LOVING LAKES AND DUNES: RESEARCH DESIGN …Archaeological Notes 383 2006 MUSEUM OF NEW MEXICO OFFICE...

LOVING LAKES AND DUNES:

RESEARCH DESIGN AND DATA RECOVERY PLAN

FOR EIGHT ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES ON NM 128,

EDDY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO

OAS Staff

Office of Archaeological Studies

Museum of New Mexico

Archaeological Notes 383

2006

MUSEUM OF NEW MEXICO

OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES

Loving Lakes and Dunes: Research Design andData Recovery Plan for Eight Archaeological Sites on

NM 128, Eddy County, New Mexico

Nancy J. AkinsSusana R. Katz

Paul KatzJames L. MooreH. Wolcott TollMollie S. Toll

Regge N. Wiseman

Eric Blinman, Ph.D.Principal Investigator

ARCHAEOLOGY NOTES 383

SANTA FE 2006 NEW MEXICO

iii

This data recovery plan was prepared by theOffice of Archaeological Studies (OAS), Museumof New Mexico, at the request of the New MexicoDepartment of Transportation (NMDOT). It pro-vides a cultural-historical, theoretical, andmethodological context for the archaeologicalinvestigation of portions of eight archaeologicalsites: LA 113042, LA 129214, LA 129216, LA129217, LA 129218, LA 129220, LA 129222, andLA 129300. These sites overlap with proposedhighway improvements to NM 128, betweenLoving and Jal, Eddy County, New Mexico.Improvements include both new alignments andthe rehabilitation of abandoned highway ease-ments. LA 129220 is on state trust land, while allof the other sites are on federal land administeredby the Bureau of Land Management (BLM),Carlsbad Field Office.

NM 128 originates at its junction with NM 31southeast of Carlsbad and northeast of Loving,New Mexico. The highway continues east to Jal,New Mexico, and then into Texas. This two-lanehighway with minimal shoulders passes througha number of salt lakes at its west end. Over thecourse of the project the highway rises gentlytoward the Livingston Ridge, northeast of thehighway. After passing the WIPP site, the high-way enters Los Medaños, or the dunes. The eastend of the project is located among high coppicedunes.

The NMDOT is preparing to improve andreroute the highway in three phases: (1) the west-ernmost 10.7 miles; (2) the Jal end; and (3) theconnecting segment. This data recovery plan cov-ers archaeological sites that will be affected bythe first phase of highway improvements.Archaeological surveys in advance of the pro-posed highway modifications were conducted byTRC Companies, Inc. (Turnbow et al. 2000),under contract to Marron and Associates, Inc.;and by SWCA, Inc., Environmental Consultants(Railey et al. 2006). A survey of a pipeline corri-dor by Western Cultural Resource Managementalso overlaps the area of the highway modifica-tions (Gibson 1996). A total of twelve sites over-lapped with this phase of the proposed highwayconstruction, but four of the sites (LA 129215, LA

129219, LA 129221, and LA 129223) were deter-mined ineligible for inclusion in the NationalRegister of Historic Places and therefore are notconsidered for data recovery. The eligibility ofone site at the west end of the project (LA 129216)and one at the east end (LA 129217) was notdetermined. LA 129216 and LA 129217 areincluded in this data recovery plan and will beinvestigated with a phased testing-data recoveryapproach.

LA 129220 is the only site on state trust landand is the only one with no evidence of an exten-sive prehistoric component. The site consists of amid-twentieth-century nonresidential ranchcomplex with a windmill, stock tanks, corrals,and an artifact scatter. A veneer of later historictrash is present, but no prehistoric artifacts or fea-tures were noted during the survey. The portionof the site to the north of the existing highway,which includes only a railroad-tie corral, will beaffected by construction. This site has been fullyrecorded, and treatment within this data recov-ery effort will be limited to a confirmation of thesurvey observations and archival research to pro-vide a historical context for the site. No excava-tion or collection will be undertaken.

All of the other sites are on BLM land andhave prehistoric components defined by scattersof burned caliche and artifacts. In addition tothese basic characteristics, LA 113042 covers109,111 sq m and includes 27 features. Of these,17 are ash-stained midden deposits, 9 are distinctconcentrations of burned caliche, 1 is a burnedcaliche and ash concentration, and 1 is an ashstain. Temporally diagnostic artifacts are limitedto pottery spanning A.D. 500–1300, but thenature and extent of nonpottery artifacts and fea-tures argue for the presence of Archaic compo-nents as well. Approximately 37,000 sq m of thesite area overlap with the highway constructionzone, including four of the features. Four addi-tional features are adjacent to the project limits.

LA 129214 covers 81,058 sq m and includes 34features within the burned caliche and artifactscatter. This site is 250 m from LA 113042 in asimilar geomorphic setting. Of the features, 23are ash-stained midden deposits, 1 is a burned

Administrative Summary

caliche midden (without ash), 4 are burnedcaliche and fire-cracked rock concentrations, and1 is a rock alignment that could be a roomblockor a consequence of modern land modification.Cuts through midden deposits suggest depthsexceeding 0.5 m in some areas, and the extensivemiddens are expected to include internal featuresand structures. Temporally diagnostic artifactsinclude a piece of flaked aqua bottle glass (post-A.D. 1800) and Formative pottery (A.D.500–1300). Although no temporally diagnosticprojectile points were observed on survey, therelative abundance of flaked stone suggests thatoccupation began within the Archaic period.Approximately 16,000 sq m of the site area over-lap with the project limits, including 17 features.

LA 129216 covers 11,094 sq m and includesnine features. The features consist of sevenburned caliche concentrations and two burnedcaliche concentrations with fire-cracked rock. Nopottery was noted, but a single Type 2-B arrowpoint suggests that the occupation span includesA.D. 750–1300. Approximately 1,789 sq m of thesite area overlaps with the project area, andalthough none of the identified features fallswithin the project limits, two burned caliche con-centration features are adjacent to it. This sitemay or may not be eligible for inclusion in theNRHP. Investigation will be phased to determineeligibility prior to pursuing full data recovery.

LA 129217 covers about 9,927 sq m ofblowouts with cultural material interspersedwith coppice dunes. The site boundary is lessthan 25 m from the boundary of the adjacent siteof LA 129218. Eight features were defined on sur-vey, including one midden, four burned calicheconcentrations, three scatters of burned caliche,and a pit with ashy fill. The only potentially tem-porally diagnostic artifacts were two dart points.The complete point is stylistically ambiguous butresembles the Bulverde type, with an estimateddate of 3000–2500 B.C. A point fragment is alsostylistically ambiguous, with similarities to typeswithin the Archaic through early Formative daterange. Project limits include 5,975 sq m of the sitearea and four features. This site may or may notbe eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.Investigation will be phased to determine eligi-bility prior to pursuing full data recovery.

LA 129218 is immediately adjacent to LA129217, and their archaeological content should

be interpreted in concert. Cultural materials fallwithin a 12,738 sq m area and are exposed inblowouts between coppice dunes. Seven featureswere defined based on survey observations.These features consisted of two middens, threeburned caliche concentrations, and two burnedcaliche scatters. No pottery was noted. A singledart point suggests but is not diagnostic ofMiddle Archaic styles. A total of 6,384 sq m of LA129218 fall within the project limits, including sixfeatures.

LA 129222 covers about 14,386 sq m and isrelatively unobscured by dune formation.Features consist of three concentrations ofburned caliche—two articulated and one some-what dispersed. One articulated concentration isassociated with ash-stained soil. A single tempo-rally diagnostic sherd (Chupadero Black-on-white) documents occupation within the A.D.1150–1450 period, but earlier components arelikely as well. A total of 6,353 sq m of the siteextend within the project limits, not includingany of the features noted on survey.

LA 129300 covers about 16,625 sq m. Fifteenfeatures were observed during survey. Six ofthese are described as middens with ash, onemidden lacks ash-stained soil, and there are eightconcentrations of burned caliche. A single frag-mentary dart point is reminiscent of Late Archaicthrough early Formative styles, while potterytypes span the A.D. 500–1375 period. The potteryis associated with three of the middens and oneburned caliche concentration. A total of 7,700 sqm of the site fall within the project limits, but thisincludes only three features.

Observations during survey indicate that theproject area sites span Archaic through protohis-toric Native American occupations and mid-twentieth-century historic ranching. The NativeAmerican occupations include the transitionfrom foraging to mixed foraging and horticultur-al subsistence adaptations, and the geographicrange of the sites may include contrasts betweenadaptations to different floral resource zones.The sites themselves include palimpsests wheredeflation has commingled materials from dis-parate time horizons, while other site areas andfeatures appear to have both vertical and hori-zontal integrity. Dune development has obscuredconsiderable areas of some site surfaces.Although no artifactual evidence of Paleoindian

iv

occupation was found, excavators in this part ofNew Mexico must always be on the alert foroccupations from that early part of the sequence.

The investigative foci of the prehistoricresearch include regional questions of chronolo-gy, cultural affiliation, and adaptation. The proj-ect area sites will contribute to our understand-ing of Archaic adaptations in the playa-desertenvironment, and changing resource emphasesare expected both across the project area andthrough time. Formative period components inthe project area lie within common definitions ofthe Jornada Mogollon. However, the adjacentsubregional cultural-historical frameworks of theGuadalupe Mountains–Brantley area (Katz andKatz 1985a) and the Eastern Extension (Corley1965/1970; Leslie 1979) contrast with the agricul-tural adaptation of Jornada Mogollon west of theGuadalupe Mountains. The Formative record ofthe project area will help assess levels of agricul-tural reliance and determine whether a Mogollondesignation for the regional culture is warranted.At the subregional level, the record will helpevaluate which of the two adjacent culture histor-ical sequences is appropriate for the project area.Embedded in both the Archaic and Formativestudies are questions of broad regional interac-

tions with the southern Plains, the Trans-Pecos,and Southwestern populations.

Recovery of archaeological information rele-vant to the research problems poses a number ofchallenges. The sites are extremely large, andthey have been subject to both deflation anddune encroachment that has blurred andobscured the nature of the archaeological record.Field work strategy includes intensive excavationof known features and surfaces, sampling to find(or confirm the absence of) additional featuresand surfaces, trenching, blading, and geomor-phic investigations to provide stratigraphic andenvironmental contexts for the features and sur-faces. Stratigraphic differentiation and dating ofindividual components will be emphasizedwherever possible to help interpret palimpseststhat appear to dominate blowout areas betweendunes. Recovery will include high-precisionscreening in selected contexts to support infer-ences of function and exchange.

NMDOT Project No. TPM)-128(7), CN 3279OAS/MNM Project No. 41.833NMCRIS Activity No. 99600

v

Administrative Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iiiIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Natural Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Physiography and Geology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Surface Water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Animals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Regional Culture History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Paleoindian Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Archaic Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Formative Period. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Proto/Ethnohistoric Period. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Previous Archaeological Work in the Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31Site Descriptions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

LA 113042 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35LA 129214 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39LA 129216 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46LA 129217 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48LA 129218 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50LA 129220 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53LA 129222 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56LA 129300 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58Isolated Occurrences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Data Recovery Plan for Prehistoric Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65Taxonomic Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65Theoretical Perspective on Hunter-Gatherer Subsistence Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67Data Recovery Themes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70Data Recovery Questions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Field Methods for Prehistoric Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75General Field Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75General Field Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76Specific Field Methods: Features, Structures, and Extramural Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Data Recovery Plan for Historic Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81LA 129214 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81LA 129220 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Data Recovery Strategies for LA 113042, LA 129214, LA 129216, LA 129217, LA 129218,LA 129220, LA 129222, and LA 129300 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83General Sampling Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83Individual Site Investigation Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84Additional Investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Analytic Framework and Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99Ceramic Artifacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100Chipped Stone Artifacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102Ground Stone Artifacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111Faunal Remains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114Human Remains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117Archeobotanical Remains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

vii

Contents

Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125References Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127Appendix 1: Site Location Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

FIGURES

1. Project vicinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32. Project map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43. The Pecos Country of southeastern New Mexico. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124. LA 113042 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375. Eroded feature area next to right-of-way fence, LA113042. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 396. LA 129214 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 407. Dune and blowout area, LA 129214 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 428. Dune and blowout area, LA 129214 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 429. LA 129214 looking east . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4310. LA 126216 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4711. LA 129217 and LA 129218 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4912. LA 129218 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5113. LA 129220 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5414. Historic railroad-tie corral within the project limits, LA 129220 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5515. Water tank features outside project limits south of NM 128, LA 129220 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5516. LA 129222 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5717. Topography, vegetation, and soils in mid–project area around LA 129222 and LA 129223 . . . . . . . . 5818. LA 129300 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5919. Looking east toward LA 129300 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6120. The project area from the railroad tracks, LA129300 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6121. Main area of LA 129300, south of the new right-of-way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6222. LA 129300, looking west . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6223. Data recovery strategy, LA 113042 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8624. Data recovery strategy, LA 129214 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8825. Data recovery strategy, LA 126216 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9026. Data recovery strategy, LA 129217 and LA 129218 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9227. Data recovery strategy, LA 129222 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9428. Data recovery strategy, LA 129300 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

TABLES

1. Sites potentially affected by project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22. Regional phase sequence for southeastern New Mexico. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133. Sites by regional period and ecozone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164. Archaeological status of Paleoindian sites in southeastern New Mexico as of June 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . 165. Condition of Paleoindian sites in southeastern New Mexico as of June 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166. Topographic setting of Paleoindian sites in southeastern New Mexico as of June 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . 177. Archaeological status of Archaic sites in southeastern New Mexico as of June 1990. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198. Topographic setting of Archaic sites in southeastern New Mexico as of June 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199. Condition of Archaic sites in southeastern New Mexico as of June 1990. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2010. Topographic setting of Formative sites in southeastern New Mexico as of June 1990. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2211. Archaeological status of Formative sites in southeastern New Mexico as of June 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . 2212. Condition of Formative sites in southeastern New Mexico as of June 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2313. Estimated percentage of major ecozones in southeastern New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2414. Topographic setting of Proto/Ethnohistoric sites in southeastern New Mexico as of June 1990. . . . 2715. Archaeological status of Proto/Ethnohistoric sites in southeastern New Mexico as of June 1990. . . 27

viii

16. Condition of Proto/Ethnohistoric sites in southeastern New Mexico as of June 1990. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2717. Features within and adjacent to the right-of-way, LA 113042 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3818. Features within the right-of-way, LA 129214 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4419. Features within the right-of-way, LA 129216 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4820. Features within the right-of-way, LA 129217 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5021. Features within the right-of-way, LA 129218 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5222. Features within the right-of-way, LA 129300 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6323. Area, features, and sampling strata within the project limits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

ix

This data recovery plan was prepared by theOffice of Archaeological Studies (OAS), Museumof New Mexico, at the request of the New MexicoDepartment of Transportation (NMDOT). It pro-vides a cultural-historical, theoretical, andmethodological context for the archaeologicalinvestigation of portions of eight archaeologicalsites: LA 113042, LA 129214, LA 129216, LA129217, LA 129218, LA 129220, LA 129222, andLA 129300 (see Appendix 1 for legal descriptionsand UTM coordinates). These sites overlap withproposed highway improvements to NM 128,between Loving and Jal, Eddy County, NewMexico. Improvements include both new align-ments and the rehabilitation of abandoned high-way easements. LA 129220 is on state trust land,while all of the other sites are on federal landadministered by the Bureau of LandManagement (BLM), Carlsbad Field Office.

NM 128 originates at its junction with NM 31southeast of Carlsbad and northeast of Loving,New Mexico. The highway continues east to Jal,New Mexico, and then into Texas. This two-lanehighway with minimal shoulders passes througha number of salt lakes at its west end. Over thecourse of the project the highway rises gentlytoward the Livingston Ridge, northeast of thehighway. After passing the WIPP site, the high-way enters Los Medaños, or the dunes. The eastend of the project is located among high coppicedunes.

The NMDOT is preparing to improve andreroute the highway in three phases: (1) the west-ernmost 10.7 miles; (2) the Jal end; and (3) theconnecting segment. During the Phase 1 survey,

12 archaeological sites were identified (Table 1).Four of them were determined to be ineligible forthe National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), sixsites were eligible, and two were undetermined.This data recovery plan addresses the eight sitesthat are or may be eligible and that will be affect-ed by the first phase of improvements. Table 1summarizes areas of overlap of the proposedproject and the recorded boundaries of thearchaeological sites. Redesign is possible prior tothe initiation of data recovery excavations, andexcavations will be limited to the most conserva-tive area of potential effect when excavationsactually begin.

The US Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5’ quad-rangle maps encompassing the project area areLoving, Remuda Basin, and Los Medaños (Fig.1). The proposed project consists of a new align-ment of portions NM 128 from the intersection ofNM 31 and NM 128 at Milepost 0 to Milepost 10.7(Fig. 2). The proposed alignment runs along theexisting NM 128 to Milepost 0.55, arches north toavoid the salt lakes in the area, and then recon-nects with the existing NM 128 at Milepost 5.8. Itleaves the existing road again at Milepost 9.1 andreconnects at Milepost 10.5. The highwayimprovements are within Sections 32, 33, 34, 35,and 36, T 22S, R 29E; Sections 4 and 5, T 23S, R29E; Section 31, T 22S, R 30E; Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,6 and 12, T 23S, R 30E; and Section 7, T 23S, R 31E.Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) grid coor-dinates for the beginning of project (BOP), atMilepost 0, are Zone 13, Forthe end of project (EOP), at Milepost 10.7, theyare Zone 13, (NAD 1983).

1

Introduction

2

Site Area of Site Total Area Eligible for(east to w est) w ithin Project of Site National Register ?

(sq m)* (sq m)

LA 129217 5975 9927 not determinedLA 129218 6384 12,738 yesLA 129221 1130 noLA 129220 5251 14,359 yesLA 129219 46 noLA 129222 6353 14,836 yesLA 129223 7961 noLA 129300 7700 16,625 yesLA 129215 1626 noLA 113042 37,047 109,111 yesLA 129214 16,714 81,058 yesLA 129216 1789 11,094 not determined

(no pavement)

Table 1. Sites potentially affected by project

* Includes areas w ithin old and new rights-of-w ay combined

Table 1. Sites potentially affected by project

4

Figure 2. Project map.

5

Figure 2 (continued)

PHYSIOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY

The project is in the Mescalero Plains east ofthe Pecos River and east of Carlsbad, EddyCounty, New Mexico. The beginning of the proj-ect (BOP) is 7 km east of the river and immediate-ly east of the south end of Quahada Ridge, whichis composed of various gravels, sands, silts, andmuds of the Cenozoic era Gatuna formation(Powers and Holt 1993). The BOP is on a dissect-ed remnant of the Mescalero Plains, which con-sists of a group of low sand hills and ridges ofQuaternary alluvial and bolson deposits (Daneand Bachman 1965). The elevation at the BOP is922 m (3,025 ft) above mean sea level. LA 129216,LA 129214, and LA 113042 are on the upper sur-face and ridges of this remnant.

Three km east of the BOP, the project align-ment drops down into a playa-filled basin at anelevation of 906 m (2,973 ft). These playas receivethe discharge of Nash Draw, a relatively short,northeast-to-southwest trending channel thatdrains the southwest slope of Livingston Ridge.Prior to the modern ponding of heavily mineral-ized waters from nearby potash mines, theRustler formation (Permian) was exposed in thebottom of this basin. LA 129300 is on a low rem-nant of this formation that projects southwardbetween two of the playas. At this point, thehighway alignment skirts the north edge of thebasin.

Approximately 9 km east of the BOP, thehighway alignment begins its ascent out of thebasin, working its way through the brokentopography of the southwest slope of LivingstonRidge. Various units of the Rustler formation,including “anhydrite, red silty shales, and mag-nesian limestone” (Lucas and Anderson 1993),may be exposed on this slope. Livingston ridgeitself is capped by a continuation of theQuaternary alluvial and bolson deposits men-tioned earlier. LA 129222 is on the first piece ofhigh ground along the east edge of the basin at anelevation of 915 m (3,000 ft).

East of LA 129222, the alignment steadily

gains elevation over a distance of 2.4 km until ittops out on Livingston Ridge at an elevation of993 m (3,260 ft). Here sits LA 129220, a mid-twen-tieth-century ranch complex. The turnoff to theWaste Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP) is 1.2 km eastof this site.

The two easternmost archaeological sites, LA129217 and LA 129218, lie within the 1000-feetEOP zone. Both sites are among parabolic dunesnear the edge of Livingston Ridge. This dunefield marks the first occurrence of the prehistori-cally important shin oak vegetation encounteredduring this project and is part of a complexwhose relationship to the sand sheets furthernorth has yet to be established (Hall 2002 andpers. comm.).

SOILS

The soils of the project area belong to thethermic, light-colored soils of the warm deserticregion (Maker et al. 1978). They include, fromwest to east, No. 45, Paleorthids-Haplargids; No.41, Gypsiorthids-Torriorthents-Gypsum; a sec-ond expanse of No. 45, Paleorthids-Haplargids;and No. 40, Haplargids-Torripsamments.

Maker et al. (1978) describe No. 45,Paleorthids-Haplargids soils as follows:“Although small and scattered areas of deep soilsoccur in this association, it is dominated by shal-low soils underlain by fractured, stronglycemented or indurated caliche.” The majoritysoils are further characterized as droughty.

