Discussion

The focus of this study is the chronology, distribution, and form of Rosegate points; however, the results of this analysis and the available data on Fremont projectile points open additional avenues for future research. As the projectile point data demonstrates, multiple styles are the norm at Fremont sites. Rosegate points were found throughout the region, but after the introduction of side-notched and other point types they were rarely the most common style. Can the differences be explained by functional concerns? Hunting and warfare have different functional requirements and are likely causes of the simultaneous use of different styles in some cases (Loendorf et al. 2015). Yet functional requirements are unlikely to be responsible for the spatial variation noted in this analysis. Stone projectile points are almost exclusively used for large game or warfare (Ellis 1997). Big game animals may vary in quantity throughout the Fremont region, but the same types of large mammals (deer, pronghorn, elk, etc.) are found throughout. Thus, there is little reason for stone projectile points to vary in style exclusively for hunting purposes without reference to the historical trajectories of their makers. Projectile points are associated with various social and symbolic functions in nearby areas of the Southwest (Bayman 2007:78–79; Beaglehole 1936; Cushing 1883; Dittert 1959; Fewkes 1898; Justice 2002b:309–310; Kaldahl 2000; Kamp et al. 2016; Parsons 1932, 1939; Russell 1908; Sedig 2014; Simpson 1953; Stevenson 1884, 1894, 1903; Whittaker and Kamp 2016). Certainly, several aspects of social behavior influence the form of a projectile point. These behaviors can form recognizable patterns that may provide new ways to study the Fremont when combined with additional data.

Projectile points are often used as markers of social identity by archaeologists (e.g., Mason 1894:655; Waguespack et al. 2009:787; Whittaker 1994:260–268). For example, Desert Side-notched points are associated with the Numic people (Bettinger and Baumhoff 1982; Delacorte 2008). Ethnographic research supports this association (e.g., Clark 2001:6–22; Garfinkel 2007; Wiessner 1983). This identity is caused either by an association between an identifiable point form and a self-identified social group or because individuals learned knapping in the same communities of practice (Lave and Wenger 1991; Wenger 1998). However, projectile point styles often seem to cross archaeologically defined borders (Holmer and Weder 1980:67–68; Simms 1990:4), which complicates the use of projectile points as markers of identity. Jones (1994:73) points out that the widespread distribution of Rosegate points indicates the makers likely did not share ethnicity or language. Nevertheless, artifacts do not have to be specific to only one social group to be used to be associated with identity. Objects can be actively used to signal identity, as in emblemic style (Wiessner 1983), but in many cases, objects may be associated with a particular social group merely through association in a particular context. For example, Curta (2007:174) notes that medieval brooch styles in Hungary differ between the east and the west: eastern style brooches resemble brooches in Italy, whereas western brooches resemble styles in Germany and France. Thus, the brooches are associated with Hungarian identities and are useful contextual information, but they are not exclusive to Hungary. A recent study found that the distribution of projectile point types most likely corresponds to the area covered by speakers of a group of related languages, rather than any smaller social unit (Buchanan et al. 2019), thus recognizable ethnic groups would probably be too small to have a unique style. In summary, projectile point types likely reflect social identity at some level, although the association may be quite broad and may cross the social boundaries of smaller units.

If projectile points can be used to define distinct material complexes, then perhaps the introduction of various new point types sometime between AD 800 and 1000 may represent an influx of people from other regions (Allison 2019; Janetski 1993; see Madsen and Simms 1998 for a general discussion of Fremont origins). The number and size of sites dating after this period are significantly higher than before and suggest that some migration occurred.

Projectile points have been used previously to argue for migration in the Fremont region. For example, Holmer and Weder (1980:68) cite several arguments using projectile point types for the movement of people from the Plains and Ancestral Pueblo regions. They argue that the projectile point data in their analysis support both hypotheses. They also suggest that matrilocality provides an explanation for the multiplicity of styles found in Fremont sites. If men practiced in a particular knapping style often moved to new villages, then it would intuitively create this pattern—a possibility worth exploring although it would likely require reference to other types of material culture. Because Rosegate points are never replaced but continue to be manufactured and used until the end of the Fremont period, these points may be representative of descendants of Great Basin Archaic peoples whose ancestors had long inhabited the Fremont region. The spatial analysis suggests that some areas had much higher or lower percentages of Rosegate points than would be expected if the points were distributed evenly. Areas with high percentages of Rosegate points may be places where in-migration was less frequent. This explanation is appealing but requires evidence, as Rosegate points and similar points are widespread, including in the Southwest.