google Scholar
Berry, Michael S. 1975 An Archaeological Survey of the Northeast Portion of Arches National Park. Antiquities Section Selected Papers. No. 3. State of Utah, Department of Development Services, Division of State History, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Bettinger, Robert L., Mahli, Ripan S., and McCarthy, Helen 1997 Central Place Models of Acorn and Mussel Processing. Journal of Archaeological Science 24(10):887–899.Google Scholar
Bird, Douglas W. 1997 Behavioral Ecology and the Archaeological Consequences of Central Place Foraging among the Meriam. In Rediscovering Darwin: Evolutionary Theory and Archaeological Explanation, edited by Clark M. Barton and Geoffrey A. Clark, pp. 291–306. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, No. 7. American Anthropological Association, Arlington, Virginia.Google Scholar
Bird, Douglas W., and Bliege-Bird, Rebecca 1997 Contemporary Shellfish Gathering Strategies among the Meriam of the Torres Strait Islands, Australia: Testing Predictions of a Central Place Foraging Model. Journal of Archaeological Science 24:39–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bird, Douglas W., and O’Connell, James F. 2006 Behavioral Ecology and Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research 14(2): 143–188.Google Scholar
Bird, Douglas W., Richardson, Jennifer L., Veth, Peter M., and Barham, Anthony J. 2002 Explaining Shellfish Variability in Middens on the Meriam Island, Torres Strait, Australia. Journal of Archaeological Science 29(5):457–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blumenschine, Robert J., Masao, Fidelis T., Tactikos, Joanne C., and Ebert, James I. 2008 Effects of Distance from Stone Source on Landscape-Scale Variation in Oldowan Artifact Assemblages in the Paleo-Olduvai Basin, Tanzania. Journal of Archaeological Science 35:76–86.Google Scholar
Bobrowski, Peter T., and Ball, Bruce F. 1989 The Theory and Mechanics of Ecological Diversity in Archaeology. In Quantifying Diversity in Archaeology, edited by Robert D. Leonard and George T. Jones, pp. 4–12. Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Brantingham, P. Jeffrey 2003 A Neutral Model of Stone Raw Material Procurement. American Antiquity 68(3):487–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broughton, Jack M. 1994a Late Holocene Resource Intensification in the Sacramento valley, California: The Vertebrate Evidence. Journal of Archaeological Science 21(4):501–514.Google Scholar
Broughton, Jack M. 1994b Declines in Mammalian Foraging Efficiency during the late Holocene, San Francisco Bay, California. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 13(4):371–401.Google Scholar
Broughton, Jack M. 1997 Widening Diet Breadth, Declining Foraging Efficiency, and Prehistoric Harvest Pressure: Ichthyofaunal Evidence from the Emeryville Shellmound, California. Antiquity 71:845–862.Google Scholar
Broughton, Jack M. 2002 Prey Spatial Structure and Behavior Affect Archaeological Tests of Optimal Foraging Models: Examples from the Emeryville Shellmound Vertebrate Fauna. World Archaeology 34(1):60–83.Google Scholar
Broughton, Jack M. 2004 Prehistoric Human Impacts on California Birds: Evidence from the Emeryville Shellmound Avifauna. Ornithological Monographs 56. The American Ornithologists’ Union. McLean, Virginia.Google Scholar
Broughton, Jack M., and Bayham, Frank E. 2003 Showing Off, Foraging Models, and the Ascendance of Large-Game Hunting in the California Middle Archaic. American Antiquity 68:783–789.Google Scholar
Broughton, Jack M., and Grayson, Donald K. 1993 Diet Breadth, Adaptive Change, and the White Mountains Faunas. Journal of Archaeological Science 20(3): 331–336.Google Scholar
Broughton, Jack M., and O’Connell, James F. 1999 On Evolutionary Ecology, Selectionist Archaeology, and Behavioral Archaeology. American Antiquity 64: 153–165.Google Scholar