Three of the small areas of deeper soils in theNo. 45 soils include Typic Camborthids (“loamyfine sand or fine sand surface layers and moder-ately coarse-textured subsurface layers to a depthof 60 inches or more”), Typic Torripsamments(“sands and loamy fine sands to a depth of fivefeet or more”), and Paleargids (“loamy fine sandor fine sandy loam surface layers, and sandy clayloam subsoils over indurated caliche at depths ofabout 20 to 40 inches”). All of these soils havesome potential for limited farming under primi-

7

Natural Environment

Regge N. Wiseman

tive conditions (see Bradfield 1971). Field recon-naissance by a soil scientist would be required tolocate the patches of these deeper soils in thevicinity of LA 129216, LA 129214, and LA 113042,at the west end of the project; and LA 129217 andLA 129218 at the east end.

No. 41 soils, Gypsiorthids-Torriorthents-Gypsum, are basically nonfarmable because ofhigh gypsum and/or halite (salt) content andsubstrates of these materials at shallow depths(0.5 m or less). These soils characterize the basinof which the nearby Salt Lake (south of the westend of the project area) is a part.

The apparent absence of farmable land inthese soils in the vicinity of LA 129300 is surpris-ing since the site may have pithouses and there-fore may have been occupied by farmers.However, it is possible that the soils in the lowareas to the east, south, and west of LA 129300belong to the No. 45 soils but are now coveredwith the salts piped in from the nearby potashmines.

No. 40 soils, Haplargids-Torripsamments,are moderately deep to deep soils composedlargely of eolian sands accumulated in dunes.Although these soils are characterized by Makeret al. (1978) as supporting varied grass species,creosote, and mesquite, they do not mention thedominance of shin oak communities in this partof southeastern New Mexico.

This brings up the question of the distribu-tion of shin oak before the grazing disturbancesof domestic livestock over the last 100 to 120years. Specifically, did shin oak exist in the vicin-ity of LA 129217 and LA 129218 when these siteswere occupied by prehistoric (and possibly earlyhistoric) peoples? Sandy tracts such as these areknown to have been farmed by modern Hopis aspart of what appears to be an ancient custom(Bradfield 1971).

VEGETATION

Marron and Associates (2005), a biologicalreport prepared specifically for this project,describes three vegetation communities in theproject area: Plains-Mesa Sand Scrub,Chihuahuan Desert Scrub, and Closed BasinAlkali Riparian. These communities form a

patchwork pattern in the lowland parts of theproject near the playas in the western half of theproject area. Plains-Mesa Sand Scrub andChihuahuan Desert Scrub dominate the upperpart of the western slopes and the top ofLivingston Ridge and Los Medaños in the easternhalf of the project.

CLIMATE

The climate of the project area is character-ized by mild winters and warm summers. Themean January temperature for Carlsbad is 5.5degrees C (42 F); the mean temperature in July is27.2 degrees C (81 F) (Wiseman 2003). The aver-age frost-free season in the project area is 220days. The last killing frost in the spring occursaround March 30, and the first killing frost in thefall occurs after October 30 (Tuan et al. 1973).

The normal annual precipitation is 330 mm(13 in), and the normal summer precipitation(May through September) is 200 mm (8 in)(Weather Bureau, US Department of Commerce1967). However, these figures are derived fromdata recorded for 1931 through 1960. Since twonotable droughts occurred in the 1930s and mid-1950s, these figures may be somewhat low overthe long term. For instance, precipitation recordsfor 1878–1930 for the Roswell area (120 km or 75mi to the northwest, but still within an edge-of-the-plains environment) documents much wettertimes. Between 1878 and 1900, the annual precip-itation averaged about 400 mm (16 in), andbetween 1886 and 1890 the average was 500 mm(20 in) (Wiseman 2001).

Winds are a characteristic aspect of the plainsof eastern New Mexico. The predominant winddirection in the project area is from the southeast,and the Gulf of Mexico is the primary source ofsummer moisture. A wind rose developed forWIPP, a few miles northeast of the project area,indicates that the directional order of winds isfirst from the southeast, followed by the south-southeast, the south, and the east-southeast. Allother directions are minor by comparison.However, the strongest winds (those in excess of8 m per second) are generated by local convectivestorms and can come from virtually any direction(Lord and Reynolds 1985: Fig. 3.5).

8

SURFACE WATER

Surface water in the project area is mainlyavailable in playas or wet-weather ponds. Whenmoisture fell, and especially during the summermonsoons emanating from the Gulf of Mexico,water would have been available in these shal-low but often extensive features. In some cases,water would move to playas through shortdrainages such as Nash Draw. The duration ofstanding water would have depended on theamount of rainfall, air temperature, degree ofcloud cover, and persistence of winds. Thus,water would have been available for periodsranging from a few days to several weeks or evena few months following especially wet seasons.

Springs and seeps are a possible exception.Only one spring has been recorded and tested inthe project area. Designated Number 20 for EddyCounty (White and Kues 1992), this unnamedspring is near the north shore of Salt Lake in thesouthwest quarter of Section 4, T 23S, R 29E. Thiswould have been one of the two springs shownon the Remuda Basin USGS topographic map,but we cannot be certain which one it is. The twosprings shown on the map are 1000 and 1200 mdue south of LA 129214.

While we have no way of knowing the dis-solved-solids load of this spring prior to the mod-ern period of potash mining and mine water dis-posal in playas such as Salt Lake, the specific con-ductance records for 1940 (11,600 microsiemens)and 1975 (233,000 microsiemens) indicate that thewater from this spring is definitely not potable

for humans or livestock. These specific conduc-tance values, when converted to TDS values(total dissolved solids), are 8,120 and 163,100 mgper liter, respectively.

According to Tom Morrison of the NewMexico Office of the State Engineer (pers. comm.,May 9, 2006), humans today tolerate up 1,500 oras high as 2,000 TDS in their drinking water,depending on what the dissolved solids are andhow well the individuals have adapted to them.The water from this spring is not potable byhumans today, but the total dissolved solids maywell have been lower in the past. The water dis-charge from the nearby potash mines may havegreatly increased the total dissolved solids loadof the water from this spring.

ANIMALS

The environment of the project area makes itespecially diverse in animal life (Marron andAssociates 2005). Mammals include mule deer,coyote, porcupine, gray fox, desert cottontail,jackrabbit, bobcat, badger, two species of skunk,prairie dog, two species of gopher, three speciesof ground squirrel, three species of woodrat, sev-eral species each of rats and mice, and severalspecies of bats. Pronghorn and bison were prob-ably present at one time in the nearby grasslands(Dick-Peddie 1993). Snakes and lizards arenumerous in this semiarid landscape. West(1994) lists 164 species of birds in the area.

9

This summary of the culture history of “thePecos Country” (Fig. 3) is reproduced here bypermission of Paul Katz. It is excerpted andadapted from “Prehistory of the Pecos Country,Southeast New Mexico,” a section in TheArchaeological Record of Southern New Mexico, pre-pared for the New Mexico Historic PreservationDivision (Katz and Katz 2001).

Southeastern New Mexico’s archaeologistsare well aware of the shortcomings of the ceram-ic and projectile point typologies currently in use.These systems persist simply for lack of modern,authoritative, practical replacements or revisions.The need for better regional typologies is univer-sally acknowledged (e.g., Mariah Associates1987).

The classification system presented here useschronological/developmental periods subdivid-ed into phases. “Period,” as used here, is compa-rable to “culture,” as used by the ArcheologicalRecords Management Section (ARMS), i.e.,extensive units of time and space with consider-able variety in content. The periods arePaleoindian, Archaic, Formative, andProto/Ethnohistoric. Our Paleoindian andArchaic periods are analogous to ARMS culturesof the same name. “Formative” subsumes theARMS Mogollon and Anasazi cultures;Proto/Ethnohistoric includes the ARMS Apacheand Plains cultures. We are omitting the fewCasas Grandes and Navajo entries.

Smaller units, period and phase, are hardlyever identified in ARMS records, let alonerecorded. This is understandable given the brief,surface-only nature of the survey work and thepaucity of diagnostic surface artifacts. Thus, theARMS data employed here equate to the level of“culture.”

The subdivisions of some chronological peri-ods, especially the Paleoindian and Archaic,might be considered subperiods rather thanphases as defined by Willey and Phillips (1958).Their temporal extent is much too broad andtheir cultural content too imprecise for them to beconsidered phases.

The need for improved chronological controland for a region-wide cultural classification sys-tem was a priority in the interviews and discus-sions that preceded this overview. This sequenceis a response to that need. It should not be takenas chronological or culture historical truth; how-ever; it is a springboard for further research. Weexpect this sequence to expedite intra- and extra-regional identifications and interpretations, toprovide insights into the relationships betweenlocalities, to highlight the strengths and weak-nesses of the database, and to propose new ques-tions about the use of the mountain-plains mar-gin.

Table 2 presents a sequence of regional phas-es grouped in four chronological periods. Thedate range for each regional phase has been gen-erated, where possible, from the radiocarbondates. Information on the articulation of local toregional phases, as well as characteristic artifacts,features, and site types, is drawn from Jelinek(1967), Katz and Katz (1985a), and Leslie (1979).

PALEOINDIAN PERIOD (12,000–8200 B.P.,OR 10,000–6200 B.C.)

Environment

The climate at the beginning of thePaleoindian period was more equable and con-siderably cooler and wetter than today. TheLlano Estacado was a steppe or savanna dottedwith shallow lakes. Stands of pine and sprucewere present, perhaps lining the watercourses.Environmental reconstructions for the LlanoEstacado use pollen profiles from playa lakes andecofacts from sites such as Blackwater Draw andLubbock Lake.

Trees grew far down the mountain slopes,and the Sacramento section foothills were wood-ed. The flora and fauna of this district are repre-sented by samples recovered from theGuadalupe Mountains, including materials fromexcavations such as Williams Cave (Ayer 1936)

11

Regional Culture History

Susana R. Katz and Paul Katz

12

Figure 3. The Pecos Country of southeastern New Mexico.

and the Last Chance Canyon and Rocky Arroyopackrat middens (Van Devender et al. 1978).With the exception of Blackwater Draw, very lit-tle is known about the Pecos Valley during thisperiod.

With the terminal Pleistocene onset of a trendto a warmer, drier, and more seasonally pro-nounced climate, some species retreated to pre-ferred environments; others perished. Plants andanimals that could adapt successfully to the newconditions flourished. Likewise, hunters andgatherers adapted to these changing conditions.

Sites

One hundred and thirteen sites withPaleoindian components have been recorded insoutheastern New Mexico (Table 3). The greatestnumber (45) have been recorded in RooseveltCounty, and the smallest (3) in neighboringDeBaca County (Table 4). Paleoindian sites havebeen recorded only in the lowest ecozones—thescrublands, grasslands, and desert scrub—withover 70 percent recorded in the grasslands alone(Table 5).

Paleoindians exploited several topographicsituations within this rather limited range.Regionally, the largest number of recorded com-ponents occurs on topographically raised sur-faces such as hilltops and ridges. The low-eleva-tion components are associated with arroyos,dunes, blowouts, or playas. Paleoindian compo-nents occur at or within sight of water.

Certain topographic preferences vary fromone district to another. On the Llano Estacado(Lea and Roosevelt Counties), Paleoindianremains are most frequently recorded inblowouts. In the Pecos Valley (Eddy County),hilltops were the favored location, and in ChavesCounty, playas have the greatest numbers ofPaleoindian components.

A distinction in site size also occurs betweendistricts. Pecos Valley sites tend to be small(1,000–5,000 sq m), and Llano Estacado sites arelarger (>10,000 sq m).

Table 4 depicts the status of Paleoindian sites.Most have been only recorded or collected; fewhave been tested. Excavation is listed for only onesite. The most severe postdepositional impact toPaleoindian sites, when recorded, has resultedfrom erosion (Table 6). Ten of the 113 sites were

believed to be intact.

Subsistence and Settlement

The Paleoindian subsistence strategy appar-ently focused on the procurement of large game.The diet was supplemented with wild plants. Weknow little about these plants and the extent oftheir use, or about the use of small mammals orother foodstuffs.

Features common to the region’sPaleoindian sites are always characteristic ofhunting activities: fire-cracked rock, lithics, andlithic scatters. Bone fragments, bone beds, andhearths are associated with many components,and ground stone, fossil beds, lithic quarries, andcave components have been infrequently record-ed.

Paleoindian 1 (12,000–11,000 B.P., or 10,000–9000B.C.)

The diagnostic projectile point for this earli-est regional phase is the Clovis point. It is largeand lanceolate, with a basally thinned concavebase and bifacial fluting. Leslie’s collectionincludes examples of points with all the Clovischaracteristics but roughly one-quarter of thetypical length. Besides their diminutive size, thematerial is a grainy brown chert unlike the fine-grained chalcedonies typical of manyPaleoindian points. These points were collectedin the extreme southeast portion of the region,which, like Blackwater Draw, has a significantearly Paleoindian presence. Other artifacts asso-ciated with Clovis components include trans-verse end scrapers, side scrapers, eared scrapers,gravers, perforators, bifacial knives, hammer-stones, and a variety of shaped and expedientbone tools.

Presently, the bones of large animals associat-ed with chipped stone tools, and diagnosticlithics, either isolated or in scatters, characterizethe known sites of the phase. A type site forPaleoindian I is Blackwater Draw Locality 1(Hester 1972).

Paleoindian 2 (11,000–10,000 B.P., or 9000–8000B.C.)

The phase-diagnostic Folsom point is medi-

15

16

Table 3. Sites by regional period and ecozone

Period Forest Woodland Scrubland Grassland Desert Unknow n TotalScrub

Paleoindian - - 6 84 23 - 113Archaic 2 6 40 237 85 1 371Formative 6 38 199 746 381 9 1379Proto/Ethnohistoric - 2 2 24 13 - 41Total 8 46 247 1091 502 10 1904

Table 3. Sites by regional period and ecozone

Table 4. Archaeological status of Paleoindian sites in southeastern New Mexico as of June 1990

County Survey, Collected Tested Excavated Excavated Unknow n TotalRecorded Only (% unknow n) (% know n)

Chaves 4 7 1 - - 1 13Curry 1 1 - - - 2 4DeBaca - 1 - - - 2 3Eddy 7 8 3 - - 1 19Lea 15 7 2 - 1 4 29Roosevelt 12 3 - 1 - 29 45Total 39 27 6 1 1 39 113

Table 4. Archaeological status of Paleoindian sites in southeastern New Mexico as of June 1990

Table 5. Condition of Paleoindian sites in southeastern New Mexico as of June 1990

County Intact Grazed Eroded Inundated Mechanical Vandalized Combined Other Unknow n Total(impermanent) Disturbance Effects

Chaves 1 - 5 1 - 1 4 - 1 13Curry - 1 1 - - - - - 2 4DeBaca - - - - - - 1 - 2 3Eddy 4 2 9 - - - 1 2 1 19Lea 4 - 14 - 2 - 8 - 1 29Roosevelt 1 - 5 - - 1 10 - 28 45Total 10 3 34 1 2 2 24 2 35 113

Table 5. Condition of Paleoindian sites in southeastern New Mexico as of June 1990

um-sized and lanceolate with a broad channelflake on both faces. The lateral margins are finelypressure flaked. The Midland point, which is alsofound in the region, is usually described as an“unfluted” Folsom. Other chipped stone artifactsassociated with this phase include flake scrapersand knives, bifacial knives, gravers, and cores.

Short-term camps are characteristic sites ofthis phase. Type sites include Blackwater Draw(Hester 1972; Sellards 1952; Stevens 1973) andElida (Warnica 1961).

Paleoindian 3 (10,000–8200 B.P., or 8000–6200 B.C.)

The various projectile point types associatedwith this Late Paleoindian phase includePlainview and its varieties, Firstview, and per-haps Cody complex types such as Eden. Theseare large, lanceolate points and knives withtransverse or collateral parallel flaking. Otherstone tools include side scrapers, end scrapers,and drills.

Across the region, this phase is identified byits diagnostic projectile points. Characteristic sitedata is lacking. Sites with Late Paleoindian com-ponents include the Portales Complex materialsat Blackwater Draw (Agogino and Rovner 1969),Milnesand (Warnica and Williamson 1968), andSan Jon (Roberts 1942).

ARCHAIC PERIOD (7200–1500 B.P.,OR 5200 B.C.–A.D. 500)

Two episodes of little to no cultural activityare suggested during the Archaic period. Oneoccurs at the end of the Paleoindian period (8200B.P., or 6200 B.C.) and lasts for 1,000 years untilthe beginning of the culturally defined Archaicperiod at 7200 B.P. (5200 B.C.). The other hiatusseparates the first two Archaic phases and lasts1,500 years, from 5200 to 3700 B.P. (3200–1700B.C.). These events can be seen in gaps in theradiocarbon sequence. Identifying the gaps is justthe first step. We must now ask whether thesegaps indicate the absence of human activity,human activity that did not produce datablesamples, or new site types and activities that wehave so far failed to recognize.

Environment

Overall, temperatures were higher and rain-fall amounts lower than they were in the lastPaleoindian phase. This climatic change is welldocumented on the Llano Estacado at theLubbock Lake site, dated between 8500 and 6300B.P. (6500–4300 B.C.). It is not clear if the rainfallpattern was warm- or cool-season dominant, butit is certain that bison and other large grazing

17

Table 6. Topographic setting of Paleoindian sites in southeastern New Mexico as of June 1990

Topography Chaves Curry DeBaca Eddy Lea Roosevelt Total

Arroyo/w ash 1 - - 2 1 1 5Blow out 1 - - 1 7 11 20Cliff /scarp/bluff - - - 4 - - 4Dune 1 - - 3 3 - 7Hilltop 2 1 - 5 4 1 13Hillslope - 1 - 1 - 2 4Low rise - - - - 1 2 3Mountain front/foothill 1 - - - - - 1Plain/f lat - - - - 3 6 9Playa 4 - - 1 3 3 11Ridge 1 1 - 2 5 3 12Saddle 1 - - - - - 1Base of talus slope - - - - - 3 3Talus slope - - - - - 10 10Terrace 1 - - - - - 1Unknow n - 1 3 - 2 3 9Total 13 4 3 19 29 45 113

Table 6. Topographic setting of Paleoindian sites in southeastern New Mexico as of June 1990

animals became increasingly scarce during theperiod, perhaps because of insufficient grasscover.

Conditions continued to deteriorate duringthe 1500-year hiatus between Archaic 1 and 2.The beginning of the hiatus corresponds to thesecond of two episodes of severe drought atLubbock Lake between 5000 and 4500 B.P.(3000–2500 B.C.). Comparable regional data is notyet available, but these drought conditions wereprobably widespread in the first half of theArchaic period.

Environmental conditions moderated at thebeginning of the Archaic 2 phase, about 3700 B.P.(1700 B.C.), although the climate was never againas wet or cool as it was in the Pleistocene.Xerification took its toll, and by 4000 B.P. (2000B.C.) a modern semiarid climate and a modernmix of plants and animals was well established insoutheastern New Mexico. The only unusual cli-matic episode in the Late Archaic is a mesic inter-val, postulated to have occurred between 3000and 2500 B.P. (1000 to 500 B.C.) with the transi-tion from Archaic 2 to Archaic 3. Modern semi-arid conditions returned with the beginning ofArchaic 4.

Sites

Archaic components have been recorded at371 sites (Table 7). Of these sites, 45 contain com-ponents that could be assigned to an ARMS peri-od. Six components are identified as EarlyArchaic, 5 as Middle Archaic, and 34 as LateArchaic. ARMS does not recognize a terminalArchaic period. While the number of periodidentifications is small, it is noteworthy that LateArchaic assignments significantly outnumber theEarly and Middle Archaic assignments.

Archaic sites occur in all ecozones from theforest to the Pecos River to the Caprock and in awide range of topographic settings (Table 8). Thiscontrasts with the narrowly focused use of thelandscape during the Paleoindian period.However, more than half of the Archaic sites (58percent) are found in only four situations—blowouts, dunes, ridges, and hillslopes—alsofavored during the Paleoindian period. Blowoutsand dunes are at the lowest elevations in theregion, and ridges and hillslopes are only slight-ly higher. These low-elevation settings are com-

mon in the Pecos Valley of Eddy County, whichhas almost one-half of the Archaic sites.

Archaic site size and location differ from theprevious period. Many Archaic period sites arelarge (>10,000 sq m), and they occur at variouselevations throughout the region. SmallPaleoindian sites (1,000–5,000 sq m) were typical-ly found at low elevations, while large ones(>10,000 sq m) were typically at higher eleva-tions. (This may be a function of geography—large Paleoindian sites have been recorded on theLlano Estacado).

The information provided in the ARMS data-base on the archaeological status of Archaic sitesgoes a long way toward explaining why so fewcomponents have been assigned to any ARMSperiod. Almost half (48 percent) have been sur-vey-recorded only, and this does not include arti-fact collection. While 38 percent have had somefurther archaeological activity, almost all of theseinvolve only surface collection. Only 16 sites (4percent) have been tested or excavated.

The condition of Paleoindian and Archaicsites is similar (Tables 6 and 9). The greatest dan-ger to Archaic sites appears to be from erosion.Just 53 (14 percent) of Archaic sites were consid-ered to be intact at the time of recording.

