Laserfiche WebLink
106 <br />• .reliability. For the most part, these are campsites that cover a sub- <br />stantial area and have a relatively higher concentration of artifactuai <br />materials than sites containing no diagnostic artifacts. Additionally, <br />these sites provide a wider variety of tool types with which to compare <br />other sites. <br />It is not surprising that the later periods are better represented <br />than the earlier ones. There has been less chance of scattering due to <br />erosion and less time for alluvial deposition to cover the remaining cul- <br />tural materials. It is tempting, as Jennings (1976:11) has pointed out, <br />to equate the higher site density and the greater amount of artifactual <br />~ materials with a higher population. An increase in population size, how- <br />ever, must entail a change in subsistence strategy to cope with a higher <br />food requirement. This produces a corresponding change in settlement pat- <br />~~• tern and possible changes in tool inventories. This is not indicated in <br />the materials recovered thus far. It seems more likely that the apparent <br />increase here is due to natural forces and better site preservation rather <br />than to an increase in the number of inhabitants. <br />Aboriginal sites attributable to the Late Prehistoric Period are <br />practically indistinguishable from Historic Period sites on any basis other <br />than the presence or lack of historic artifacts. Items of European manu- <br />facture or evidence of horses would positively identify a site as being <br />of post-contact origin. <br />The Fremont occupation to the west of the study area, especially in <br />Dinosaur National Monument, spans the juncture between the Late Middle <br />and Late Prehistoric Periods. Only limited evidence of Fremont-like arti- <br />• factual material is present in the Williams Fork Mountains. Sites in the <br />