Burger, Oskar, Hamilton, Marcus J., and Walker, Robert 2005 The Prey as Patch Model: Optimal Handling of Resources with Diminishing Returns. Journal of Archaeological Science 32:1147–1158.Google Scholar
Butler, Virginia L. 2000 Resource Depression on the Northwest Coast of North America. Antiquity 74:649–661.Google Scholar
Butler, Virginia L., and Campbell, Sarah K. 2004 Resource Intensification and Resource Depression in the Pacific Northwest of North America: A Zooarchaeological Review. Journal of World Prehistory 18(4): 327–405.Google Scholar
Byers, David A., Smith, Craig S., and Broughton, Jack M. 2005 Holocene Artiodactyl Population Histories and Large Game Hunting in the Wyoming Basin, USA. Journal of Archaeological Science 32:125–142.Google Scholar
Byers, David A., and Ugan, Andrew 2005 Should We Expect Large Game Specialization in the late Pleistocene? An Optimal Foraging Perspective on early Paleoindian Prey Choice. Journal of Archaeological Science 32:1624–1640.Google Scholar
Cannon, Michael D. 2000 Large Mammal Relative Abundance in Pithouse and Pueblo Period Archaeofaunas from southwest New Mexico: Resource Depression among the Mimbres Mogollon? Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 19(3):317–347.Google Scholar
Cannon, Michael D. 2003 A Model of Central Place Forager Prey Choice and an Application to Faunal Remains from Mimbres Valley, New Mexico. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22(1):1–25.Google Scholar
Carr, Dillon H. 2005 The Organization of Late Paleoindian Lithic Procurement Strategies in western Wisconsin. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 30(1):3–36.Google Scholar
Carr, Philip J., and Bradbury, Andrew P. 2001 Flake Debris Analysis, Levels of Production, and the Organization of Technology. In Lithic Debitage: Context, Form, Meaning, edited by William Andrefsky, pp. 126–146. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Charnov, Eric L. 1976 Optimal Foraging: The Marginal Value Theorem. Theoretical Population Biology 9:129–136.Google Scholar
Close, Angela E. 1999 Distance and Decay: An Uneasy Relationship. Antiquity 73:24–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elston, Robert G. 1990 A Cost-Benefit Model of Lithic Assemblage Variability. In The Archaeology of James Creek Shelter, edited by Robert G. Elston and Elizabeth E. Budy, pp. 153–164. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 115. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Elston, Robert G., and Zeanah, David W. 2002 Thinking Outside the Box: A New Perspective on Diet Breadth and Sexual Division of Labor in the Paleoarchaic Great Basin. World Archaeology 34(1): 103–130.Google Scholar
Ericson, Jonathon E. 1984 Toward the Analysis of Lithic Production Systems. In Prehistoric Quarries and Lithic Production, edited by Jonathon E. Ericson and Barbara A. Purdy, pp. 1–9. Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Ericson, Jonathon E., and Purdy, Barbara A. (editors) 1984 Prehistoric Quarries and Lithic Production. Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Flenniken, J. Jeffrey 1981 Replicative Systems Analysis: A Model Applied to the Vein Quartz Artifacts from the Hoko River Site. Washington State University Laboratory of Anthropology Reports of Investigations No. 59. Washington State University, Pullman.Google Scholar
Flenniken, J. Jeffrey 2001a Analysis of Six Flat Iron Mesa Lithic Concentrations. Lithic Analysts. Submitted to State of Utah, School and Instituitional Trust Lands Administration. Copes available at State of Utah, School and Instituitional Trust Lands Administration, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Flenniken, J. Jeffrey 2001b Infield, On-site Lithic Analysis of a Sample of 42SA11569, Looking Glass Overlook Parcel, San Juan County, Utah. Lithic Analysts. Submitted to State of Utah, School and Instituitional Trust Lands Administration. Copies available at State of Utah, School and Instituitional Trust Lands Administration, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Flenniken, J. Jeffrey 2001c Infield, On-site