Settlement and Subsistence

Archaic sites have been recorded in all five ofthe major ecozones across the region. This repre-sents a very modest expansion into the higher-elevation woodland and forest ecozones. Overall,the Archaic period adaptation to southeasternNew Mexico is oriented to the lowlands. Mostsites (62 percent) occur in the grassland ecozone,and 97 percent of all Archaic sites have beenrecorded in the three lowest ecozones: scrubland,grassland, and desert-scrub (Table 8).

There is, however, a significant shift in sub-sistence activities across this lowland landscape,as evidenced by the appearance of plant-process-ing features. This does not mean that huntingwas abandoned, rather that its contribution as anactivity and a dietary component may have less-ened in response to changed environmental con-ditions.

Simple burned rock hearths are characteristicof almost every Archaic component, and theburned rock ring midden makes its first appear-

18

19

Table 7. Archaeological status of Archaic sites in southeastern New Mexico as of June 1990

County Survey, Collected Tested Excavated Excavated Unknow n TotalRecorded Only (% unknow n) (% know n)

Chaves 33 44 4 - - 11 92Curry 5 1 - - - 2 8DeBaca - 2 - - - 6 8Eddy 77 57 4 3 - 21 162Lea 50 16 1 2 1 8 78Roosevelt 14 5 - 1 - 3 23Total 179 125 9 6 1 51 371

Table 7. Archaeological status of Archaic sites in southeastern New Mexico as of June 1990

Table 8. Topographic setting of Archaic sites in southeastern New Mexico as of June 1990


Arroyo/w ash 4 - - 5 1 - 10Base of clif f 3 - - 2 - - 5Bench - - - 1 - - 1Blow out 16 - 1 22 25 3 67Canyon rim 1 - - 2 - - 3Cave - - - 2 - - 2Cliff /scarp/bluff 1 - - 7 - - 8Constricted canyon - - - 4 - - 4Dune 7 1 - 33 14 2 57Floodplain/valley 1 - - 4 - - 5Hilltop 7 - 1 8 6 1 23Hillslope 8 1 - 22 8 - 39Low rise 5 1 - 4 2 2 14Mesa/ butte 1 - - 2 - 1 4Mountain front/foothill 3 - - - - - 3Plain/f lat 1 3 - 4 3 - 11Playa 5 - - 2 5 - 12Ridge 15 1 1 23 10 1 51Saddle 1 - - - - - 1Base of talus slope - - - - - 3 3Talus slope 1 - - - - 10 11Terrace 7 - - 12 - - 19Alluvial fan 2 - - - - - 2Other and unknow n 3 1 5 3 4 - 16Total 92 8 8 162 78 23 371

Table 8. Topographic setting of Archaic sites in southeastern New Mexico as of June 1990

ance. Other commonly recorded features includelithic scatters, with and without burned rock. Theburned rock scatter feature appears later in theperiod. Archaic period sites typically have sever-al features.

In view of the appearance of plant-processingfeatures, one would expect grinding implementsto show a significant increase over thePaleoindian period. The data do not support this,most likely because, at the time this overviewwas written, the nature of the ARMS recordingprocedure favored features over artifacts. Wesuspect this has resulted in a significant under-recording of grinding implements.

Projectile point types increase in variety andin regional distribution as the Archaic perioddevelops. For example, only one type (Jay) char-acterizes the first phase, whereas at least six typesand varieties have been identified in the terminalArchaic phase.

Habitation features (“cave” and “wickiup” inthe ARMS lexicon) have been recorded at a fewArchaic sites in the grassland ecozone. These fea-tures are indicative of small groups of peoplewho used them for only a limited amount oftime. No other habitation types have yet beenrecorded.

Archaic 1 (7200–5200 B.P., or 5200–3200 B.C.)

Presently, only one projectile point type, Jay,is a hallmark of this phase. This distinctive pointtype is lanceolate with weak shoulders and along, heavy, tapered stem. Jay points in south-eastern New Mexico are found only in “riverine”settings, Blackwater Draw, and the Pecos River.

The possibility of a riverine adaptation in south-eastern New Mexico’s Early Archaic is intrigu-ing. No local phases have yet been defined with-in this regional phase. Radiocarbon dates fallingwithin the 2,000-year-long phase have beenobtained from Blackwater Draw and BrantleyReservoir.

Archaic 2 (3700–3000 B.P., or 1700–1000 B.C.)

The Archaic 2 phase begins after a culturalhiatus of 1,500 years. There are no diagnostic pro-jectile points, and the phase has been identifiedonly at the Brantley locality (Katz and Katz1985a). Even there, the phase is provisional,based on excavated data from one deeply buriedsite, LA 44544, and several dated isolated burnedrock hearths. LA 44544 is a river mussel extrac-tion station in the rim of the Pecos River channel.Freshwater mussels were gathered, processed,and cooked beside the river, and shells were dis-carded in micro-activity areas. Grinding imple-ments and shell tools are associated with theactivities.

Archaic 3 (3000–2000 B.P., or 1000 B.C.–A.D. 1)

The Archaic 3 phase is also based on datafrom the Brantley sequence. Defined there as theMcMillan phase (Katz and Katz 1985a), it contin-ues to be a predominantly riverine adaptation.The burned rock ring feature makes its firstappearance in regional prehistory along withburned rock hearths. The associated projectilepoints are medium-sized, stemmed dart points,including Darl, 8C, 8D, and 9 types in Leslie’s

20

Table 9. Condition of Archaic sites in southeastern New Mexico as of June 1990

County Intact Grazed Eroded Mechanical Vandalized Combined Other Unknow n TotalDisturbance Effects

Chaves 9 3 47 1 1 26 - 5 92Curry 1 - 1 1 - 3 - 2 8DeBaca 2 - - - - - - 6 8Eddy 29 11 74 10 7 19 7 5 162Lea 11 1 42 4 - 19 - 1 78Roosevelt 1 2 6 1 1 10 - 2 23Total 53 17 170 17 9 77 7 21 371

Table 9. Condition of Archaic sites in southeastern New Mexico as of June 1990

(1978) typology. The type site for the McMillanphase is LA 38233, a campsite overlooking thePecos River.

Archaic 4 (2000–1500 B.P., or A.D. 1–500)

Two local phases are assigned to the Archaic4 phase: the Brantley phase in the Brantley local-ity (Katz and Katz 1985a) and the early Huecophase in Lea County (Leslie 1979). The riverineorientation of the two earlier regional phases con-tinued, with limited use of areas further removedfrom the river. Burned rock hearths characterizemost components, and the burned rock ring mid-den, introduced in Archaic 3, becomes more com-mon. A new burned rock feature appears, theburned rock scatter. Most burned rock scattersco-occur with lithic scatters. The diagnostic pro-jectile points of the phase are medium-sized dartpoints with variously shaped stems; some havediagonal notching. Types include Leslie’s (1978)6C, 6D, and 8A; the San Pedro point; and threevarieties of the Pecos point defined by Katz andKatz (1985a). Two type sites in the Brantley local-ity, LA 38276 and LA 48761, are stratified camp-sites in the floodplain zone.

FORMATIVE PERIOD (1500–625 B.P.,OR A.D. 500–1375)

Environmental Context

Most characteristics of the Formative periodenvironment are essentially modern, includingthe characteristic episodes of intense, localizeddroughts (Holliday 1985). One such droughtepisode was recognized at the Garnsey Springpollen locality (Hall 1984), but it has not beensubstantiated at localities of similar age in theregion.

All of the plants and animals that occur todaywere present in the Formative period. The onesignificant difference between today’s southeast-ern New Mexico and the Formative environmentis the loss of its massive grassland formations.Dense grasslands dominated the landscape untilthey were decimated by overgrazing anddrought during the historic period, and animaland plant species adapted to grassland havediminished or disappeared entirely. In addition

to the obvious archaeological implications of sim-ilar environments, we have wondered if theregion’s archaeological sites were shallowlyburied by topsoil and grass until the late nine-teenth century. Has so much damage to theresource taken place in the last 100 years?

Sites

The ARMS database contains 1,379 sites withFormative components. Most (96 percent) are inthe southern half of the region. Fifty percent arerecorded in Eddy County, 28 percent in ChavesCounty, and 22 percent in Lea County. TheFormative preference for settlement and subsis-tence activities within the Pecos Valley is quiteclear even when we account for the differentialsurvey between the northern and southern por-tions of the region.

Favored topographic situations forFormative period sites continue the Archaic pat-tern. Most Formative components occur atblowouts or dunes, ridges, or benches (Table 10).Together, blowouts and dunes account for 46percent of the locations, even though Formativecomponents have been recorded in 25 topo-graphic settings.

There is also some similarity in site sizebetween the Archaic and the Formative periods.The largest number of sites is still in the >10,000sq m range, but the full range is much greater.Large numbers of sites have been recorded in the1,000–5,000 sq m and 5,000–10,000 sq m ranges.

As in previous periods, more than half (61percent) of Formative period sites have not hadadditional work beyond recording (Table 11).Some form of permanent collection has beenmade at 22 percent, but only 4 percent have beentested or excavated, the same percentage as theArchaic period. And we know how thoroughlywe understand the Archaic period!

The condition of Formative sites is propor-tionately similar to that of other periods (Table12). Almost half have been eroded, and mostshow other effects. Fourteen percent were con-sidered intact by their recorders, which is similarto the percentage of intact Archaic period sites.


Formative period activity occurs throughout

21

22

Table 10. Topographic setting of Formative sites in southeastern New Mexico as of June 1990


Arroyo/w ash 7 - - 13 2 - 22Base of clif f - - - 6 3 - 9Bench 7 - 1 14 94 - 116Blow out 101 - 2 192 1 1 297Canyon rim 1 - - 3 - - 4Cave 1 - - 5 - - 6Cliff /scarp/bluff 5 - - 28 - - 33Constricted canyon 1 - - 10 - - 11Dune 70 - - 164 96 3 333Floodplain/valley 13 - - 16 - - 29Hilltop 20 - 1 24 8 - 53Hillslope 27 - 4 40 11 1 83Low rise 14 - - 15 9 1 39Mesa/ butte 4 - - 3 2 - 9Mountain - - - 2 - - 2Mountain front/foothill - - - 1 - - 1Open canyon f loor 1 - - 2 - - 3Plain/f lat 5 - - 26 6 2 39Playa 8 - - 7 8 - 23Ridge 47 - 2 62 34 1 146Saddle 1 - - 1 - - 2Base of talus slope 1 - - - - - 1Talus slope 1 - - 2 - - 3Terrace 24 - 2 19 4 1 50Alluvial fan 2 - - 2 - - 4Other and unknow n 9 - 34 10 1 - 61Total 370 0 46 667 286 10 1,379

Table 10. Topographic setting of Formative sites in southeastern New Mexico as of June 1990

Table 11. Archaeological status of Formative sites in southeastern New Mexico as of June 1990

County Survey, Collected Tested Excavated Excavated Salvage Unknow n TotalRecorded (% unknow n) (% know n) Excavation

Only

Chaves 169 124 10 3 1 - 63 370Curry - - - - - - - 0DeBaca 5 7 - - - - 34 46Eddy 453 119 19 6 3 1 66 667Lea 210 46 3 8 - - 19 286Roosevelt 5 4 - - - - 1 10Total 842 300 32 17 4 1 183 1379

Table 11. Archaeological status of Formative sites in southeastern New Mexico as of June 1990

the entire region and across the entire landscapewith little regard to ecozone or topography.Many subsistence-oriented feature types are sim-ilar to their Archaic counterparts. It is the habita-tion types that differ.

All five ecozones contain hearths, concentra-tions of fire-cracked or burned rock, and lithicand ceramic scatters, some with ground stone.The burned rock ring is common in all but theforest ecozone, and it occurs in limited numberseven there (Table 13).

Caves and rockshelters were used whereverthey were found, and they have been recordedfrom woodland to desert scrub ecozones.Constructed dwellings, such as pithouses andabove-ground room blocks, have been recordedonly in the grassland and desert scrub ecozones.These ecozones, which characterize large por-tions of the Pecos Valley, were by far the mostheavily utilized.

There are commonalities of form and locationin the subsistence features of the Archaic andFormative periods. On this basis, it might appearthat the Formative period continues the Archaicperiod adaptation with the addition of potteryand diminutive projectile points. However, largequantities of bison bone and bison-hunting and -processing toolkits add a dimension to the sub-sistence pattern not seen in thousands of years.Corn, corn pollen, and beans at several sites inthe Middle Pecos (e.g., Jelinek 1967; Rocek andSpeth 1986), indicate another addition toFormative subsistence pattern.

Formative 1 (1500–1250 B.P., or A.D. 500–750)

Sites continue to be located near the PecosRiver or close to watering holes during theFormative 1 phase. The appearance of pottery is

the hallmark of the transition from the Archaic tothe Formative. The small assemblages fromFormative 1 phase components consist of pre-dominantly nonlocal types such as Alma Plain.Early brown wares, such as Jornada, South Pecos,and Middle Pecos Micaceous Brown, are alsopresent. This phase has not yet been identified inthe south, but Leslie (1979) remarked that brownware pottery appeared at the end of the Huecophase.

An interesting change to projectile pointstakes place during this phase. The points are sim-ilar to the late Archaic forms, i.e., dart points withconvex to straight edges, convex to straightbases, and diagonal notching, but there is adecrease in size. They are larger than an arrowbut smaller than a dart—a “darrow”—with amaximum length slightly less than 3.0 cm. WhileLeslie’s (1978) Types 6C and 6D occur with boththe Archaic 4 and Formative 1 phases, the latterphase is also characterized by Leslie’s Types 6Aand 6B and the smaller Type 5.

Ground stone artifacts also provide an appar-ent divergence from the late Archaic. These arti-facts include one-handed flat manos, unshapedslab metates, and bedrock mortars. The absenceof grinding tools at Archaic 3 and 4 componentsis peculiar, probably the result of oversight by therecorder or a lack of direct association with radio-carbon-dated hearths.

Portions of three local phases are assigned toFormative 1: the late Hueco (Leslie 1979), theEarly 18-Mile (Jelinek 1967), and the Globe (Katzand Katz 1985a). Suggested type sites includetwo from the Middle Pecos locality: P-14 and P-20 (Jelinek 1967).

23

Table 12. Condition of Formative sites in southeastern New Mexico as of June 1990

County Intact Grazed Eroded Inundated Inundated Mechanical Vandalized Combined Other Unknow n Total(impermanent) (permanent) Disturbance Effects

Chaves 44 29 155 1 - 11 10 89 2 29 370Curry - - - - - - - - - - 0DeBaca 7 - 1 - - - 1 2 - 35 46Eddy 96 43 312 2 2 32 17 107 10 46 667Lea 46 14 142 - - 20 11 43 1 9 286Roosevelt 3 - 5 - - - - 1 - 1 10Total 196 86 615 3 2 63 39 242 13 120 1379

Table 12. Condition of Formative sites in southeastern New Mexico as of June 1990


There are major distinctions between theFormative 1 and 2 phases: domestic architecture,arrow points, and black-on-white pottery. Theremay also be many fewer sites: about half as manysites providing radiocarbon dates in Formative 2than in Formative 1.

In the southeast, Leslie (1979) notes the pres-ence of clay floor pads associated with anincrease in the exploitation of the shinnery oakbelt. In the Middle Pecos locality, the first seden-tary villages appear. While small, both pithousesand contiguous surface rooms are present(Jelinek 1967). In the Brantley locality, the uplandsubsistence and settlement orientation finallydominates the riverine orientation of the Archaicperiod. Features of subsistence activities includerings and scatters (Katz and Katz 1985a).

The same ground stone artifact types contin-ue from the previous phase, including one-hand-ed flat manos, unmodified slab metates, andbedrock mortars. The appearance of “true” arrowpoints indicates changes in hafting technologyand stylistic continuity with the darrow. Manyforms remain the same, but the size of the projec-tile decreases. Leslie’s (1978) Types 3A (Scallorn)and 3B (a Scallorn variant) characterize thisphase.

Brown ware predominates the ceramicassemblage, but in this phase, the brown waresare local. They include Middle Pecos MicaceousBrown and South Pecos Brown in both the north-ern and southern portions of the region. The ear-liest known black-on-whites appear: Red MesaBlack-on-white in the north and Cebolleta Black-on-white in the south.

The portions of the local phase sequencesassigned to this regional phase include the earlyQuerecho (Leslie 1979), the Late 18-mile (Jelinek1967), and the middle portion of the Globe (Katz

and Katz 1985a). Site P-4A (Jelinek 1967) is a typesite.


The hallmark of Formative 3 is intensifica-tion. The numbers of dates and dated sites arecomparable to those of Formative 2, but the sitesare larger. In the southeast, Leslie (1979) identi-fied larger concentrations of small, rectangularpitroom “villages” at permanent lakes. Leslieassociated the villages with exploitation of theshinnery oak belt. In the Middle Pecos locality,Jelinek (1967) also identified larger sites.

While local browns continue to dominate theceramic assemblage, local and exotic gray waresmake their first appearance. In the north, MiddlePecos Micaceous Brown is the most popular type,as it was in the previous phase. Crosby Black-on-gray represents the new gray ware. Pottery in thesouth shows less variation from the previousphase. Local and exotic brown wares continue,but Mimbres Black-on-white replaces CebolletaBlack-on-white.

Projectile points continue to be moderatelysized arrows, but the number of types increasesfrom two to six (Leslie’s Types 3A–3F, Scallornvariants, and Livermore). Ground stone artifactsshow more intentional shaping, and they includeoval basin metates and convex-faced manos(Leslie 1979).

The local phases that correspond to theFormative 3 regional phase include the EarlyMesita Negra in the Middle Pecos locality(Jelinek 1967), the late Globe in the Brantley local-ity (Katz and Katz 1985a), and the late Querecho(Leslie 1979). The type site is P-24 in the MiddlePecos locality.

24

Table 13. Estimated percentage of major ecozones in southeastern New Mexico

Forest Woodland Scrub Land Grassland Desert Scrub

% Area 1% 1% 24% 50% 24%Number of 8 30 46 69 46Feature Types

Table 13. Estimated percentage of major ecozones in southeastern New Mexico


A sharp reduction in occupation marks thisregional phase. The decrease is evident in thecharacteristics of sites as well as in their numbers.Region-wide, sites are small, and surface archi-tecture has been abandoned in favor of subsur-face structures. In the Middle Pecos locality, theonly site of substance is P-24, characterized bysubsurface rooms. In the southeast, Leslie identi-fied only a few small gathering sites. The struc-tures he assigns to this phase are also pithouses.Just two sites are radiocarbon dated.

Gray wares remain an important componentof the ceramic assemblage, and there is signifi-cant increase in locally made wares. This is bal-anced by a noticeable decrease in locally madebrown wares, with the exception of a new type,McKenzie Brown. Chupadero Black-on-whiteappears throughout the region in this phase.

The six varieties of Leslie’s Type 3 arrows allpersist, but with noticeable variability, especiallyin size. Oval basin metates continue, and manosare one-handed with one or two grinding sur-faces.

Portions of the local phase sequencesassigned to the Formative 4 regional phaseinclude the Late Mesita Negra in the MiddlePecos locality and the pre-Crosby phase in theRoswell locality (Jelinek 1967), the earliestOriental in the Brantley locality (Katz and Katz1985a), and the early Maljamar in the southeast(Leslie 1979). As with the previous phase, P-24 inthe Middle Pecos locality seems to representmost of the characteristics of this phase.


Even fewer radiocarbon dates are availablefor Formative 5, but the settlement pattern showsa reversal from the previous phase, at least in sitesize and architecture. Jelinek (1967) assigned onlythree sites to this phase, but they are large. One,P-25, has rectangular slab-based surface rooms.In the Brantley locality, Katz and Katz (1985a)noted fewer sites with fewer features along thePecos River and a stronger upland orientation.

The proportion of some local brown wares isreduced, while others are favored. For example,South Pecos Brown is replaced by McKenzieBrown in the Middle Pecos locality. Small

amounts of intrusive types have been noted in alllocalities.

There is a significant change in arrow pointmorphology from corner notching to side notch-ing. (Leslie’s Types 2A and 2B).

Those portions of local phase sequencesassigned to Formative 5 include the EarlyMcKenzie and Crosby phases (Jelinek 1967), theearly-middle Oriental (Katz and Katz 1985a), andthe late Maljamar (Leslie 1979). The three sites inthe Middle Pecos locality—P-1, P-21, and P-25—serve as type sites for this phase.


This century-long phase has the most radio-carbon dates and the most dated sites of theFormative phases.

Most of the sites are small. In the southeast,only Monument Spring is large; this site is char-acterized by pithouse architecture (Leslie 1979).Likewise, Jelinek assigns only one large site tothis phase, P-4C. Other sites in this locality showa variety of architectural forms and patterns,including pithouses, surface rooms, and artifactscatters. Jelinek discusses at length the presenceof quantities of bison bone and small amounts ofZea pollen.

Locally produced plain brown ware has dis-appeared from the ceramic inventory in thesouth; it is replaced by local textured and corru-gated brown ware (Leslie 1979). In the north,Middle Pecos Black-on-white comprises 60 per-cent of the ceramic assemblage; McKenzieBrown, another 20 percent (Jelinek 1967). Glazedpottery may occur, but, if so, it comes only at thevery end of the phase.