Lithic Analysis of Two Sample Locations within the Looking Glass Overlook Deux Parcel, San Juan County, Utah. Lithic Analysts. Submitted to State of Utah, School and Instituitional Trust Lands Administration. Copes available at State of Utah, School and Instituitional Trust Lands Administration, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Flenniken, J. Jeffrey 2002a Infield, On-site Technological Analysis of Flaked Stone Artifacts from the Surface of Ten Sites in the Photograph Gap A and B Parcels. Lithic Analysts. Submitted to State of Utah, School and Instituitional Trust Lands Administration. Copes available at State of Utah, School and Instituitional Trust Lands Administration, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Flenniken, J. Jeffrey 2002b Infield, On-site Technological Analysis of Flaked Stone Artifacts from the Surfaces of Sixteen Prehistoric Sites in the Church Rock Overlook Parcel, San Juan County, Utah. Lithic Analysts. Submitted to State of Utah, School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration. Copes available at State of Utah, School and Instituitional Trust Lands Administration, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Flenniken, J. Jeffrey 2003a Technological Analyses of Flaked Stone Artifacts from the Surfaces of Six Prehistoric Sites in the Poison Spider Parcel, Grand County, Utah. Lithic Analysts. Submitted to State of Utah, School and Instituitional Trust Lands Administration. Copes available at State of Utah, School and Instituitional Trust Lands Administration, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Flenniken, J. Jeffrey 2003b Technological Analyses of Flaked Stone Artifacts from the Surfaces of Twelve Prehistoric Sites in the Pole Canyon Road Parcel, San Juan County, Utah. Lithic Analysts. Submitted to State of Utah, School and Instituitional Trust Lands Administration. Copes available at State of Utah, School and Instituitional Trust Lands Administration, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Flenniken, J. Jeffrey 2003c Technological Analysis of Flaked Stone Artifacts from Seven Prehistoric Sites in the Pack Creek Parcel, San Juan County, Utah. Lithic Analysts. Submitted to State of Utah, School and Instituitional Trust Lands Administration. Copes available at State of Utah, School and Instituitional Trust Lands Administration, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Flenniken, J. Jeffrey 2003d Technological Analysis of Flaked Stone Artifacts from the Surfaces of Twenty-one Prehistoric Sites in the Coyote Spring, Cruz, and Sand Ridge Parcels, Millard County, Utah. Lithic Analysts. Submitted to State of Utah, School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration. Copes available at State of Utah, School and Instituitional Trust Lands Administration, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Flenniken, J. Jeffrey 2004 La Sal West Lithic Analysis. Lithic Analysts. Submitted to State of Utah, School and Instituitional Trust Lands Administration. Copes available at State of Utah, School and Instituitional Trust Lands Administration, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Flenniken, J. Jeffrey, and Garrison, Ervan G. 1975 Thermally Altered Novaculite and Stone Tool Manufacturing Techniques. Journal of Field Archaeology 2(1/2):125–131.Google Scholar
Grayson, Donald K. 1984 Quantitative Zooarchaeology: Topics in the Analysis of Archaeological Faunas. Studies in Archaeological Science. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego.Google Scholar
Grayson, Donald K. 1989 Sample Size and Relative Abundance in Archaeological Analysis: Illustrations from Spiral Fractures and Sedation. In Quantifying Diversity in Archaeology, edited by Robert D. Leonard and George T. Jones, pp. 79–84. Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Haarklau, Lynn, Johnson, Lynn, and Wagner, David L. 2005 Fingerprints in the Great Basin: The Nellis Air Force Base Regional Obsidian Sourcing Study. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District, Texas.Google Scholar
Hildebrandt, William R., and McGuire, Kelly R. 2002 The Ascendance of Hunting during the California Middle Archaic: An Evolutionary Perspective. American Antiquity 67:231–256.Google Scholar
Hildebrandt, William R., and McGuire, Kelly R. 2003 Large-Game Hunting, Gender-Differentiated Work Organization, and the Role of Evolutionary Ecology in California and Great Basin Prehistory: A Reply to Broughton and Bayham. American Antiquity 68:790–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, William H. 1894 Natural History of Flaked Stone Implements. In Memoirs of the International Congress of Anthropology, edited by C. Staniland Wake, pp. 120–139. Schulte, Chicago.Google Scholar
Horn, Jonathon C., Reed, Alan D., and Chandler, Susan M. 1994 Grand Resource Area Class I Cultural Resource Inventory. Bureau of Land Management, Moab District Office, Utah.Google Scholar
Jones, George T., Beck, Charlotte, Jones, Eric E., and Hughes, Richard E. 2003 Lithic Source Use and Paleoarchaic Foraging Territories in the Great Basin. American Antiquity 68:5–38.Google Scholar
Judson, Sheldon, Kauffman, Marvin E., and Don Leet, L. 1987 Physical Geology. 7th ed. Prentice-Hall, Inc., New Jersey.Google Scholar
Kappele, William A. 1996 Rockhounding Utah. Falcon Press, Helena, Montana.Google Scholar
Keller, Donald R. 1982 Lithic Source Identification through Macroscopic Analysis: An Example from Cedar Mesa, Southeastern Utah. The Kiva 47(3):163–169.Google Scholar
Kelly, Robert L. 1988 The Three Sides of a Biface. American Antiquity 53:717–734.Google Scholar
Kelly, Robert L. 1995 The Foraging Spectrum: Diversity in Hunter-Gatherer Lifeways. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Kelly, Robert L. 2001 Prehistory of the Carson Desert and Stillwater Mountains. University of Utah Anthropological Papers, No. 123. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Kennett, Douglas J., and Winterhalder, Bruce (editors) 2006 Behavioral Ecology and the Transition to Agriculture. University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Kintigh, Keith W. 1984 Measuring Archaeological Diversity by Comparison with Simulated Assemblages. American Antiquity 49: 44–54.Google Scholar
Kintigh, Keith W. 1989 Sample Size, Significance, and Measures of Diversity. In Quantifying Diversity in Archaeology, edited by Robert D. Leonard and George T. Jones, pp. 25–36. Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Leonard, Robert D. 1997 The Sample Size-Richness Relation: A Comment on Plog and Hegmon. American Antiquity 62:713–716.Google Scholar
Leonard, Robert D., and Jones, George T. (editors) 1989 Quantifying Diversity in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Luedtke, Barbara E. 1992 An Archaeologist’s Guide to Chert and Flint. Archaeological Research Tools 7. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Lucius, William A. 1976 Archaeological Investigations in the Maize District, Canyonlands National Park, Utah. Antiquities Section Selected Papers No. 11. State of Utah, Department of Development Services, Division of State History, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Lupo, Karen D. 2006 What Explains the Carcass Field Processing and Transport Decisions of Contemporary Hunter-Gatherers? Measures of Economic Anatomy and Zooarchaeological Skeletal Part Representation. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 13(1): 19–66.Google Scholar
McGuire, Kelly R. and Hildebrandt, William R. 2005 Re-thinking Great Basin Foragers: Prestige Hunting and Costly Signaling during the Middle Archaic Period. American Antiquity 70:695–712.Google Scholar
Metcalfe, Duncan and Renee Barlow, K. 1992 A Model for Exploring the Optimal Trade-Off between Field Processing and Transport. American Anthropologist 94:340–356.Google Scholar
Nagaoka, Lisa 2002a Explaining Subsistence Change in Southern New Zealand using Foraging Theory Models. World Archaeology 34(1):84–102.Google Scholar