Small, side-notched arrows with concavebases persist. In the Middle Pecos locality, Jelinek(1967) comments on the occurrence of small,thick, steep end-scrapers.

Those portions of the local phase sequencesassigned to the Formative 6 regional phaseinclude the Late McKenzie and Roswell phases(Jelinek 1967), and the middle Oriental phase(Katz and Katz 1985a). In the southeast, Lesliesuggests but does not name a transitional phasebetween the late Maljamar and early Ochoa; wehave designated this the “Malchoa.” The previ-ously mentioned Monument Spring and P-4Csites are type sites for this phase.

25


The end of the Formative period correspondswith the beginning of the Little Ice Age. The hall-mark of Formative 7 is rapid change; almostevery cultural category we have been followingchanges. In the southeast, early Formative 7 com-ponents at the Merchant and Bell Lake sites havelarge, deep pithouses. These become shallower inthe middle of the phase and are replaced by sin-gle, surface rooms by its end. Short-term campsexploit new locations. In the Brantley locality(Katz and Katz 1985a), small stone circles havebeen identified. Jelinek (1967) also notes theoccurrence of stone circles at site P-11, which hecalls “possible tipi rings.”

The short-term campsites and stone circlesappear to be remains of bison hunters, withassemblages that include shaft smoothers,notched ribs, and four-beveled knives (Leslie1979). Jelinek (1967) also notes an abundance ofobsidian at this time. Whether the bison huntersthemselves were indigenous is unresolved.

The ceramic assemblage is characterized byfewer types and fewer overall sherds than previ-ous phases. Painted intrusive types predominate,and plain brown ware is overwhelmed by tex-tured brown ware.

Only one arrow point type characterizes thisphase: Leslie’s 2C (Harrell). This is a small trian-gle, with a long, narrow, unserrated blade, sidenotches, and a basal notch.

The three local phases assigned to Formative7 are the post-McKenzie (Jelinek 1967), the late-middle Oriental (Katz and Katz 1985a), and theearly Ochoa (Leslie 1979). Type sites for thisregional phase are the Merchant (LA 43414) andBell Lake (LA 43490) sites in Lea County (Leslie1979), and sites P-3, P-11, and Henderson Puebloin the Middle Pecos locality (Emslie et al. 1992;Jelinek 1967).

PROTO/ETHNOHISTORIC PERIOD(625–250 B.P., OR A.D. 1375–1750)

Environmental Context

The climate was similar to that of moderntimes during the Proto/Ethnohistoric period,although it may have been even more erratic.

Intense, brief droughts, such as one that beganthe period (Speth and Parry 1978) and the onethat marks its end (Katz and Katz 1985b), appearto have made the region less attractive to foodproducers, collectors, or gatherers.

Sites

Recorded sites are concentrated in the south-ern Pecos Valley; 85 percent are in Chaves orEddy counties, with 66 percent in Eddy Countyalone.

The site situation differs from the previousperiod and actually harks back to thePaleoindian. The three favored topographic situ-ations are ridges, cliffs, and arroyos (Table 14).The picture that is presented is one of close prox-imity to water but favoring higher elevations.The common denominator between Paleoindianand the Proto/Ethnohistoric is the prominence ofhunting in the subsistence base.

Site sizes, generally smaller than in any otherperiod, concentrate in the 100–1,000 sq m range.The analogies between this period and thePaleoindian continue with site size, althoughPaleoindian sites are larger thanProto/Ethnohistoric ones.

Eight-five percent of these sites have onlybeen recorded or surface collected (Table 15).Very few sites have been investigated below thesurface, although several chronometrically datedsites occur in each of the three archaeologicallocalities used in this sequence. Twenty-six per-cent of the sites were recorded as intact (Table16).


More than 90 percent of the recordedProto/Ethnohistoric sites are in Pecos Valleygrassland or desert scrub ecozones, primarily inEddy and Chaves Counties (Table 3). Only twosites each are recorded in scrubland and wood-land ecozones, and none in the forest. Thesesmall numbers are attributable in part to the dis-proportionate survey statistics and in part to theephemeral nature of Proto/Ethnohistoric sites.We assume that sites, probably Apachean, arethere but have not yet been correctly identified.

The range of features shows an interestingdichotomy. Some are so basic to the hunting and

26

27

Table 14. Topographic setting of Proto/Ethnohistoric sites in southeastern New Mexico as of June 1990


Arroyo/w ash 1 - - 5 - - 6Blow out 2 - - 2 1 - 5Cave - - - 1 - - 1Cliff /scarp/bluff 2 - - 5 1 - 8Dune - - - 2 - - 2Floodplain/valley - - 1 1 - - 2Hilltop - - - 1 - - 1Hillslope 1 - - - - - 1Mountain front/foothill - - - 1 - - 1Plain/f lat - - - 2 - - 2Playa 1 - - - - 1 2Ridge - - - 4 1 - 5Terrace - - - 3 - - 3Unknow n 1 - - - 1 - 2Total 8 0 1 27 4 1 41

Table 14. Topographic setting of Proto/Ethnohistoric sites in southeastern New Mexico as of June 1990

Table 15. Archaeological status of Proto/Ethnohistoric sites in southeastern New Mexico as of June 1990

County Survey Collected Excavated Excavated Unknow n Total(recorded (% unknow n) (% know n)

only)

Chaves 2 4 - - 2 8Curry - - - - - 0DeBaca - - - 1 - 1Eddy 8 18 - - 1 27Lea 1 1 1 - 1 4Roosevelt 1 - - - - 1Total 12 23 1 1 4 41

Table 15. Archaeological status of Proto/Ethnohistoric sites in southeastern New Mexico as of June 1990

Table 16. Condition of Proto/Ethnohistoric sites in southeastern New Mexico as of June 1990

County Intact Grazed Eroded Mechanical Vandalized Combined Other Unknow n TotalDisturbance Effects

Chaves 1 - 4 - - - 2 1 8Curry - - - - - - - - 0DeBaca - - - - - 1 - - 1Eddy 10 1 7 1 2 3 3 - 27Lea - - 1 1 - 2 - - 4Roosevelt - - 1 - - - - 1 2Total 11 1 13 2 2 6 5 2 42

Table 16. Condition of Proto/Ethnohistoric sites in southeastern New Mexico as of June 1990

gathering lifeway that they cannot be distin-guished from Archaic or Formative period occu-pations without diagnostic artifacts. Theseinclude hearths, burned rock scatters, lithic scat-ters, and ring middens. Other features are dis-tinctive, such as the tipi ring and rock art (pic-tographs and petroglyphs). Apache rock art hasbeen found in every zone where other types ofApache sites have been recorded.

Architecture, such as the pithouses androomblocks characteristic of the Formative peri-od, is not firmly associated with this last period.Radiocarbon dates and ceramic evidence suggestthat architectural sites such as Henderson Puebloand the Merchant site may have continued to beused.

Protohistoric 1 (625–500 B.P., OR A.D. 1375–1500)

There are more dates and dated sitesassigned to this phase than to the terminalFormative, yet we know much less about it. Anear gap in the database, coupled with the dis-tinctive nature of the little data that does exist,led to the establishment of the phase.

The presence of definite tipi rings, asopposed to the small stone circles of the previousperiod, is one of the primary criteria of the phase.It is within this 125-year interval thatAthabaskans are widely assumed to have enteredthe Greater Southwest (Gunnerson 1956), includ-ing southeastern New Mexico.

There are other distinctions as well. The Type2C point (Harrell) of the Formative 7 phase isreplaced by other types of small, triangularpoints such as Types 2D (Washita), 2E, and 2F(Toyah). All intrusive pottery disappears, and theonly local pottery remaining is a textured brownware called Ochoa Indented. Several of the largearchitectural sites of the late Formative periodcontinue in use, as indicated by radiocarbondates, points, and pottery. Were these residents aremnant Formative population?

The two local phases that are subsumedwithin Protohistoric 1 are the end of the Oriental(Katz and Katz 1985a) and the Late Ochoa (Leslie1979). The two type sites include LA 44582 (BR47), a tipi ring site overlooking the Pecos River;and a component of the Merchant site (LA 43414)in Lea County, characterized by Ochoa Indentedpottery.

Ethnohistoric 1 (500–400 B.P., or A.D. 1500–1600)

This phase is defined more by its date rangethan by other available data. There are presentlyonly three radiocarbon dates from three sites.Several early Spanish expeditions entered theregion between 1500 and 1600, includingCoronado (1540), Espejo (1582), and DeSosa(1590) (Hammond and Rey 1966). Their chroni-clers inaugurated the Ethnohistoric period,although the limited nature and degree of contactdid not result in impacts to the archaeologicalrecord.

A new projectile point type, Garza, and Type2F (Toyah) are associated with this phase. Noknown ceramic types are specifically associated,nor are any single component sites currentlyrecorded. The presence of Garza points in aradiocarbon-dated hearth at the Garnsey Springsite in Chaves County (Parry and Speth 1984)suggests that this component can be representa-tive of the phase.

Two local phases are assigned to this region-al phase: Phenix (Katz and Katz 1985a) and earlypost-Ochoa (Leslie 1979). The Toyah point ischaracteristic of both.

Ethnohistoric 2 (400–250 B.P., or A.D. 1600-1750)

The available data is limited. Nevertheless,there are two criteria which allow us to assign-ment sites and even groups of people to thisphase: metal and the written record.

For the first time we can name at least onegroup, the Seven Rivers Apaches. The MiddlePecos region is depicted on a 1710 Spanish mapof Nueva Navara (Rio Grande HistoricalCollection, New Mexico State University), as RioSalado de Apaches de los Siete Rios. The type sitefor this phase, LA 48738 (IW 5), has a ring mid-den (mescal pit), a sheet midden, tipi rings, ametal projectile point, and a radiocarbon datewith a mean within the period, although notwithin this phase. This is the only reported site ofwhich we are aware in southeastern New Mexicothat contains all the elements of an ethnohistoricsucculent plant processing site.

In addition, short-term open camps, severalshelters and rock art sites, that are attributable tothis phase.

Two local phases have been assigned to this

28

last regional phase, Seven Rivers (Katz and Katz1985a) and late Post-Ochoa (Leslie 1979). LA48738 is the type site for the phase.

29

The projects listed below are testing pro-grams, excavations, some surveys, and importantsynthetic treatments of archaeological resourcesin southeastern New Mexico. Not all tested siteswithin the area are included here because someproduced very little information of value.

This particular study region is framed on thewest by the south-central mountains (but includ-ing the Guadalupe Mountains), the north by SaltCreek in central Chaves County, the east by theeastern edge of the Llano Estacado in Texas, andthe south by Interstate Highway 10 in westTexas.

For the most part, the periods represented arethe Archaic through the Late Prehistoric. The lat-ter period name, used commonly in the literatureon the archaeology of the Southern Plains andTexas, refers to the period of pottery use but doesnot necessarily imply pottery manufacture at thesites or by the people under consideration.

•Akins (2003). Major excavations including oneArchaic (pit-baking feature) and two LatePrehistoric (small pithouses, wickiup floor, extra-mural hearths) components at the Townsend Sitealong Salt Creek north of Roswell.

•Applegarth (1976). Doctoral dissertation for theUniversity of Wisconsin. Excavation of severalcaves and shelters in the Guadalupe Mountains.This is a follow-up to Riches (1970).

•Beckett (1976). Summary of survey and inter-pretations of large tract surveys in the MescaleroSands east of Roswell. Beckett proposes thatacorns from the shin oak were the primaryresource of the occupants of the recorded sites.

•Boyd (1997). Important synthesis of the archae-ology of the Llano Estacado and adjacent regionsin Texas.

•Bullock (1999). Excavation of a Late Prehistoricwickiup floor and associated features at a site onthe edge of a small playa.

•Collins (1968). Unpublished but important mas-ter’s thesis detailing the excavation and interpre-tation of Ochoa phase components in AndrewsCounty, Texas (north of Midland).

•Collins (1971). An early but still useful synthesisof the prehistory of the Llano Estacado in NewMexico and Texas.

•Condon (2002). Excavations and tests of manythermal features at two Archaic sites below thesoutheastern escarpment of the Guadalupefoothills south of Carlsbad.

•Corley (1965/1970). Original publication andreprint of Corley’s formulation of the EasternExtension of the Jornada Mogollon.

•Ferdon (1946). Excavation of Hermit’s Cave inLast Chance Canyon of the GuadalupeMountains.

•Gallagher and Bearden (1980). First season’sexcavations by Southern Methodist University atopen sites of most periods in the BrantleyReservoir on the Pecos River between Carlsbadand Artesia.

•Hall (2002). Characterization of the geoarchae-ology of the sand sheets of southeastern NewMexico with particular attention to probabilitiesof occurrence of archaeological sites in thedefined geologic units.

•Haskell (1977). An early but, for the times, thor-ough treatment of excavated features andArchaic to Late Prehistoric materials from one ofthe many sites at Laguna Plata.

•Henderson (1976). Major survey report for theBrantley dam site and reservoir on the PecosRiver between Carlsbad and Artesia.

•Howard (1930, 1932, 1935). Excavations at sev-eral caves in the Guadalupe Mountains, New

31

Previous Archaeological Work in the Area

Regge N. Wiseman

Mexico and Texas.

•Hurst (1976). Report of intensive survey of threesections and extensive survey of 3.5 sections ofland within this very high concentration of pre-historic and historic sites at the Maroon Cliffseast of Carlsbad.

•Joyce and Landis (1986). Late Prehistoric sitenear Maljamar that produced a dated thermalfeature, pottery, and ground stone.

•Katz and Katz (1985a, 1985b, 2001). The secondseason’s excavations and cultural synthesis ofprehistoric (1985a) and historic (1985b) resourcesin the Brantley Reservoir on the Pecos Riverbetween Carlsbad and Artesia, New Mexico. Thisvery important work forms the basis of the mostrecent synthesis (2001) available for southeasternNew Mexico.

•Kemrer (1998). Excavation of a large domesticliving area at an open site in the middle reachesof the Seven Rivers drainage system. Perhaps themost important finding is possible evidence (twocob cupule fragments) of prehistoric corn farm-ing in the area.

•Kemrer and Kearns (1984). Formulation andsynthesis of site types based on sample survey inthe Abo oil fields west of the Pecos River andnorth of Roswell.

•Landis (1985). Testing at two Late Prehistoricsites along Bear Grass Draw. Pottery, groundstone, and a lengthy interpretive section.

•Laumbach (1979). Survey and documentation ofsites in the proposed Laguna PlataArchaeological District.

•Leslie (1965a/1970). Brief description (originaland reprint) of pithouses and surface rooms exca-vated at the Merchant site by the Lea CountyArchaeological Society. With Collins (1968), pro-vides the only published description of Ochoaphase remains.

•Leslie (1978). Leslie’s much-cited, well-illustrat-ed typology of projectile points in southeasternNew Mexico east of the Pecos River. Based

almost entirely on surface collections.

•Leslie (1979). Summary, major modification,and best available description of Corley’s(1965/1970) Eastern Extension sequence.

•Lord and Reynolds (1985). Excavation of threeopen sites in the WIPP area in southeastern EddyCounty, New Mexico. Introduces the concept ofthe Neo-Archaic in lieu of the term LatePrehistoric for the pottery period.

•Luke (1983). Excavation of several LatePrehistoric thermal features (including ring mid-dens), recovery of major sample of Archaic andLate Prehistoric projectile points, and survey ofnumerous other sites in a tributary canyon of thePecos River in Crockett County, west Texas.

•Mallouf (1985). Master’s thesis, University ofTexas, Austin. Cultural synthesis of the easternTrans- Pecos Texas, including the GuadalupeMountains and adjacent Pecos River of NewMexico.

•Mera (1938). Survey and excavations in caves,campsites, and ring midden sites in theGuadalupe Mountains and in the open countryeast of the Pecos River, all in New Mexico.

•Oakes (1982, 1985). Reports of excavations andfindings of two projects along NM 31 in thepotash country east of the Pecos River. The 1985report presents numerous radiocarbon datesassociated with thermal features and pottery.

•Phippen et al. (2000). Excavations of severalsites, mainly along Cornucopia Draw west of theGuadalupe Mountains and east of Otero County.Important descriptions, discussions, and synthe-sis of various forms of thermal features pertinentto the archaeology in the nearby GuadalupeMountains and east of the Pecos River.

•Riches (1970). Master’s thesis, University ofWisconsin. Survey of caves, shelters, and opensites in the Guadalupe Mountains. Prelude toexcavations reported in Applegarth (1976).

•Rocek and Speth (1986). Analysis and interpre-tation of burials recovered from the Henderson

32

Site, a Late Prehistoric village at Roswell.

•Roney (1995). Excavations at Hooper CanyonCave in the Guadalupe Mountains and survey ofopen sites in the upper Rocky Arroyo.

•Runyan (1972). Excavation of a site in theLaguna Plata Archaeological District. Describesmanmade “clay pads” or floors of wickiup struc-tures unique to this and perhaps one other (unre-ported) site in the region.

•Sebastian and Larralde (1989). An outstandingcultural overview/assessment/synthesis of theprehistory and history of the Roswell District,Bureau of Land Management.

•Simpson (2004a). Excavations of thermal fea-tures at four sites south of Carlsbad. Lipidresidue analysis performed on several rock spec-imens.

•Simpson (2004b). Excavation of several thermalfeatures at a site in the Loco Hills area. Remainsdate to a short time span during the LatePrehistoric period. Lipid residue analysis on pot-tery, ground stone, and burned rock.

•Shelley (1994). Summary and interpretation ofthe Archaic period geoarchaeology, projectilepoint sequence, and lithic technology in south-eastern New Mexico.

•Smith et al. (1966). Brief description ofRattlesnake Draw, one of the few Paleoindianmanifestations discovered within the reviewarea.

•Speth (1983). Description and interpretation ofthe Garnsey Site, a Late Prehistoric/Early

Historic bison kill at Roswell.

•Speth (2004). Various papers on the fauna, pot-tery, projectile points, ground stone, etc. of theHenderson Site, a Late Prehistoric village atRoswell.

•Staley et al. (1996). Report of excavations at sev-eral sites (including a Late Prehistoric/EarlyHistoric bison processing locale) along twopower transmission lines in the Mescalero Plainsin Eddy and Lea Counties.

•Thompson (1980). Large-scale surface collec-tions and limited tests at six sites with Archaicand Late Prehistoric remains near the Duvalpotash mine east of Carlsbad.

•Wiseman (2002). Excavation at the Fox Place, aLate Prehistoric hunter-gatherer pithouse villageat Roswell. Site appears to be that of Plains-adapted peoples who occupied small pithouseslike those at the Townsend Site (Akins 2003a).

•Wiseman (2003). Excavations at several Archaicand Late Prehistoric sites along US 285 fromRoswell to Carlsbad. Includes Punto de losMuertos, a possible Archaic cemetery atCarlsbad.

•Young (1982). Excavations of an early historicring midden, recovery of a major sample ofArchaic and Late Prehistoric projectile points,and survey of numerous other sites in a smallcanyon in Pecos county, west Texas.

•Zamora (2000). Excavation of prehistoric struc-ture floors (wickiups?) and a burned brush struc-ture (wickiup) east of the Pecos River atCarlsbad.

33

Sites were located and recorded in severalphases within the project area. The principal cul-tural resource survey was carried out by TRCCompanies, Inc. (Turnbow et al. 2000) under con-tract with Marron and Associates. They docu-mented 12 archaeological sites and 64 isolatedoccurrences and performed background recordssearches. One of the sites, LA 113042, had previ-ously been recorded by Western CulturalResource Management (WCRM) (Gibson 1996) inconnection with a pipeline survey. Of the 12 sitesdescribed by Turnbow et al. (2000), 11 are onBLM land, and LA 129220 is on New MexicoState Land, administered by NMDOT. Listings ofthe State Register of Cultural Properties and theNational Register of Historic Places (NRHP) wereconsulted, and no cultural properties are in thevicinity. SWCA, Inc., worked in the area (Raileyet al. 2006), revisited three sites within the projectarea, and recorded an additional site not in theproject area. Four sites—LA 129215, LA 129219,LA 129221, and LA 129223—have been deter-mined to be ineligible for the NRHP and are notincluded in this data recovery plan. Descriptionsof the six eligible cultural resources and twopotentially eligible cultural resources that over-lap the project limits are presented below. Thedescriptions are in order by site number; theorder from west to east is LA 129216, LA 129214,LA 113042, LA 129300, LA 129222, LA 129220, LA129218, LA 129217.

The project has two aspects: rerouting of thehighway to the north of the salt lakes and widen-ing and improving the existing road; andreclaiming the parts of the old highway that willbe abandoned due to rerouting. LA 129222 andLA 129300 are not along the existing NM 128right-of-way, while LA 129214 and LA 113042 areat the junction of the new and old rights-of-wayand will be affected by both aspects of the project.The remaining sites—LA 129216, LA 129217, LA129218, and LA 129220—are along the old roadand right-of-way. All of the sites included hereare BLM Category 2 sites, since they have suffi-cient quantities of artifacts and features for that

category and the potential of having intact sub-surface deposits, and because most have thepotential of providing radiometric and stylisticdates.

The descriptions that follow rely heavily onand are adapted from the survey report preparedby Turnbow et al.(2000). Supplemental observa-tions were made by Railey et al. (2006). Final revi-sions are based on site visits by Rick Wessel ofNMDOT, and by Regge Wiseman and WolcottToll of OAS in 2006. Data on all known featurescan be found in the survey report by Turnbow etal. (2000).

The Turnbow et al. (2000) feature locationsare represented as points, but features are fre-quently over 5 m in diameter and often over 10m. Moreover, the extremely challenging aspect ofall of the sites, but especially those in large, activedunes, is that there is no way of knowing how farunder the sands how much material lies. All ofthe substantial sites are in dune areas, so this is arecurrent problem. Moreover, the surface of thearea is extremely active because of shifting dunesands, and each observation of sites from the sur-face is a single frame from a continuously run-ning movie. We have recalculated the site areasbased on actual boundaries rather than length bywidth calculations. These descriptions coverwhole sites; portions of sites within the projectlimits are treated in more detail in the field meth-ods section.

LA 113042

Description

This site was first recorded in by Gibson(1996) in connection with the El Paso Natural Gaspipeline. It is a very large site transected by theexisting and the proposed rights-of-way for NM128. Although it contains part of the existinghighway, it was not covered by the SWCA right-of-way abandonment project. According to theTRC survey, the majority of features fall between

35

Site Descriptions

OAS Staff

the old and new rights-of-way.The site has three geomorphic settings:

ridgetop, slopes, and playa edge. Its elevationabove mean sea level ranges from 3,020 feetalong the ridge to 2,980 feet on the lower slopes.The terrain on the ridge is level and characterizedby extensive creosote, acacia, and some pricklypear. Surface soils on the ridge top are a sandyloam with a high density of caliche and someexposed calcrete. Mesquite-stabilized coppicedunes 1–2 m high cover the slopes. Soils on theslopes are predominately historic eolian sanddeposits overlying a sandy loam with a moderateto high density of caliche nodule inclusions. Floraon the slopes includes mesquite, crucifixionthorn, four-wing saltbush, creosote, acacia,dropseed, broom snakeweed, yucca elata, andsome prickly pear. The playa edge is covered incoppice dunes with broad, uneven interdunalsurfaces. The soils in interdunal areas are sand orsandy loam with a few caliche nodule inclusions.Other plants in the playa area are weeds alongdisturbed terrain, grama grass, dropseed, andbroom snakeweed. Including dune surfaces, sur-face visibility averaged around 75 percent for thesite. The dunes are likely to obscure culturalmanifestations at most of these sites, so thatground visibility does not translate directly intofeature or cultural material visibility.

LA 113042 is a large multicomponent prehis-toric site with numerous features and variableconcentrations of cultural materials (Fig. 4). Thesite boundaries are defined by the absence of cul-tural materials and features. The cultural materi-al is on the ridges and slopes overlooking SaltLake, a large playa to the south. The site extendsa maximum of 420 m north-south by 460 m east-west and encompasses 109,111 sq m. The mainconcentration of the site lies on a north-southridge bisected by existing NM 128 at Milepost0.8. It continues down a relatively steep slopeand across the lower slopes to the east as a sparsescatter of burned caliche with few artifacts. In thejudgment of the field archaeologists, the materi-als on the lower slopes were redeposited from theridge above, and some severe erosion is presentalong the fenceline.

Features

Of 28 defined features, only TRC Features 1,2, 3, and 9 are within the project limits; Features8, 20, 21, and 24 are close to right-of-way limitsand large enough to require investigation of adja-cent areas within the project limits (Table 17). The28 features identified on the surface of this siteinclude 17 burned-caliche, ash-stained middendeposits; 9 burned-caliche concentrations; 1burned-caliche, ash-stained concentration; and 1ash stain found by WCRM (Gibson 1996:3).

The burned-caliche, ash-stained middensrange from 3.0 m to 30.0 m in diameter and areexposed primarily on slopes leading down to theplaya basin to the east. The ash-stained depositsgenerally extend to more than 0.10 m in depth,and one was noted as extending deeper than 0.5m below modern ground surface (bgms) withinan arroyo cut. The materials in the midden gener-ally consist of burned caliche, with numbersranging from 150 to 2,500 pieces. The majority ofmidden areas contain chipped stone debitage.Seven middens contain ceramics of undifferenti-ated brown ware that may be Jornada Brown andEl Paso Brown. A red-slipped brown ware wasalso noted in one midden. The middens probablyrepresent multiple components ranging from theArchaic to the Protohistoric period, and most areexpected to contain internal features and struc-tural remains.

The midden features were nearly all concen-trated in the central portion of the site. The south-eastern edge of this area has been partiallyimpacted by the El Paso Natural Gas pipeline.One midden (Feature 10) appears to have beenvandalized, since a 1/4-inch screen had been lefton top of the midden. Other middens may beconcealed under dune sands to the north of therecorded midden areas. Features 10 and 12 previ-ously were identified by WCRM.

The nine burned-caliche concentrations prob-ably represent deflated thermal features such ashearths and roasting pits. They are in the north-ern portion of the site on heavily dissecteddrainage channels. Trowel probing of these fea-tures found no subsurface cultural deposits ormaterials. The ash-stain feature was recorded inthe southern portion of the site by WCRM(Gibson 1996:3). This feature was not relocatedby TRC.

36

37

Figure 4. LA 113042 (from Turnbow et al. 2000).

Cultural Material

The surface cultural remains consist of a low-density scatter of burned caliche and chippedstone throughout the site. Ground stone andceramics are much less common. Artifact densi-ties increase to around one per square meterwithin the midden features. Even though thedensities are low, TRC estimated 4,750 lithic arti-facts on the surface.

The character of the debitage indicates early-stage reduction of chert, quartzite, limestone, andchalcedony. Chert and quartzite biface produc-tion and trimming also are recognized. Chippedstone tools are no doubt under-representedbecause of intense collector activity on the site.Nevertheless, more than 22 marginally modifiedflake tools and 20 unifacially shaped tools wereobserved.

Ground stone objects include 58 fragments.Most are sandstone mano and metate pieces,although one complete anvil and two completemanos are present. Battered stone includes fivequartzite or rhyolite hammerstones.

Ceramics artifacts are rare at the site; TRCobserved only 16 sherds. Most are undifferentiat-ed brown ware pieces that are probably El Pasoand Jornada brown ware types. An untyped, red-slipped brown ware sherd from a midden featuremay be a Jornada brown ware. All ceramics arewithin 9 of the 13 middens.

Thermally altered rock and caliche are ubiq-uitous. Although approximately 100 pieces oflimestone or sandstone were noted, burnedcaliche is estimated to exceed 100,000 pieces,mostly in midden concentrations.

Evaluation

The site appears to be in fair to good condi-tion with some erosion nearest the ridge edgeand the highway. A portion of the site wasremoved during the construction of NM 128, andthe pipeline through the south portion of the sitedisturbed another 7,680 sq m of the site (Fig. 5).The pipeline disturbance appears to have passedthrough less important portions of the site alongthe extreme southeast edge of the midden area inthe central portion of the site. A bulldozer-cutroad leading to an abandoned well pad is on theridgetop, but no feature disturbance is visible inthis cut. Severe erosion in the western slopes andridge top in the northern portion of the site hasleft little sediment overlying the calcrete deposit.Calcrete is exposed within numerous drainagechannels on the slope and in areas on theridgetop.

The best-preserved location on the site is onthe eastern slopes just down from the ridgetop inthe west-central portion of the site. An area ofapproximately 120 by 120 m contains features,middens, and intact cultural deposits largely pre-served below recently deposited eolian sands. Incontrast to the western slope and ridgetop, thissetting is on the leeward side of the ridge in adepositional environment.

The site is probably the result of multiplecamping episodes over a long period and poten-tially included longer residential use with morepermanent structures. Numerous thermal fea-tures may be present in the midden areas.Protected from strong winds, cultural deposits inthis area contain from 0.1 m to more than 0.5 m of

38

Table 17. Features w ithin and adjacent to the right-of-w ay, LA 113042

Feature Type N-S by E-W Depth RemarksNo. (m) (m)

1 burned-caliche concentration 2 x 2 0 new ROW, N2 burned-caliche concentration 2 x 2 0 new ROW, N3 burned-caliche concentration 1 x 1 0 new ROW, N8* burned caliche, ash midden 20 x 10 0.1 edge new ROW, N9 burned caliche, ash concentration 1 x 1 0.1 new ROW, N20* burned caliche, ash midden 10 x 5 0.4 N side old ROW, cut by gully21* burned caliche, ash midden 4 x 3 0.1 edge of old ROW24* burned-caliche concentration 1 x 1 0 out on DOT plan, edge of ROW (TRC)

* adjacent to ROW

Table 17. Features within and adjacent to the right-of-way, LA 113042

ash-stained deposits. The deepest deposits arenoted in a deep arroyo cut through the middle ofFeature 20.

Although few diagnostic artifacts are present,the site probably contains components associatedwith the Archaic to late Formative periods andperhaps the historic period. The possible El Pasoand Jornada brown ware ceramics suggest thatFormative 1 (A.D. 500–750) or Formative 2 (A.D.750-950) phase components are present. The dec-orated red-slipped ware suggests components aslate as the Formative 6 period (A.D. 1200–1300).

Subsurface intact pit features would beexpected associated with these middens. Theash-stained fill of the middens contain charcoaland other organic matter useful for chronometricand subsistence analyses.

As recommended by both WCRM and TRC,LA 113042 has been determined eligible for inclu-sion in the NRHP under Criterion D. The middendeposits through the central portion of the sitesuggest that absolute chronological dates can beobtained, and the cultural material associatedwith these remains should provide valuable dataon the various temporal components. These mid-

den deposits also may encompass structuralremains that would provide valuable data onprehistoric settlement patterns in the region.Moreover, the site size, intensity of occupation,and location near a major playa suggest that afieldhouse or other structures could be present.

LA 129214

Description

This very large and complex site is onlyabout 250 m from LA 113042, and together thetwo sites represent major excavation effort andpotential for data recovery (Fig. 6). Toward thewest end of the project, the sites are on ridgessloping down towards Salt Lake. The playaaccounts for the long-term reuse of both of thesesites, and the two represent similar ranges of useof this area. This favorable location was usedover a very long period of time from the Archaicto the historic. In addition to bifacial thinningflakes, probably attributable to the Archaic peri-od occupation, and pottery from the Formative

39

Figure 5. Eroded feature area next to right-of-way fence, LA113042.

40

Figure 6. LA 129214 (from Railey et al. 2006).

(A.D. 500s–1300s), there is a piece of retouchedglass suggesting Native American use as late asthe late nineteenth century.

The ridge is generally level with surface soilscomposed of sandy loam with a high density ofcaliche, and calcrete outcrops sporadically on theridge. The floral community on the ridge consistsof creosote, acacia, and some prickly pear. Thesouth- and east-facing slopes are characterizedby 1–2 m high mesquite-stabilized coppice dunes(Figs. 7–9). Soils on the slopes are predominatelyeolian sand believed to have been deposited dur-ing the historic period. These deposits overlie acompact sandy loam with moderate to high den-sities of caliche nodules. Plants on the slopesinclude mesquite, crucifixion thorn, four-wingsaltbush, creosote, acacia, dropseed, broomsnakeweed, and some prickly pear. Coppicedunes continue on the lower slopes, but the inter-dunal surfaces become broader and uneven. Thisportion of the site may be aggrading, since fewcaliche nodule inclusions are visible. Besidesmesquite, plants on the lower slopes includeweeds in disturbed soils, grama grass, dropseed,and broom snakeweed. Including unvegetateddune areas, surface visibility at the site averagesaround 75 percent.

A visit to the sites in April 2006 revealed thatcultural materials and probable features extendfarther to the east of LA 129214 than the surveymaps show, reducing the separation of the twosites. Along the south side base of the existinghighway prism between the two sites, furthermaterials are present within the old right-of-wayon the south side of the highway. Since the proj-ect will include reclamation of the abandonedroadway, this extensive area will also need to beexamined. This additional area was not formallyrecorded and is not reflected on maps. It will,however, require monitoring and closer inspec-tion when the field phase begins.

The SWCA reassessment of LA 129214 in theproject area gives feature sizes and depths differ-ent from those reported by TRC. Some of thesedifferences may result from five years of erosionand deposition, and some may result from differ-ences in recording methods or merging of areasformerly considered two features (TRC’s Feature5 was subsumed by SWCA’s Feature 34). Table18 shows feature dimensions from both assess-ments. Although SWCA reports not seeing

ceramics within the project area, several of theTRC features include ceramics, and these ceram-ics are shown on the SWCA maps.

Densities of features and cultural materialsvary widely across the landscape of this site. Thesite extends a maximum of 512 m north-south by344 m east-west and covers around 81,000 sq m.Based on the available data, the site was used forcamps and residential occupations. It lies on bothsides of NM 128 at Milepost 0.5. Elevations rangefrom 3,040 feet on the ridge to 3,000 feet in theplaya.

Features

TRC identified 34 features on the surface ofthis site, including 23 burned-caliche, ash-stainedmidden deposits, 1 burned-caliche midden, 4burned-caliche, fire-cracked rock concentrations,5 burned-caliche, fire-cracked rock scatters, and 1possible roomblock.

The most important features are the mid-dens. The ash-stained middens range from 3 to 20m in diameter and are exposed primarily onslopes descending to the playa. Only one isexposed on the ridgetop. Trowel probing of thesefeatures indicated that they are generally morethan 0.10 m below the recent sand deposits, andmany are deeper than 0.20 m below the surface(roughly the depth at which trowel probing wasterminated). The materials in the midden gener-ally consist of burned caliche ranging from 150 to5,000 pieces. Most middens contain chippedstone debitage, and eight have ceramics artifacts,predominately undifferentiated brown waresthat appear to be from Jornada Brown and ElPaso Brown vessels. Other sherds from the mid-dens include a single Playas Red Incised, apinched El Paso Brown rim, and a large piece ofJornada Red-on-brown, all from different mid-dens. The middens probably formed because ofrepeated occupation from the Archaic to the his-toric period. They likely conceal numeroushearths and roasting pits built on the same area.Some could contain pithouse remains. The mid-dens are concentrated in the south portion of thesite. This area is bisected by the existing NM 128right-of-way, which contains four of the features.Middens may also be buried in other areas of thesite where surface erosion is not as extensive.

The burned-caliche midden (Feature 4, out-

41

42

Figure 7. Dune and blowout area, LA129214, showing distribution of cultural material.

Figure 8. Dune and blowout area, LA129214, showing density of burned caliche.

43

Figure 9. LA 129214 looking east, showing disturbed area along the fence. The highwaycrosses LA 113042 in the background.

side the project limits) is similar to the ash mid-dens, although no ash-stained soils were noted.The burned-caliche scatters and concentrationsprobably represent thermal features. These fea-tures are generally outside the core midden areasalong the margins of the site. Trowel probingfound no evidence of organic staining associatedwith these features, although a few featureswhich are visible through erosion at the base ofdunes could still contain subsurface, intact cul-tural deposits. The potential surface structure(Feature 32) may be no more than a row of rockspushed by a bulldozer, though testing will benecessary to verify the nature of this anomaly.

The possible roomblock measures approximately7.0 m east-west by 4.0 m north-south and is with-in the project limits. The low linear alignmentsare from 0.5 to 1.5 m wide and ascend 0.30 mabove the surrounding terrain. They are formedof cobble-sized caliche nodules.

Cultural Material

A low-density scatter of burned caliche andlithic artifacts exists throughout the site. Theexceptions are within the middens, where artifactcounts increase to nearly one per square meter. Inspite of generally low density, TRC estimated at

44

Table 18. Features w ithin the right-of-w ay, LA 129214

Feature Type N-S by E-W (m) Depth (m) RemarksNo. TRC (2000) TRC (2000)

SWCA (2006) SWCA (2006)

5 burned caliche, ash midden 10 x 12 0.1not relocated (see F 34)

6 burned caliche, ash midden 15 x 15 0.1 Very large, dense26 x 12 0.3

7 burned caliche, ash midden 8 x 8 0.110 x 8 0.1

8 burned caliche, ash midden 4 x 4 0.1 Ceramics, ground stone7 x 14 0.05

10 burned caliche, ash midden 6 x 10 0.2 Old ROW12 x 4 0

11 burned caliche, ash midden 10 x 12 0.2 Ceramic, old ROW2 x 1 0.12

16 Outside ROW18 burned caliche, ash midden 7 x 10 0.15 Outside ROW on TRC,

7 x 10 0 in on SWCA19 burned caliche, ash midden 10 x 12 0.2 Ceramics, ground stone

no SWCA entry20 burned caliche, ash midden 10 x 12 0.2 Hammerstone, near old ROW

10 x 12 021 burned caliche, ash midden 6 x 7 0.1 Ceramic, edge of old ROW

4 x 7 032 Possible roomblock 4 x 7 0.3

4 x 5 .20-.3033 burned caliche, ash midden 10 x 20 0.1 Ground stone

10 x 20 0.334 burned caliche, ash, and 6 x 9 0.2 Ground stone

charcoal midden 10 x 2 0.235 burned-caliche concentration 14 x 6 0 SWCA new , test36 burned-caliche concentration 2 x 2 0 SWCA new , no potential37 burned-caliche concentration 3 x 3 0 SWCA new , no potential38 burned-caliche concentration; 1 x 1 0 SWCA new , no potential

additional features east of site limit at base of existing highw ay prism

Table 18. Features within the right-of-way, LA 129214

least 4,000 lithic artifacts.The chipped stone assemblage is dominated

by debitage, mostly decortification flakes, imply-ing that early-stage reduction occurred at the site.Bifacial thinning and pressure flakes also indicatethat biface production and tool sharpening tookplace on the site. Recent collecting pressure mayhave removed most of the chipped stone tools;however, approximately 21 marginally modifiedand 20 unifacially shaped tools are present. Thechipped stone artifacts are made of chert,quartzite, and limestone.

In addition to the chipped stone, the site pro-duced one piece of retouched glass. The smalltool was made from aqua bottle glass. Aqua glassdates from A.D. 1800 to 1920. Ground stone arti-facts include more than 45 specimens. Most rep-resent fragmentary manos and metates. All aremade of sandstone, except for one limestonemano. Five quartzite hammerstones also werenoted on the surface.

Ceramics artifacts are rare. Only 25 sherdswere observed on the surface, including undiffer-entiated brown ware sherds, probably JornadaBrown and what may be El Paso Brown. Onepinched El Paso Brown rim, a large piece ofJornada Red-on-brown, and a probable PlayasRed Incised were also recorded within middens.All of the ceramic artifacts were found in eight ofmidden features.

Besides the artifacts, the site contained a largeamount of burned caliche as well as thermallyaltered rock. The rock includes more than 500pieces of limestone and sandstone. The burnedcaliche is ubiquitous across the site, with majorconcentrations in the midden features. It wasestimated that more than 100,000 burned calichepieces occur on the surface.

LA 129214 lies along the edge of one of thelargest playa basins in the region. Such playashold water during the monsoon season and con-tain a rich diversity of flora and fauna, especiallyin the late summer and the fall. With increasedsoil moisture, agriculture may also have beenpossible. The size and intensity of the occupationimplies repeated use over many centuries, butthe temporal span is difficult to determine sincefew diagnostic artifacts were observed. The largeamount of chipped stone and paucity of ceramicssuggest Archaic use of the site, with sporadicFormative use between A.D. 500 and 950. Playas

Red Incised and Jornada Red-on-brown indicatecomponents from A.D. 1200–1300 and A.D.950–1075. The retouched glass tool suggest a his-toric period occupation dating to the late A.D.1800s.

Given their size and distribution, the mid-dens probably represent a continual culturaldeposit of considerable magnitude that isexposed in interdunal blowouts and in erosionalgullies and rills. Most of the middens are in theleeward side of the ridge, where eolian sandstend to be deposited. As such, portions of themidden are likely concealed by the aggradingdeposits. Trowel probes and arroyo banks indi-cate these middens may be over 0.5 m thick inplaces. Deposition of a cultural stratum of thisthickness and horizontal extent imply short-termcampsites occupied over a long period of timeand perhaps longer-term residential occupations.Midden formation likely resulted through accre-tion of refuse from years of reoccupation.

Evaluation

The geomorphic setting of LA 129214 hasresulted in severe deflation of some portions ofthe site and remarkable preservation of culturaldeposits in other areas. An extensive area on theleeward, eastern-facing slope contains buriedcultural deposits and features associated with arich diversity of cultural materials. This areaextends over 240 m northwest-southeast byapproximately 150 m northeast-southwest.Midden deposits exposed in this area may exceed0.5 m in thickness in places and likely signify amuch larger buried cultural deposit concealedbelow the active dune sands. Construction of theexisting NM 128 highway cut through the centralportion of these deposits subjected adjacent cul-tural deposits to accelerated erosion due to thesteeper slopes. Features at the northern end of thesite also appear to be largely deflated with noorganic staining and little depth potential.

Midden deposits of this sort contain a wealthof information on prehistoric human behavior,including subsistence and dating information(e.g., Staley and Adams 1995). The deposits maycontain a variety of features and structures, aswell as information on long-term environmentalchange. Perhaps even more important, the sitemay address issues of agriculture in the region.