Nagaoka, Lisa 2002b The Effects of Resource Depression on Foraging Efficiency, Diet Breadth, and Patch Use in Southern New Zealand. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21(4):419–442.Google Scholar
Nagaoka, Lisa 2005 Declining Foraging Efficiency and Moa Carcass Exploitation in Southern New Zealand. Journal of Archaeological Science 32(9):1328–1338.Google Scholar
Nelson, Fred W. 1984 X-ray Fluorescence of Some Western North American Obsidians. In Obsidian Studies in the Great Basin, edited by Richard E. Hughes, pp. 27–62. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility, Number 45. Archaeological Research Facility, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Nelson, Margaret C. 1991 The Study of Technological Organization. Archaeological Method and Theory 3:57–100.Google Scholar
Nelson, Fred W., and Holmes, Richard D. 1979 Trace Element Analysis of Obsidian Sources and Artifacts from Western Utah. Antiquities Section Selected Papers Volume 6, Number 15. Utah State Historical Society, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Newman, Jay R. 1994 The Effects of Distance on Lithic Material Reduction Technology. Journal of Field Archaeology 21:491–501.Google Scholar
O’Connell, James F., Jones, Kevin T., and Simms, Steven R. 1982 Some Thoughts on Prehistoric Archaeology in the Great Basin. In Man and Environment in the Great Basin, edited by David B. Madsen and James F. O’Connell, pp. 227–240. Society for American Archaeology Papers No. 2. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Odell, George H. 2000 Stone Tool Research at the End of the Millennium: Procurement and Technology. Journal of Archaeological Research 8(4):269–331.Google Scholar
Odell, George H. 2001 Stone Tool Research at the end of the Millennium: Classification, Function, and Behavior. Journal of Archaeological Research 9(1):45–100.Google Scholar
Orians, Gordon H., and Pearson, Nolan E. 1979 On the Theory of Central Place Foraging. In Analysis of Ecological Systems, edited by David J. Horn, Gordon R. Stairs, and Roger D. Mitchell, pp. 154–177. Ohio State University Press, Columbus.Google Scholar
Oviatt, Charles G. 1991 Quaternary Geology of the Black Rock Desert, Millard County, Utah. Utah Geological and Mineral Survey, Special Studies 73. Utah Geological and Mineral Survey, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Pielou, E. C. 1977 Mathematical Ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
Plog, Stephen, and Hegmon, Michelle 1993 The Sample Size-Richness Relation: The Relevance of Research Questions, Sampling Strategies, and Behavioral Variation. American Antiquity 58:489–496.Google Scholar
Plog, Stephen, and Hegmon, Michelle 1997 An Anthropological Perspective on the Sample Size-Richness Relation: A Response to Leonard. American Antiquity 62:717–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rhode, David 1988 Measurement of Archaeological Diversity and the Sample-Size Effect. American Antiquity 53:708–716.Google Scholar
Ricklis, Robert A., and Cox, Kim A. 1993 Examining Lithic Technological Organization as a Dynamic Cultural Subsystem: The Advantages of an Explicitly Spatial Approach. American Antiquity 58:444–461.Google Scholar
Schiffer, Michael B. 1999 Behavioral Archaeology: Some Clarifications. American Antiquity 64:166–168.Google Scholar
Schoener, Thomas W. 1979 Generality of the Size-Distance Relation in Models of Optimal Feeding. American Naturalist 114:902–914.Google Scholar
Schruben, Paul G., Arndt, Raymond E., and Bawiec, Walter J. 1994 Geology of the Coterminous United States at 1:2,500,000 Scale: A Digital Representation of the 1974 P. B. King and H. M. Beikman Map. In U.S. Geological Survey Digital Data Series DDS-11. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.Google Scholar
Simms, Steven R., and Bright, Jason R. 1997 Plain-ware Ceramics and Residential Mobility: A Case Study from the Great Basin. Journal of Archaeological Science 24:779–792.Google Scholar