45

For these reasons, LA 129214 is listed as eligiblefor inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion D.

LA 129216

Description

LA 129216 is a large prehistoric campsitewhere TRC recorded nine thermal features and asparse scatter of artifacts (Fig. 10). Very littlerecorded or observed material is within the newright-of-way. Shovel tests revealed no prehistoriccultural material in the area of project effect. Thesite is within a coppice dune area at an elevationof 3,670 feet. A playa basin lies adjacent to thesite. NM 128 now forms the southern edge of thesite, and the railroad marks the western edge.The other boundaries are identified by a decreasein cultural material.

The site measures 208 m east-west by 116 mnorth-south and covers an area of around 11,094sq m. Soils on the surface are a mixture of recenteolian sand deposits overlying a sandy loam witha moderate to high amount of caliche nodules. Inorder of abundance, plants include mesquite,four-wing saltbush, creosote, acacia, dropseed,crucifixion thorn, and fluff grass. The southeast-ern portion of the site lacks mesquite coppicedunes and is dominated by creosote and someacacia. Surface visibility is moderate because ofthe vegetation on the coppice dunes. Culturalmaterial is generally sparse, and the identifiedfeatures consist mostly of burned caliche scattersnorth of the new right-of-way.

Features

The 9 thermal features identified on the sur-face of the site include 2 burned-caliche, fire-cracked rock scatters and 7 burned-caliche con-centrations (Table 19). These features are concen-trated in the central portion of the site. Theyrange from 2.0to 5.0 m in maximum length andcontain from 40 to 100 pieces of burned caliche.Trowel tests into the features indicate that sub-surface burned caliche is minimally presentbetween 0.10 and 0.20 m bgs. Ash-stained soilswere not noted within the features. Two featuresare noted as eroding out of the edges of mesquitecoppice dunes, and intact remains may still be

present within these dunes. Several of the fea-tures are associated chipped stone debitage andground stone. Features 1 and 2, both caliche scat-ters, are plotted just to the north of the new right-of-way limit. Each is several meters across. Theymay therefore extend into the project area andshould be investigated.

Cultural Material

Although the site appears to be aceramic, aType 2-B arrow point indicates at least one com-ponent dates to between the Formative 2 (A.D.750–950) and Formative 6 (A.D. 1200–1300) phas-es. Ground stone artifacts include 10 specimens.Most are fragments of sandstone manos andmetates. A complete pestle was found north ofFeature 5, and a complete sandstone metate waswithin Feature 9. A quartzite hammerstone wasalso found on the site. By far the most abundantmaterial scattered over the site is burned caliche.More than 10,000 pieces are estimated to be pres-ent on the surface. In contrast, only 50 pieces offire-cracked rock were noted.

Evaluation

LA 129216 is in a dune field with the poten-tial to conceal cultural deposits. During the initialsurvey, no evidence of intact cultural depositswas noted, but trowel probing of the features andone shovel test did find buried pieces of burnedcaliche up to 0.2 m below the undulating surface.Eight additional shovel tests were excavatedwithin the proposed right of way at the southernportion of the site within the project area. Shoveltests terminated from 0.2 to 0.6 m bgs; someencountered calcrete at 0.2–0.4 m bgs. The upper-most sediments include 0.04–0.2 m of what Nials(1980) called “modern sand.” Below these aresemicompact brown to reddish brown sandyloams followed by an extremely compact sandyloam with carbonate filaments that Nials classi-fied as “Pleistocene Soils.”

Given the number of thermal features andthe dispersed scatter of cultural materials, LA129216 probably represents a series of short-termcamps. The presence of grinding implements andbiface production suggest that mixed foragingand hunting activities were carried out from thesite.

46

47


Cultural material was found in the upper 0.25m of deposits in three units. The materialsinclude 21 pieces of burned caliche, 1 flake, andseveral charcoal chunks. No clearly defined cul-tural lenses or features were observed. Althoughcultural materials exist below the surface, noclearly intact cultural deposits were observed. Itis possible that the cultural deposits have beendeflated and later covered by the recent eoliansands. The eligibility of LA 129216 for the NRHPhas not been determined.

LA 129217

Description

LA 129217 is a large site (195 by 112 m) inhigh-relief dunes. TRC recorded a long, narrowlobe to the northeast (Fig. 11). The area of the siteis around 9,900 sq m. Cultural materials are pres-ent only in the blowouts between the red sandcoppice dunes. LA 129217 and LA 129218 arenearly contiguous, their boundaries separated byonly about 22 m south of existing NM 128. Of9,927 sq m, 5,975 sq m are included in the projectarea, including three features definable from thesurface (Table 20).

Features

Materials are exposed only in the blowouts.The site measures 195 m southwest-northeast by112 m, encompassing 9,927 sq m. The soils inblowouts are sand to sandy loam, with a fewcaliche inclusions. The dunes are stabilized bymoderate coverage of shin oak, grama grass,dropseed, and a few mesquite.

Eight features were identified on the surface.Feature 4 has by far the most material and arti-facts, including ground stone and projectilepoints. Two projectile points from the site appear

to be Archaic. Site integrity is considered to begood. The features consist of a burned-calichemidden (Feature 8), burned-caliche concentra-tions (Features 2–5), and scatters of burnedcaliche (Features 1, 6, 7). A basin-shaped pit withashy fill (Feature 9) was found 20–26 cm belowthe surface inside the existing right-of-way byshovel test.

The feature identified as a burned-calichemidden (Feature 8) consists of 1,000 cobble-sizedpieces of caliche throughout an entire blowout. Itprobably represents numerous thermal features.The burned-caliche concentrations range from 2.0to 2.5 m in diameter and contain 50–100 cobble-sized pieces of burned caliche. In the burned-caliche scatters, caliche fragments are moresparsely distributed: 30–100 over 5–7.5 m areas.Trowel testing in these features revealed subsur-face burned caliche to a maximum depth of 0.15m and no staining. All but Feature 7 had associ-ated artifacts.

Cultural Material

At the time of their 2000 survey, TRC ana-lyzed the entire surface assemblage at LA 129217.The 21 artifacts included 12 chipped stone deb-itage, 3 chipped stone tools, and 6 ground stonefragments. The debitage consists of 3 large corti-cal core flakes, 1 small noncortical core flake, and8 middle-sized cortical core flakes. The chippedstone tools include 2 projectile points and 1 bifacefragment. The lithic materials include chert,quartzite, rhyolite, and limestone.

Both projectile points were interpreted asdart points. One fragmentary specimen is miss-ing the stem but appears to have corner notching.Given its morphology, the specimen could repre-sent one of a number of Archaic to earlyFormative period types defined by Leslie (1978).The other point is complete and exhibits a trian-gular blade with weakly defined barbs; short,

48



1 burned-caliche scatter 3 x 5 0.14 Edge of ROW, outside on DOT plan2 burned-caliche scatter 4 x 4 0.1 Edge of ROW, outside on DOT plan


49

Figure 11. LA 129217 and LA 129218 (from Turnbow et al. 2000).

contracting stem; and straight base. Found inFeature 4, it measures 37 mm long, 26 mm wide,and 5 mm thick. The point bears no close similar-ity to any of the types described by Leslie (1978),but it is possible that the stem has been reworked.The specimen is similar in appearance to a pointLeslie (1978:145, Fig. 25A:g) classified as aBulverde. It does have broad resemblance to theBulverde as defined by Suhm and Jelks (1962:171,Plate 85). The Bulverde is estimated to datebetween 3000 and 2500 B.C. (Turner and Hester1985:82-83).

Ground stone artifacts noted on the surfaceinclude three mano fragments and three metatefragments. All are made of sandstone. Burnedcaliche nodules are sparsely scattered over thesite. A few pieces of thermally altered sandstonealso occur. Pottery was not observed on either“site.”

Evaluation

Given the number of features dispersed overthe site, LA 129217 likely represents a series ofshort-term camps. Two dart points suggest atleast one component dating to the middle of theArchaic period from perhaps 3000 to 2000 B.C.The grinding and hunting implements indicatethe site most likely served as a processing area offaunal and/or floral remains.

The integrity of LA 129217 is considered to begood. Although no intact features or culturaldeposits were noted on the surface, trowel prob-ing revealed subsurface materials present to atleast 0.1 m bgs in six features and to at least 0.2 mbgs in two others. To further evaluate the site’seligibility to the NRHP, 10 shovel tests were exca-vated. Four were within the proposed right ofway on the eastern side of the highway, and theother six were in the right-of-way west of the

existing NM 128. The units were excavated from0.3 to 0.8 m bgs. Five of the 10 units producedsubsurface cultural materials, and Test 8 yieldedan intact basin-shaped ash stain from 0.2 to 0.3 mbgs (Feature 9). Based on these results, the sitehas data potential to address chronological, sub-sistence, and technological research issues for theregion.

The eligibility of LA 129217 for inclusion inthe NHRP has not been determined. Contrastingwith the sites further to the west in the Phase 1project area, it lies within the beginning of theshin oak zone and therefore may help us to betterunderstand the importance of shin oak as a sub-sistence component.

LA 129218

Description

LA 129218 crosses the existing highway andis largely included in the new right-of-way (Fig.12). This site is contiguous with LA 129217, hasdune relief up to 2.5 m, and contained an Archaicpoint. There is little reason to separate this sitefrom LA 129217, considering the comparablegeomorphology and cultural manifestations ofthe sites, the lobate definition of site boundaries,and the small distance separating them. A largeportion of LA 129218 (6,384 sq m of 12,738 sq m)and a majority of the features identified by sur-vey are included in the project limits. The includ-ed area is still only a portion of the sites asdefined.

At an elevation of 3,290 feet, LA 129218 is alarge prehistoric camp with seven thermal fea-tures and a sparse scatter of cultural materials.The site lies in coppice dunes with substantialblowouts. Cultural materials and features are

50



4 burned-caliche concentration 2 x 2 0.1 projectile point,ground stone

6 burned-caliche scatter 10 x 5 0.1 biface7 burned-caliche scatter 6 x 5 0.18 burned-caliche midden 8 x 10 0.2


51

Figure 12. LA 129218 (from Railey et al. 2006).

only exposed in the blowouts, often extending1.0–2.5 m below the overall terrain. It measures135 m southwest-northeast by 79 m southeast-northwest. Sediments in the blowouts are sand tosandy loam with a few caliche nodule inclusions.The dune deposits consist of recent eolian sandsstabilized by moderate coverage of scrub oak,grama grass, dropseed grass, and a few mesquite.Surface visibility is estimated at 80 percent in theblowouts but is nonexistent under the dunes,which cover the majority of the site surface. LA129218 is on both sides of existing NM 128 atMilepost 10.55.

Features

The seven features identified on the surfaceof this site include two burned-caliche middens,three burned-caliche concentrations, and twoburned-caliche scatters (Table 21). The middenfeatures were within large blowout areas anderoding out of the dunes surrounding theblowouts. Trowel testing in these areas revealedburned caliche to 0.15 m bmgs, but no stained soilwas noted. The burned-caliche concentration,probably thermal features, are eroding out ofdunes. Each concentration contained subsurfaceburned caliche to at least 0.1 m bmgs but no stain-ing. The burned-caliche scatters were also erod-

ing out of dunes in blowouts and had subsurfaceburned caliche to at least 0.2 m bgs.

Cultural Material

At the time of the TRC survey, the surfaceassemblage consisted of 41 artifacts and a sparsescatter of burned caliche and fire-cracked rock.The chipped stone includes 1 small noncorticalcore flake, 1 medium-sized bifacial thinningflake, 10 medium-sized cortical indeterminateflakes, 2 large indeterminate cortical flakes, 2small indeterminate noncortical flakes, 2 medi-um-sized indeterminate noncortical flakes, 1retouched quartzite tool, and 1 projectile point.Materials include quartzite, sandstone, chal-cedony, and chert. The projectile point is a com-plete dart characterized by a slightly convexblade; short, prominent barbs; and a straightstem with a concave base. It is made from chert.The hafting element of this specimen is distinctfrom the types defined by Leslie (1978). It doesbear some similarity to the Pedernales type(Suhm and Jelks 1962: 235–237; Turner andHester 1985:171–172), but it lacks the deep bifur-cated base and flute-like thinning flake scar orig-inating at the base. Pedernales-type points arebelieved to date between 2000 and 1200 B.C.(Turner and Hester 1985:171).

52


Feature Type N-S by E-W (m) Depth (m) RemarksNo. TRC TRC

SWCA SWCA

2 burned-caliche scatter 8 x 14 0.15 ground stone3 x 3 0

3 burned-caliche concentration 6 x 3 0.153 x 3 0

4 burned-caliche concentration .5 x .5 0.1not relocated -

5 burned-caliche midden 8 x 8 0.155 x 5 0

6 burned-caliche scatter 2 x 2 0.152.5 diameter 0

7 burned-caliche concentration 3 x 4 0.15


Ground-stone artifacts observed on the sur-face include 21 fragments. They are manos orunidentifiable pieces made of sandstone.

Evaluation

In a dune environment conducive to the bur-ial of cultural deposits, LA 129218 contains sub-surface cultural materials. Trowel testing withinthe burned caliche features revealed subsurfaceburned caliche to 0.2–0.3 m bgs but did not locateash-stained soils. Ten shovel tests were excavatedwithin the proposed right-of-way: five on theeastern side and five on the western side of theexisting highway. The units terminated from 0.1to 0.5 m bgs.

Three tests reached deposits Nials classifiedas “Pleistocene Soils” from 0.05 to 0.3 m bgs. Fourof the 10 shovel tests also contained subsurfaceburned caliche to 0.4 m bgs. Given the datapotential of these deposits, the site is consideredlikely to contain buried features and artifactassemblages that could address pertinentresearch questions regarding Archaic settlementpatterns, technology, and subsistence. The site isinterpreted as a campsite with at least one com-ponent dating to the Middle or Late Archaic peri-od based on the projectile point. The grindingand hunting implements suggest that the occu-pants participated in foraging and hunting.

LA 129218 has been determined to be eligiblefor inclusion in the NHRP under Criterion D.Because of its proximity to LA 129217, we plan totreat the two sites with a coordinated excavationstrategy.

LA 129220

Description

LA 129220 is a historic well with associatedstock tanks and holding pens on both sides ofpresent NM 128 at Milepost 9.4 on New Mexicostate trust land. At an elevation of 3,250 feet, thesite lies on a ridgetop overlooking a basin to thesouth. It measures 170 m south-north and east-west and encompasses 14,359 sq m (Fig. 13).

Vegetation is characterized by creosote,broom snakeweed, acacia, grasses, and mesquite.Soils are sandy loam with abundant caliche nod-

ule inclusions and, in some areas, Stage 4 carbon-ate deposits are exposed on the surface. Surfacevisibility in the area is 90 percent.

Features

Ten features on the surface include a wind-mill and well, two large water tanks, two smallerwater cement holding tanks, one small holdingpen, one water trough constructed from a 55-gal-lon welded-steel drum cut in half, and three largecorrals or holding pens for cattle (Figs. 14, 15).Only the railroad-tie corral on the north side ofthe current highway is within the Phase 1 projectlimits.

Cultural Material

The artifacts on this site include a sparse scat-ter of late historic to modern cultural materials.Items around the well include 19 wooden poleswith fittings that served as well rods to bringwater to the tanks. Each rod was 18 feet long. Inaddition, nine metal sleeves or casings, each 30feet long and 3 feet in diameter, were locatedadjacent to the well. Additional materials includebarbed wire fragments, rubber hose fragments,sheet metal fragments, 50 wire nails, miscella-neous wire, one 55-gallon drum lid, several cansopened with a triangular punch, and one smallfragment of porcelain from a plate. More recentmodern materials include beer bottles and cans.

Evaluation

This site consists of features related to twen-tieth-century ranching operations in the region.Construction of the site occurred sometime after1943, the date stamped into the metal plate at thewindmill base. “May 9,1948,” is incised into thecement water tank, which dates the constructionof that part of the site. Most artifacts on the sitealso suggest post-1940s use of the site. Historicaldocuments should exist for the well and proper-ty boundaries and ownership.

The windmill has collapsed, and its fan ismissing. The well, tanks and corrals are in bettercondition. The features were photographed andmeasured, and all surface artifacts were docu-mented by TRC. The site has been determinedeligible under the NRHP, and archival research

53

54


55

Figure 14. Historic railroad-tie corral within the project limits, LA 129220.

Figure 15. Water tank features outside project limits south of NM 128, LA 129220.

will be conducted on associated people, thewindmill, and other equipment.

LA 129222

Description

LA 129222 is north of the existing highwayand extends almost to the edge of the presentright-of-way fence (Fig. 16). It is a large prehis-toric campsite with a large number of scatteredartifacts. Three thermal features were identifiedon the site. At an elevation of 3,010 feet, the sitelies on a low bench above a playa depression tothe west and north. The site measures 138 m east-west by 122 m north-south and encompasses14,836 sq m. The surface of this site is quite differ-ent from that of the sites in dunes at either end ofthe project. The area is fairly flat and character-ized by a crusty, cryptogamic soil. As is true ofLA 129223, immediately adjacent to the west, thesalty lake deposit seems to be affecting the soiland stunting the vegetation (Fig. 17). One areahas creosote with some crucifixion thorn and afew broom snakeweed. Outside this creosotezone the surfaces are covered with moderate fluffand dropseed grass and occasional crucifixionthorn. Surface visibility is 70 percent. The site ison the north side of NM 128 at Milepost 5.3.

Features

The three thermal features identified on thesurface include two articulated concentrations ofburned caliche, including 1 with ash-stained soil,and a dispersed scatter of burned caliche. All areoutside the proposed project limits. Trowel prob-ing within Feature 3 revealed charcoal remains toa minimum depth of 0.10 m bgs. The other artic-ulated burned caliche feature contains subsurfaceburned caliche to 0.10 m bgs but no ash deposits.The scatter of burned caliche is eroding out of thedunes. The features are concentrated in the cen-tral portion of the site. Additional buried thermalfeatures are expected in this area given the mod-erate density of thermally altered material.

Cultural Material

The cultural material include a low density ofburned caliche and lithic artifacts as well as a

possible Chupadero Black-on-white sherd. Thechipped-stone artifacts include debitage, fourmarginally retouched tool fragments, one unifa-cially shaped tool, and one marginally retouched“end scraper.” The chipped stone artifacts areproduced from chert, chalcedony, quartzite,limestone, and sandstone. The highest densitiesof chipped stone artifacts are associated withFeature 2, and a moderate scatter of burnedcaliche lies to the northwest of Features 1 and 2 inthe central portion of the site. Even though theoverall chipped stone artifact density is low, thesite was estimated to have over 450 specimens.

More than 25 pieces of ground stone wererecorded, predominately sandstone mano andmetate fragments with a few limestone manofragments. A quartzite mano fragment showssecondary hammerstone use.

Ceramic artifacts are limited to a possibleChupadero Black-on-white sherd found in thesouthwestern portion of the site. This type datesfrom A.D. 1150 to 1450 and correlates with theFormative 5 (A.D. 1125–1200) to Formative 7(A.D. 1300–1375) phases.

The site also contains an estimated 10,000pieces of burned caliche and 20 pieces of thermal-ly altered limestone and sandstone. The majorityof the thermally altered material is exposed in thecentral and southwestern portions.

Evaluation

LA 129222 is most likely a multicomponentprehistoric campsite with where foraging-toolproduction and cooking took place. The identi-fied features suggest hearths or roasting pits. Thepossible Chupadero Black-on-white sherd indi-cates that the southwestern portion of the sitecould contain a Formative 5 to Formative 7 phaseoccupation. Other portions of the site remainundated due to the lack of diagnostic artifacts.

The site appears to be in fair to good condi-tion. Some erosion occurs along NM 128 on thesouthern edge of the site, and a bladed road andpad exists in the southwestern portion of the site.Part of the site may have been removed duringthe construction of NM 128. Trowel probing ofthe features confirmed ash-stained fill to at least0.10 m bgs in Feature 3. Other trowel tests in thecentral portion of the site revealed sediments areover 0.3 m bgs, indicating a potential for buried

56

57


intact cultural deposits and features. Thesedeposits may be even deeper in areas stabilizedby grasses. Based on the intact thermal featureand the potential for other buried culturaldeposits, LA 129222 is eligible for inclusion in theNRHP under Criterion D.

Although no features were identified withinthe Phase 1 project limits, the topographic settingof this site warrants investigation of that portionof the site area. Geomorphological study shouldtake place through trenching, and the surfacewithin the project area should be collected. Iftrenching indicates buried surfaces within theproject limits, the area of excavation should beexpanded.

LA 129300

Description

LA 129300 is between LA 129215 on the westand LA 129223 on the east (Fig. 18). Its north mar-

gin is defined by a line of boulders along the rail-road right-of-way, which in turn forms the edgeof the new highway right-of-way. It is a large site,over 165 m north-south (not the 350 m specifiedby TRC) and 125 m east-west, with a total sitearea of 16,625 sq m. The proposed right-of-waycovers the north one-third of the site, an area of7,700 sq m. Dense cultural materials are presenton a ridge above a playa south of the new right-of-way. TRC defined 15 features, but only 3 ofthem (Features 1, 9, and 15) are within the pro-posed project limits (Turnbow et al. 2000:60). Allthe features are greater than 10 cm deep.Grinding tools, part of a Formative period projec-tile point, and 25 sherds indicate that at leastsome of the features are Formative in age. Theabundance of artifacts and caliche and the thick-ness of deposits suggest that the site was occu-pied for some period of time, probably on a sea-sonal basis. The range of ceramic types suggestFormative occupations may have spanned A.D.500 to 1375. Railroad construction has removedthe northern edge of the site, and the soil is gen-

58

Figure 17. Topography, vegetation, and soils in mid–project area around LA 129222 and LA129223. Centerline stake at right.

59


erally thin, but the southeast portion of the sitealmost certainly contains intact cultural featuresand deposits (Figs. 19–22).

Scattered materials extend beyond thedefined boundary in the drainage to the east. Thenorthern edge of the site was arbitrarily definedby the railroad bed. LA 113044 lies north of therailroad on the same ridge (Gibson 1996) butappears to be separated from LA 129300 by anexpanse lacking cultural materials. The elevationof the site is 2,970 feet. Soils are predominatelyrecent eolian sands overlying a sandy loam witha moderate to light quantity of caliche nodules.Calcrete deposits are noted on the surface in sev-eral areas. Vegetation includes mesquite, cruci-fixion thorn, four-wing saltbush, creosote, acacia,dropseed, snakeweed, yucca elata, and someprickly pear. Surface visibility is around 75 per-cent.

Features

Fifteen features were identified on the sur-face of the site, including six burned-caliche andash-stained midden deposits, 1 burned-calichemidden without ash-stained soils, and eightburned-caliche concentrations (Table 22). Theburned-caliche and ash-stained middens rangefrom 6 m in diameter to 30 by 15 m. Areas ofdarkly stained soil are visible on the site outsidethe proposed highway right-of-way. Trowelprobing of features confirmed that the ash-stained deposits extend more than 10 cm deep.The burned-caliche concentrations probably rep-resent thermal features and lack other culturalmaterials, except for Feature 4, which containedmore than 100 flakes and pieces of brown ware.Testing of these features generally found subsur-face burned-caliche nodules but no ash-staining.

Cultural Material

The cultural materials on the surface of thissite are sparse except in the vicinity of features.Most common materials include burned-calichenodules, which are estimated to exceed 10,000specimens, and there are around 50 pieces of fire-cracked sandstone and limestone. Surface arti-facts are not common but were estimated to num-ber over 500. Chipped stone artifacts comprise475 pieces of debitage, 30 cores, 15 marginally

retouched tools, and 1 projectile point base.Materials include chert, quartzite, and limestone.The projectile point fragment is a chert comer-notched dart with a straight base. Given the dam-age, the point is not securely typed, but it doesresemble Type 8-B as defined by Leslie (1978:131,Fig. 18b). Leslie estimated the temporal span ofthe type from the Late Archaic to around A.D.950.

Ceramic artifacts included 17 undifferentiat-ed brown ware and 8 red-slipped brown waresherds. These specimens date portions of the siteto the Formative period (A.D. 500–1375). Theceramics are associated with three of the sevenmiddens and one burned-caliche concentration.The 22 ground stone artifacts observed on thesurface include mostly sandstone manos andmetate fragments. One quartzite hammerstone isalso present, as was a piece of curly mussel shell.

Evaluation

LA 129300 is a large campsite or possible res-idential site dating from perhaps the LateArchaic to at least the Formative period. The sizeand thickness of the cultural deposits and thesheer number of surface artifacts suggest the sitewas occupied over a long period of time by smallgroups or perhaps more intensively by a fewlarger populations. Features exposed on the sur-face probably represent the remains of hearths,roasting pits, perhaps other pits, and evidence ofa wide range of activities. Structural remains maybe present. The dart point may date from the LateArchaic to the early Formative period. The brownware ceramics suggest a Formative 1 (A.D.500–750) to Formative 2 (A.D. 750–950) phase.The red-slipped ceramics may be a variety ofJornada Brown and suggest a date as late as theFormative 7 (A.D. 1300–1375) phase.

The integrity of the site is variable. Railroadconstruction removed the northern portion of thesite. Soils are minimal, and calcrete is exposedwithin numerous drainage channels on the west-ern slope and in areas on top of the ridge. Thebest-preserved cultural deposits lie on the east-ern slope in the southeastern portion of the site.Middens, other features, and ashy sediments inthis 60 by 60 m area imply considerable datapotential. Trowel probing of the features indi-cates from 0.10 to 0.15 m of ash-stained deposits,

60

61

Figure 19. Looking east toward LA 129300, showing current site access.

Figure 20. The project area from the railroad tracks, LA129300. The site is beyond thelarge rocks at the edge of the railroad right-of-way.

62

Figure 21. Main area of LA 129300, south of the new right-of-way.

Figure 22. LA 129300, looking west. The figures (left middle distance) are in the main sitearea. Some material extends down the slope. Centerline stake in center foreground.

63

including some eroding out from under dunes.These deposits probably contain pits, hearths,structural remains, and a rich artifact assemblagelikely associated with subsistence and datablematerials.

LA 129300 has been determined eligible tothe NRHP under Criterion D. When the new roadis completed, this major site will have the high-way through its north edge. It will change frombeing inaccessible to very accessible, and the sitewill be subject to increased artifact collection andpossibly looting.

ISOLATED OCCURRENCES

In keeping with the long-term, wide-scalehuman use of the area, each project that ventures

onto the landscape encounters isolated occur-rences. The TRC survey in 2000 recorded 64 iso-lated occurrences (Turnbow et al. 2000), and theSWCA project recorded 8 (Railey et al. 2006).These range from the recent to the ancient. Theyinclude triangular-punched cans, an evaporatedmilk can, several pieces of amethyst bottle glass,a Farmers soda bottle from Artesia, a waterwornrock that was a possible tool, a hammerstone, autilized flake end scraper, cortical core flakes andnoncortical core flakes, pieces of burned caliche,fire-cracked rock, mano fragments, a ChupaderoBlack-on-white sherd, and an unidentifiable pro-jectile point fragment. Although these finds arenot of concern to a data recovery effort, theydemonstrate the general diversity of culturalmaterials.



1 burned-caliche concentration .75 x 1 0.19 burned caliche, ash midden 15 x 8 0.15 Ground stone, cores15 burned-caliche concentration 2 x 2 0.1


65

TAXONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS

The prehistoric remains over the vast regionof the southeastern quarter of New Mexico arecurrently subsumed under one broad taxonomiccategory—the Jornada branch of the MogollonCulture (LeBlanc and Whalen 1980; Katz andKatz 2001; Sebastian and Larralde 1989; Stuartand Gauthier 1981). Two avenues led to this situ-ation. The first was Lehmer’s (1948) original pro-posal that the archaeological remains in south-central New Mexico, far western Texas, and thenorthern part of Chihuahua be described as theJornada branch of the Mogollon Culture. Thegeographic boundary of this region is rathervague to the east, where it encompasses whatappears to be the main mountain masses of theSierra Blanca, Sacramento, and GuadalupeMountains of New Mexico (Lehmer 1948), butthe eastern boundary does not include the areabetween those mountains and the Pecos River tothe east.

In the mid-1960s, John Corley (1965/1970) ofthe Lea County Archaeological Society (LCAS) inHobbs proposed that the archaeological remainseast of the Pecos River be subsumed under theJornada branch of the Mogollon and called themthe Eastern Extension. Apparently for conven-ience, Corley drew the western boundary of theEastern Extension at the Pecos River even thoughthe site distribution upon which he based his pro-posal stops several miles east of that river (Leslie1979: Fig. 3). The distance between the westernedge of the site distribution and the Pecos Riverappears to be on the order of 10 to 15 miles. Theone exception to this characterization is a smallgroup of sites in the vicinity of Pearce Canyonalong the east side of the Pecos River below thetown of Loving, New Mexico, and just north ofthe Texas state line.

Thus, at the time the Eastern Extension wasproposed, neither Lehmer nor Corley had seri-ously considered the archaeological remains oneither side of the Pecos River, a strip of territory20 miles wide to the south in the vicinity of

Carlsbad and as much as 60 miles wide to thenorth in the vicinity of Roswell. The reason forthis seeming oversight is simple—the archaeolo-gy within the strip was basically unknown at thetime (Stuart and Gauthier 1981; Sebastian andLarralde 1989). However, since the pottery wasessentially the same at sites within the mainJornada branch and the Eastern Extension, thecorrelation of cultural developments across thisstrip of territory, and therefore including thestrip within the Jornada branch, seemed both safeand appropriate.

Three factors appear to guide our perceptionsof prehistoric relationships in this part of NewMexico: Southwestern pottery (especially fromthe El Paso area and the Sierra Blanca of NewMexico), pithouse or surface structures (reminis-cent of Southwestern structures, especially sincesuch structures were unknown in Texas at thetime), and whether or not farming was part of thesubsistence base. It is probably fair to say in gen-eral that upon finding pottery associated withpithouses and surface houses, Southwesternarchaeologists tend to assume (until proven oth-erwise) that the inhabitants of such sites alsoengaged in farming. Based on these perspectives,the attribution of sites across southeastern NewMexico to a Southwestern affiliation seemedsecure.

While the idea of a Jornada-Mogollon affilia-tion for the archaeology of southeastern NewMexico seems to have been widely acceptedamong New Mexico archaeologists, RobertMallouf (1985), now director of the Center for BigBend Studies in Alpine, Texas, has always con-sidered the archaeological remains of theGuadalupe Mountains to belong to the Trans-Pecos region of West Texas, since the Guadalupesare part of the Chihuahua Desert, and theirarchaeological resources are related to those inthe desert. Although he does not actually portraythe New Mexico part of the GuadalupeMountains on his map of the Trans-Pecos region(1985: Fig. 1), he discusses a number of sites inthat area. He evidently includes all of that moun-

Data Recovery Plan for Prehistoric Components

Regge N. Wiseman

tain range within the Trans-Pecos culture area onthe basis of its Chihuahuan Desert biota and theduplication of site types with those of the Trans-Pecos, especially the various forms of burnedrock features, including ring middens.

Since 1965 additional archaeological and syn-thetic work has been accomplished in southeast-ern New Mexico in the form of cultural resourcemanagement activities. A distillation of the latesteffort at synthesis is included in the previouschapter. Of direct pertinence here are the culturehistorical sequences for the Brantley Reservoirlocale and adjacent Guadalupe Mountains (or“Brantley sequence”; Katz and Katz 1985a,1985b) and Leslie’s (1979) expansion of Corley’s(1965/1970) original Eastern Extension sequence.The Corley/Leslie Eastern Extension sequence,concerned as it is with the excavated remains ofpithouses, surface structures, and Jornada pot-tery, certainly conforms to expectations of afarming society in these regards. Interestingly, noremains of cultigens were found in the variousLCAS excavations, leading Leslie to suggest thatperhaps acorns from the shin oak, Quercushavardii, were substituted for farm products,especially corn. Habitation (structural) sitesinvestigated by Corley, Leslie, and associates inthe southern part of the Eastern Extension regiontend to be associated with or near extensive shinoak tracts.

A taxonomic assignment of the GuadalupeMountains–Brantley region to the Trans-Pecoshas several implications. First, as far as can beascertained at present, the peoples inhabiting theTrans-Pecos (with the exception of those at LaJunta de los Rios on the Rio Grande, present-dayPresidio, Texas) lived an Archaic-like hunter-gatherer lifestyle throughout the prehistoric andhistoric periods. In concert with the Trans-Pecos,the Guadalupe Mountains and nearby PecosRiver (Brantley) have failed to produce pithousesor surface type structures reminiscent ofSouthwestern-style houses. Even though suchstructures (pithouses and pueblos) have beenreported for this region, the claims have not beensubstantiated through location visits and extend-ed discussions with a knowledgeable individualsin the region.

Small amounts of pottery are present at LatePrehistoric sites in the Guadalupe Mountains andalong the Pecos River, a pattern also present in

the Trans-Pecos. Personal examination and liter-ature reports suggest that all of the pottery wasproduced in the nearby El Paso area and theSierra Blanca region of New Mexico. This sug-gests that the pottery was traded into the arearather than being an element of the local techno-logical tradition.

The archaeological sites of the mainJornada branch region to the west and theEastern Extension of the Jornada to the east of theGuadalupe Mountains also have initial Archaicoccupations generally similar to those of theGuadalupe Mountains–Brantley region.However, in the first millennium A.D., at leastsome of the peoples in both regions began livingfirst in pithouses and later on in surface struc-tures or pueblo-like units (Lehmer 1948; Millerand Kenmotsu 2004; Corley 1965/1970; Leslie1979; Collins 1968). Some of the pueblos in themain Jornada region grew to 100 rooms or more,while those in the Eastern Extension rarely hadmore than two to three contiguous rooms. MainJornada and Eastern Extension peoples alsomade their own pottery, and farming was amajor aspect of the subsistence system of themain Jornada region. The question remainswhether Eastern Extension peoples grew corn orused acorns as the mainstay food.

In summary, the prehistory of the GuadalupeMountains and nearby Pecos River valley(Brantley locale) can be characterized as follows:economic adaptation to Chihuahuan vegetativecommunities, emphasis on burned-rock archaeo-logical features (especially ring middens),absence of pithouses and pueblo-style structures,presence of small amounts of pottery made to thewest and northwest, and little or no evidence offarming. These characteristics diverge sharplyfrom those of the Jornada Mogollon manifesta-tions to the west and the Eastern Extension man-ifestations to the east, especially during the LatePrehistoric (pottery) period.

This brings the discussion to the LovingLakes project. Phase 1 is concerned with a seriesof sites along an east-west line that starts just eastof the Pecos River southeast of Carlsbad, travers-es the south end of the strip of territory betweenthe Pecos and the shin oak country to the east,and terminates just inside one of the westernmostshin oak tracts in this part of the state. Thus, theproject sites span the presumed boundary, or

66

boundary zone, between the GuadalupeMountain–Brantley archaeological manifestationto the west and the Eastern Extension manifesta-tion to the east, providing an opportunity toassess the relationship between the two manifes-tations and document archaeological sites withinan area basically omitted from consideration dur-ing the formulation of the GuadalupeMountain–Brantley and Eastern Extension con-cepts. Can a boundary between the two proposedcultural manifestations be defined and the rela-tionships between them documented?

THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE ON HUNTER-GATHERERSUBSISTENCE SYSTEMS

This section applies to the Archaic and Neo-Archaic components of the Loving Lakes Phase 1sites. Neo-Archaic (Lord and Reynolds 1985)refers to sites that date to the Late Prehistoric(pottery) period but are created by full-timehunter-gatherers rather than by hunting-gather-ing task groups from farming settlements.Temporally diagnostic lithic artifacts identifiedduring site survey span the Early Archaicthrough protohistoric periods, but these diagnos-tic artifacts were so rare that the vast majority ofindividual features or site areas cannot be dated.Because the features themselves are similar andare not obviously diagnostic of occupation peri-ods, the features will require independentchronological determinations.

Past research in the GuadalupeMountains–Brantley region, as in the Trans-Pecos in general, indicates that baked succulentssuch as lechuguilla and sotol were fundamentalto subsistence starting at some point during theMiddle to Late Archaic periods and continuinginto the Late Prehistoric and even early historicperiods (Young 1982; Greer 1965, 1967, 1968;Roney 1995; Katz and Katz 1985a).Archaeological remains of baking ovens usuallytake the form of midden rings or circles of burnedrock surrounding central pits, although burnedrock mounds of other shapes are also known(Phippen et al. 2000). Since these succulents pro-vide a reliable year-round source of carbohy-drates (Dering 1999), they were understandablyimportant in prehistoric and historic diets (Hineset al. 1994) and may have diminished the impor-

tance of or even replaced many other carbohy-drates, including corn (Sebastian and Larralde1989; Roney 1995).

While succulents such as agave and sotolwere important food resources for people livingwest of the Pecos River, these species are virtual-ly absent east of the river. A few ring middenshave been reported on survey for sites east of thePecos (ARMS files), but they are absent at thevast majority of sites, whether Archaic or LatePrehistoric. Clearly, the Archaic and LatePrehistoric subsistence strategies east of thePecos River were focused differently than thosewest of the river.

The general belief among archaeologists isthat most Archaic adaptations utilized a widevariety of wild animal and plant species.Depending on a host of factors, the strategiesemployed by a specific group or groups ofhumans may be characterized as collecting or for-aging (Binford 1980; Kelly 1995). Bases for char-acterization include but are not necessarily limit-ed to the species exploited, the distribution anddensity of the exploited species, species availabil-ity and timing of harvests, and the size and spac-ing of human groups reliant on those species.

In simplest terms, foragers move the peopleto the food, and collectors move the food to thepeople. Collectors do this by means of taskgroups that are sent out to obtain specificresources and return them to the group, a behav-ior warranted by resources that occur in clumpedor patchlike distributions. The primary differ-ences between collector and forager lifestyles arethe degrees to and ways in which people plan,organize, and conduct their food quest inresponse to resource distributions and seasons ofavailability.

In theory, forager and collector sites shouldhave fairly distinctive attributes, as follows:

Forager sites, to which people move forresources, are inhabited for shorter periods oftime, have smaller accumulations of trash, andsimilar suites of artifacts, all because the samegeneral activities are carried out at each site.Because they are occupied for relatively shortperiods of time (days or a few weeks), relativelyfew items (manufacturing debris, broken arti-facts, etc.) should be left behind. Ephemeralhousing such as brush wickiups (archaeological-ly expressed as slightly depressed use-surfaces or

67

floors) may be present. One site should look pret-ty much like another, and their archaeologicalvisibility should be subtle, perhaps even incon-spicuous. However, if the foraging group reusesthe site numerous times over a period of years,then more substantial quantities of refuse andartifacts may accumulate. Archaeologically, thesesites may look very much like the base camps ofcollectors.

Collectors send out work parties to set up tem-porary special-activity sites, collect the targetresources, and take the food back to long-termbase camps. Base camps are generally quite visiblearchaeologically because they are used for a widerange of daily activities, resulting in the accumu-lation of a wide range of artifact types, activityareas, and refuse deposits. Some form of shelteror housing, whether ephemeral or more substan-tial in construction, is usually present, as may bepits for food storage. Base camps are generallyused over long periods of time (several months)each year for several years, sometimes in sequen-tial years and sometimes in staggered years orsets of years. A logistically organized group gen-erally has only one or two base camps that it usesduring a given year. Special activity sites, on theother hand, are created during collecting expedi-tions, might be used only once, are almost invisi-ble archaeologically because they are used forsuch short periods, have little or no accumulationof nonperishable debris and broken artifacts, andhave limited artifact inventories reflecting fewactivities.

Sebastian and Larralde (1989) and Collins(1991:8) emphasize an alternative view of thesestrategies: that foragers and collectors can anddo, at least in some instances, implement bothstrategies depending on their needs. That is, thetwo strategies may be viewed as two ends of acontinuum and are not necessarily dichotomous.In a given year or over a series of years, somegroups may actually employ both strategiesbecause of factors such as season, climate, econo-my, demography, and competition (Boyd et al.1993). Sebastian and Larralde (1989:55–56) citethe Archaic peoples of southeastern New Mexicoas an example of “serial foraging”:

A strategy of serial foraging involves a smallresidential group that moves into the generalvicinity of an abundant resource and camps

there, uses the target resource and otherhunted and gathered resources encounteredin the general area until the target resource isgone, or until another desired resource isknown to be available, and then moves on tothe next scheduled procurement area. Such astrategy could be expected to create a greatdeal of redundancy in the archaeologicalrecord, an endless series of small, residentialcamps from which daily hunting-and-gather-ing parties move out over the surroundingterrain, returning to process and consume theacquired foods each evening. If the resourceswere randomly distributed, all the siteswould look generally the same. But sincemany of the resources appear in the sameplace year after year or in some other cyclicalpattern, some sites tend to be reoccupied.

Reoccupied sites, then, would be a clustering ofsmall, single-event, serial-foraging sites. ButSebastian and Larralde (1989:56) envision a com-plicating factor:

The only exception to the rule of basicallyredundant but sometimes overlapping smallcampsites would be the winter camps. Giventhe relatively brief winters of the RoswellDistrict, many of the sites would, on the sur-face, be no different in appearance from reoc-cupied short-term camps. Excavation of suchsites might recover resources indicating awinter seasonal occupation or featuresindicative of storage, however. If we wereable to differentiate single, large-group occu-pations from multiple, small-group occupa-tions, we might find that winter sites differfrom warm season camps in that they wereoccupied by larger groups.

In the above scenario, the settlement types ofserial foragers should then start taking on theappearance of collectors’ sites. While this intro-duces some difficulty in archaeological studies, itprobably approximates reality to a greater degreeand certainly seems to make better sense withrespect to the archaeological record of southeast-ern New Mexico as we become increasinglyfamiliar with it.

In addition to discussing the feature and arti-fact content of sites, Collins (1991:7–8) suggests

68

biological correlates of forager and collector sites,particularly those involving burned-rock mid-dens. He suggests that the difference between thetwo might be signaled by whether the plantspecies were processed. That is, collectors wouldfocus on species that are available in large num-bers or amounts during short periods of time,requiring some form of preparation and storagefor long-term benefit to humans. Foragers, on theother hand, would rely mostly on plant speciesthat are available throughout the year, preclud-ing the need for storage but usually requiringgreater mobility because their distribution acrossthe landscape is general, not patchy. He suggeststhat animal species might also be conducive tothis type of analysis, but because animals aremobile, they are not particularly useful in thisregard.