Smith, Craig S. 1999 Obsidian Use in Wyoming and the Concept of Curation. Plains Anthropologist 44:271–291.Google Scholar
Smith, Eric A., and Winterhalder, Bruce (editors) 1992 Evolutionary Ecology and Human Behavior. Aldine de Gruyter, New York.Google Scholar
Sokal, Robert R., and James Rohlf, F. 1995 Biometry. 3rd ed. W. H. Freeman and Company, New York.Google Scholar
Sosis, Richard 2002 Patch Choice Decisions among Ifaluk Fishers. American Anthropologist 104(2):583–598.Google Scholar
Stephens, David W., and Krebs, John R. 1986 Foraging Theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
Stokes, William L. 1986 Geology of Utah. Utah Museum of Natural History, Occasional Paper Number 6. Utah Museum of Natural History, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Sullivan, Alan P., and Rozen, Kenneth C. 1985 Debitage Analysis and Archaeological Interpretation. American Antiquity 50:755–779.Google Scholar
Thomas, Frank R. 2002 An Evaluation of Central-Place Foraging among Mollusk Gatherers in Western Kiribati, Micronesia: Linking Behavioral Ecology with Ethnoarchaeology. World Archaeology 34(1):182–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tipps, Betsy L. 1995 Holocene Archeology Near Squaw Butte, Canyonlands National Park, Utah. Selections from the Division of Cultural Resources, Rocky Mountain Region No. 7. National Park Service, Denver, Colorado.Google Scholar
Tipps, Betsy L., and Hewitt, Nancy J. 1989 Cultural Resource Inventory and Testing in the Salt Creek Pocket and Devils Lane Areas, Needles District, Canyonlands National Park, Utah. Selections from the Division of Cultural Resources, Rocky Mountain Region No. 1. National Park Service, Denver, Colorado.Google Scholar
Tipps, Betsy L., La Fond, Andre D., and Birnie, Robert I. 1996 Cultural Resource Investigations Near White Crack, Island-in-the-Sky District, Canyonlands National Park, Utah. Cultural Resource Selections, Intermountain Region No. 11. National Park Service, Denver, Colorado.Google Scholar
Torrence, Robin 1989 Re-tooling: Towards a Behavioral Theory of Stone Tools. In Time, Energy, and Stone Tools, edited by Robin Torrence, pp. 57–66. Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Ugan, Andrew 2005 Climate, Bone Density, and Resource Depression: What Is Driving Variation in Large and Small Game in Fremont Archaeofaunas? Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 24:227–251.Google Scholar
Ugan, Andrew, Bright, Jason, and Rogers, Alan R. 2003 When Is Technology Worth the Trouble? Journal of Archaeological Science 30:1315–1329.Google Scholar
Wilkerson, Christine M. 1995 Obsidian in the Black Rock Desert, Millard County. Survey Notes 27(3):14.Google Scholar
Winterhalder, Bruce and Smith, Eric A. 2000 Analyzing Adaptive Strategies: Human Behavioral Ecology at Twenty-Five. Evolutionary Anthropology 9(2):51–72.Google Scholar
Yesner, David R. 1981 Archaeological Implications of Optimal Foraging Theory: Harvest Strategies of Aleut Hunter-Gatherers. In Hunter-Gatherer Foraging Strategies, edited by Bruce Winterhalder and Eric A. Smith, pp. 148–170. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Zeanah, David W. 2000 Transport Costs, Central Place Foraging, and Hunter-Gatherer Alpine Land Use Strategies. In Intermountain Archaeology, edited by David B. Madsen and Michael D. Metcalf, pp. 1–14. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 122. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Zeanah, David W. 2002 Central Place Foraging and Prehistoric Pinyon Utilization in the Great Basin. In Beyond Foraging and Collecting: Evolutionary Change in Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems, edited by Ben Fitzhugh and Junko Habu, pp. 231–256. Kluwer Academic Publishers, New York.Google Scholar
Zeanah, David W. 2004 Sexual Division of Labor and Central Place Foraging: A Model for the Carson Desert of Western Nevada. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23(1): 1–32.Google Scholar