Before leaving the subject of subsistencestrategies, it is appropriate to touch on the sub-jects of gardening (or farming) and food storage.As discussed earlier, the evidence of prehistoricfarming in the Guadalupe Mountains–Brantleyregion is slight at present. Roney (1995:21) statedthat corn was recovered from only three sheltersin the Guadalupe Mountains, but in each case,few remains were found. The Pratt Cave example(Schroeder 1983:67) involves one or more kernelsrecovered from the vicinity of a hearth. Since twochile seeds were recovered from a lower level inthe same test, it is possible that the corn wasintroduced during the historic period byApaches, rather than during Archaic times, assuggested by Roney. According to Roney, theproveniences and temporal associations of theother two reports of corn are also uncertain.

Two corn cupule fragments were recentlyrecovered from an open site in the middle reach-es of the Seven Rivers drainage at the north endof the Guadalupe Mountains (Kemrer 1998).However, given the paucity of these remains, it ispossible that people carried the corn to the sitefrom a distant farm area and ate it there beforethrowing the cob into the fire for fuel. In view ofthis scant evidence, it is likely that horticulture orfarming was not practiced by prehistoric inhabi-tants of the Guadalupe Mountains, or it was prac-ticed on only a very limited scale. Clarification ofthis point is needed.

Storage, usually in the form of pits, isbelieved to be an indication of base camps and

habitation sites. The storage of quantities of food-stuffs is a characteristic of logistically organizedsubsistence systems. Generally speaking, storageimplies a site that is easily protected or otherwisesecure from theft. Sebastian and Larralde(1989:86) advance the interesting hypothesis that,because some resource patches are spread overthe landscape and create a logistical problem forexploitation, some people may actually havecached food in the collection areas and thenmoved their families from cache to cache as need-ed throughout the winter season. This constitutesyet another variation on the forager theme, andto the extent that. it may reflect the situation insoutheastern New Mexico, it has the strongpotential for confusing the interpretation ofarchaeological remains.

How does one come to grips with this prob-lem? In discussing research on burned-rock mid-dens in Texas, Collins (1991:7–8) provides a testfor determining whether a forager system or acollector system prevailed during the occupationof a specific site or set of sites:

Therefore, complex components associatedwith burned rock middens which evidencequantities of remains of any one or more r-selected resources [i.e., are highly productivebut available for only short periods] to thenear exclusion of other kinds of resourcesimply, at least to some degree, the adaptivecharacteristics listed above and would favoran interpretation that burned rock middenswere specialized food preparation features.Mesquite beans, prickly pear [fruits], alldeciduous nuts such as pecans and acorns,and psoralea are examples of r-selected plantfoods.

In contrast, plant and animal foods that areedible and available for all or much of theyear (sotol, prickly pear pads, lechuguilla,antelope, rabbits, deer, bison in some areas,fish, mussels, turkey, and others) can beexploited in the more generalized foragingstrategy and have different behavioral corre-lates. Evidence that foods of this kind provid-ed the principal staples of groups responsiblefor burned rock middens would be evidencethat these were not specialized food process-ing facilities, and that those responsible mayhave been foragers.

69

These comments should apply equally well tosites lacking burned-rock middens of the typesCollins refers to (i.e., annular or ring middensand dome-shaped middens).

DATA RECOVERY THEMES

The investigations proposed for the projectsites will be directed towards answering basicquestions about settlement and subsistencebehavior in the north end of the Trans-Pecos cul-ture area, east of the Pecos River, the shin oakcommunities farther east. Ultimately, this workwill focus on the applicability of the GuadalupeMountains–Brantley (Katz and Katz 1985a) andEastern Extension (Corley 1965/1970; Leslie1979) culture sequences to archaeologicalremains in the project area. An important aspectof this effort will be to determine the presence orabsence of a boundary or boundary zonebetween manifestations of the two sequences.

All project sites except LA 129220 have pre-historic components. Judging only by definitivesurface manifestations, some are Archaic, othersare Late Prehistoric, and some have componentsbelonging to both the Archaic and LatePrehistoric periods. Because of the scarcity oftemporally diagnostic artifacts and findings fromother projects in the region (Lord and Reynolds1985; Staley et al. 1996), there is a high probabili-ty that all of the sites are multicomponent.Feature types tentatively identified includeburned-rock hearths and baking features,burned-rock scatters, culturally stained middens,and artifact scatters. The presence of pottery atseveral of the sites signals the presence of non-rock hearths, but these will have to be discoveredthrough excavation (Wiseman 2001). The datarecovery project proposed here will investigateand date several dozen of these features, as wellas locate and investigate as many additional sub-surface features as possible during our excava-tions. Every effort will be made to recover andrecord information pertinent to the followingthemes:

1. Evaluate (verify or modify) our perception ofthe cultural content of the phases of theGuadalupe Mountains–Brantley and EasternExtension cultural sequences and, where possi-

ble, augment the criteria by which the phases canbe distinguished, both among phases within eachsequence and between sequences. The dearth ofdiagnostic artifacts noted on the site surfacesduring survey requires us to maintain maximumflexibility as to what periods, phases, andsequences may be encountered during the proj-ect. Thus, the entire span of human occupation inthe New World (Paleoindian through recent his-toric), as well as representatives of one or bothculture sequences, could be present among theproject sites. Can we distinguish which sites andcomponents belong to these sequences?

2. Evaluate the subsistence trend outlined byKatz and Katz (1985a) for the Brantley area andthose hinted at by Corley and Leslie for theEastern Extension. Katz and Katz believe that amajor subsistence shift took place during the pre-historic sequence. Riverine resources such asmussels were important foods during theAvalon, McMillan, and early Brantley phases(Middle Archaic through terminal Archaic), andnonriverine resources were largely supplemen-tal. But starting in the Brantley phase and contin-uing throughout the Globe, Oriental, and Phenixphases (the entire Late Prehistoric period),upland resources became more important andriverine resources less important. While this isbetter conceived as a change in emphasis than asharp change from one set of resources to anoth-er, it led to a markedly reduced human presencealong the Pecos River. Do the Archaic compo-nents in our project area reflect this scenario? Ifnot, how do they differ, and why?

Corley (1965/1970) and Leslie (1979) limittheir comments about subsistence practices in theEastern Extension area. They note the absence ofmacroremains of corn in all of their sites and sug-gest that acorns from the extensive shin oak com-munities provided the primary carbohydrate sta-ple for the inhabitants of the region, especiallyduring the Late Prehistoric period. Is this hypoth-esis supported by the microbotanical data weanticipate recovering from flotation and pollensamples? (These techniques were unavailable toCorley and Leslie.) If acorns are determined to bethe principal carbohydrate source, are there tech-nological differences in the artifact assemblagesthat can be used to distinguish corn from acorn

70

reliance in settings where direct botanical data isunavailable?

3. Determine whether the inhabitants of the proj-ect sites farmed and, if so, determine how promi-nently cultigens figured in the diet compared towild foods. Given their proximity to horticultur-al peoples of the Southwest, it would be surpris-ing that prehistoric peoples in the GuadalupeMountains–Brantley and Eastern Extensionregions farmed little or not at all. But before thisexpectation can be confirmed, we must use mod-ern techniques to investigate the matter. If inves-tigation suggests that they did not farm, we needto determine whether the reasons are cultural,demographic, climatic, or some combination ofthese. Could the availability of extensive shin oakcommunities (acorns) precluded the need for, orusefulness of, the adoption of farming, as hasbeen suggested?

DATA RECOVERY QUESTIONS

1. The nature of the occupations. Are the prehis-toric components of the project sites base camps,temporary camps, long-term residential sites,special activity sites, or some combination?

Are structures, storage pits, other types ofpits, and thermal features (hearths, cooking pits,etc.) present? It is virtually guaranteed that mostif not all project sites were occupied more thanonce during the prehistoric period. Assuming so,we need to discover not only what kinds of fea-tures are present, but also which ones were con-temporaneous and which were not and to identi-fy the specific phases represented. Were theactivities or site function during each componentthe same or different?

At this stage in the investigations we have lit-tle observational data with which to answer thesequestions. More intensive work will probablygreatly modify our perceptions and interpreta-tions of the prehistoric components at all of theproject sites. The minimal data available suggestthat two or more components are present at allsites, probably representing two or more phasesin the Guadalupe Mountains–Brantley or EasternExtension sequences. To confirm this expecta-tion, we will need to discover, isolate, and studyfeatures and artifacts belonging to separate occu-

pations (components). Because of the geomor-phic complexity of the sites, stratigraphic, stylis-tic, and chronometric data will be necessary tofirst isolate and then group features into compo-nents.

Once individual components are defined, wecan then proceed to document the range of activ-ities that took place at each. The cultural features(storage pits, other types of pits, hearths, bakingpits, etc.), associated artifacts, and patterning ofthese remains are critical to defining site types.Important subsidiary studies, including theanalysis of artifacts and plant and animalremains, will assist in determining site type aswell as overall subsistence patterns.

2. Artifact assemblages and occupation activities.What artifact assemblages are present at the proj-ect sites? What types of tools and manufacturedebris are present? What is the relative abun-dance of the various types? On the basis of theartifacts, what types of activities were performedat the sites? How do these assemblages comparewith those from other sites in the region?

The types of artifacts at a site help define thekinds of activities that took place at each specificlocation (component). Manos and metates implythe grinding of plant foods, projectile pointsimply hunting, and scrapers imply hide dressing.Multipurpose tools such as hammerstones, awls,and drills, and manufacture debris such aschipped lithic debitage, shell fragments, andsome types of fragmentary artifacts, imply a hostof generalized activities involving the manufac-ture or maintenance of items associated withday-to-day living. We infer that a wide range ofartifact and debris types signifies a basecamp/habitation situation, and that fewer arti-fact and debris types signify special-activity sites.The relative abundance of each category pro-vides a very rough index to the relative frequencyof occurrence of each activity at the site.

Caution is required in interpreting the data inthis manner because of the effects of tool use-lifeon artifact assemblage composition (Schlanger1990). This line of interpretation makes severalassumptions about the data and the activities itrepresents, and the technique greatly simplifies anumber of complex variables and conditions.One way of compensating at least partly for theproblem of absence or poor representation of cer-

71

tain tool types is to recover very tiny remainssuch as tool-sharpening flakes and notchingflakes, the presence of which will attest to the for-mer presence of artifact types and activities thatoccurred at a site but which did not leave othertraces such as broken tools.

With these details worked out, we can thencompare the different components among theproject sites as well as with project sites withother sites in the Guadalupe Mountains–Brantleyand Eastern Extension regions.

3. Subsistence. What plants and animals werebeing collected/hunted, processed, or consumedat the project sites? What biotic communitieswere being exploited? Were the inhabitants of thesites exploiting all available biotic communitiesor only selected ones? Were cultigens beinggrown or consumed? What season or seasonswere the sites occupied?

Plant and animal remains recovered atarchaeological sites provide first-line evidencefor reconstructing various aspects of the humanfood quest. Animal bones and the pollen andcharred remnants of plants will be studied toidentify the species present and the biotic zonesexploited, to characterize the diet and foodpreparation techniques, and to provide insightsinto the effects of taphonomic processes on thearchaeological record. Plant and animal data alsocan help us determine which season of the yearthe taxa were acquired. Although only certainplant and animal remains provide seasonal data,they are very useful in helping define the time ofthe year the sites were occupied. Since it isunlikely that the data from the project sites con-stitutes a total view of the diet throughout theyear or through time, it will be necessary to com-pare these results with those of other projects inthe region to gain a better understanding of thetotal subsistence system.

It is imperative that we establish whether ornot domestic plants were grown in the projectarea. Leslie’s (1979) assessment of the structuralsites in the vicinity of Hobbs, in far southeasternNew Mexico, though without benefit of flotationand pollen recovery techniques, suggests thatcorn was not being grown east of the Pecos Riverwithin New Mexico. The WIPP project (Lord andReynolds 1985), 7 km northeast of our eastern-most project sites, excavated three nonstructural

sites but failed to find evidence of cultigens inflotation and pollen samples. On the other hand,corn was clearly being grown within the PecosValley at Roswell (Dunavan 2004). Thus, if culti-gens are documented for the project sites, thenthe relative quantities may help us determine thestatus of cultigen use by the occupants of thesites. Relatively large numbers of domesticremains or high ubiquity rates would indicatethat the people were farmers. Small amounts ofcultigens would be less clear, for hunter-gather-ers could have obtained them in trade from farm-ers at Roswell or farther west.

An important adjunct study regarding sub-sistence will be an analysis of burned rocks(including caliche) from the excavated thermalfeatures. The analysis will have field and labora-tory stages. The field assessments will documentthe oxidation-reduction qualities and morpholo-gy of the burned rocks and the patterns of thosequalities within each feature (Black et al. 1997;Ericson 1972; Tennis et al. 1997; Wessel 1990a,1990 b; Wessel and McIntyre 1986). Each rockalso will be examined for indications that it wasused as a boiling stone, for example, if it wereremoved from the thermal feature and placed inbaskets to cook food, then returned to the ther-mal feature for reheating (Duncan and Doleman1991; Doleman 1997).

The second stage of burned-rock analysis willbe the lipid-residue analysis of selected burnedrocks (Malainey and Malisza 2004a, 2004b;Malainey et al. 1999a, 1999b, 1999c, 2001).Although still being developed, this techniqueholds much promise for helping to reconstructsubsistence behavior by identifying lipid residuefrom plants and animals on a variety of materialsand items.

4. Exchange and mobility. What exotic materialsor items are present at the sites? Do they indicateexchange or mobility of the site’s occupants?What source areas are implicated?

Materials and artifacts not naturally availablein a region are indicative of either exchange rela-tionships with other people or a mobility patternthat permitted a group to acquire these itemsduring their yearly round. Judging which situa-tion is applicable to the project sites is difficultand will require careful comparison with datafrom other sites in southeastern New Mexico. If

72

we can determine whether the site occupantsacquired the goods through trade or by directaccess, we will gain perspective on the territorythey used and possibly on the identity of the peo-ple themselves.

The seeming absence of exotic materials isanother matter entirely. After all, it is possiblethat exotic materials in the form of tools passedthrough a given site. But in small sites and sitesof short occupation, the exotics may not havefound their way into the archaeological recordbecause the artifacts did not break at the site.However, it is possible that if these tools wereused at the site and required resharpening dur-ing the occupation, then tiny flakes from thatresharpening should be present. This would alsobe true if preforms made of exotic materials hadbeen brought into the site and finished into tools.Tiny biface thinning and notching flakes wouldresult. Accordingly, fine screening must be usedto recover very small flakes. Failure to recoverthese items will limit our perceptions of the criti-cal factors in human relationships and questionsof mobility.

It is also possible that the site occupants sim-ply did not acquire exotic materials. This is pre-cisely where comparisons with other assem-blages in the region and the long-term accumula-tion of excavation data from numerous sites,large and small and of all types, is necessary foracquiring perspective and, eventually, resolvingthe problem.

5. Dating the occupations. What are the dates ofoccupation at the various project sites?

Since it is likely that most project sites wereoccupied on two or more occasions, it is crucial todate as many individual features and compo-nents as possible. At the individual feature level,we need to determine which are contemporane-ous (or approximately so) and which are not.This will enable us to define the dates of eachcomponent, estimate the sizes of the occupationsthrough compilation of features by period, andascertain the activities performed at the differenttime periods at the sites. This in turn will permitdocumentation of site and region use throughtime, whether or not these uses changed throughtime, and if they did change, the directions, inten-sity, and, hopefully, the reasons for thosechanges.

The dating situation is critical in southeasternNew Mexico (Katz and Katz 2001; Sebastian andLarralde 1989) where dendrochronology, themost accurate and preferred dating technique inthe Southwest, works poorly or not at all (W.Robinson, pers. comm., 1975). Few absolute datesderived by other techniques are currently avail-able (Sebastian and Larralde 1989), although thesituation is getting better as a result of a series ofprojects conducted during the 1990s and after2000. Recent advances in radiocarbon datingmake it the most viable technique for southeast-ern New Mexico at the present time. Obsidianhydration and thermoluminescence have beentried in the region, but since these techniques arefraught with problems and generally are not reli-able, they will not be used in this study.

During excavation, charcoal will be recov-ered from as many features and cultural situa-tions as possible, both through macrobotanicalsamples and flotation samples. Because of theimportance of dating the project sites, we willsubmit samples for accelerator mass spectrome-try analysis where necessary as well as largersamples when available for conventional radio-metric dating.

6. Shin oak community study. A vital part of thisproject will be to assemble thorough backgrounddata on the shin oak, Quercus havardii.Preliminary indications are that, “historically,”shin oak communities covered about 1.5 millionacres (Peterson and Boyd 1998), but it is not clearfrom the use of the term whether this figurerefers to before or after the widespread vegeta-tive changes brought on by the period of heavygrazing initiated in the late nineteenth century(Dick-Peddie 1993).

Specific data needs include reconstruction(insofar as possible) of predisturbance shin oakdistribution within a 16 km (10 mi) radius of theproject sites; plant distribution and density with-in its various communities; and acorn productiv-ity, periodicity, nutritive composition, and pro-cessing requirements for human consumption.This data will be collected by means of a thor-ough literature search and interviews with long-time local ranchers and the appropriate biolo-gists. An attempt will be made to collect at least akilogram of fresh acorns from the project area (orfarther away if necessary) for analysis of lipid

73

74

content (Malainey and Malisza 2004a, 2004b) andnutritive composition. Determining levels of tan-nic acid is especially important, since it has impli-cations for the study of food preparation tech-niques.

7. Geomorphology study. LA 129217 and LA129218 are situated in deep sand with surfacecharacteristics of deep blowouts spaced among 1to 4 m high parabolic dunes. Some blowouts con-tain cultural materials, while others of compara-ble depth appear to lack them. It seems from thisperspective that cultural locations within the

overall sites may be spottily distributed, andtherefore some of them will be difficult to locate.

Hall (2002) recently completed a geoarchaeo-logical study of the Mescalero Sandsheet insoutheastern New Mexico. The study presents ageneral model of the geologic units, their originsand relationships, and their approximate dates offormation/deposition. To maximize our datarecovery efforts, the geomorphology of the proj-ect area, particularly in the vicinities of LA129217 and LA 129218, must be examined by ageomorphologist to guide decision making in theexploration for cultural activity loci within thedeep sands.

75

This section provides an overview of thetechniques and strategies that will be used dur-ing data recovery investigations of the prehis-toric sites. Because each site has unique charac-teristics, specific work plans for each site are pro-vided in a later section. The methods, which aretailored to data recovery at the seven prehistoricsites, are in part adapted from Boyer et al.(2003:67–72) and Post and Hannaford(2005:73–79) and are also based on experiencegained in testing and excavating other huntingand foraging sites in southern and southeasternNew Mexico (e.g., Mbutu 1997; Quigg et al. 2002;Wiseman 2000, 2003).

GENERAL FIELD STRATEGY

Knowledge of the prehistoric archaeologicalsites consists only of that gained from surfaceobservations and limited shovel and trowel testsduring survey. These observations document thepresence of potentially significant intact featuresand subsurface deposits at five sites, but in twocases (LA 129216 and LA 129217), the presence ofintact features and deposits is undetermined.Even in the cases where significant deposits arepresent, those deposits are localized within thesites, reflecting the patchy accumulation of tracesof multicomponent occupations as well as selec-tive exposures due to deflation and dune accu-mulation. These qualities of the sites have led usto propose a general investigative strategy analo-gous to surface collection, testing, and intensiveexcavation. These stages are designed to recoverinformation relevant to the research questions asquickly and as efficiently as possible.Investigations at LA 129216 and LA 129217 willproceed to intensive excavation only if surfacecharacterization and testing suggest the presenceof cultural deposits or features that will con-tribute to the goals of the research.

Surface Documentation

Initial work at each site will consist of estab-lishing provenience controls and preparing anintensive documentation of the site surface.Surface material will be collected or observed aspoint proveniences in sparse areas or in 2 m squnits (4 sq m) in higher-density areas. Artifactswill be collected and inventoried, altered rockand caliche will be noted and quantified by typeand number, anthropogenic soil characteristicswill be noted, and obscuring vegetation or sandwill be noted. Perimeters of any surface-visiblefeatures will be mapped. These data will beentered into a spatial database, and the spatialdistributions will guide subsequent data recov-ery decisions.

Stratification

Based on the detailed surface information,each site will be subdivided into three investiga-tive strata. The first will consist of areas wheresurface indications strongly suggest the presenceof intact spatial relationships, features, or subsur-face deposits. These areas will receive targetedand intensive excavation. The second stratumwill consist of areas where surface indications aresparse or absent and where there is no suggestionof intact features or subsurface deposits. Theseareas will be “tested” for the nature and extent ofany subsurface cultural resources. The third stra-tum will be those areas where overburden (usu-ally dune accumulation, but also including high-way construction fill) prevents confident charac-terization of any underlying cultural remains.Mechanical equipment will be used to investigateand then remove overburden, with the subse-quent use of intensive investigation protocolswhere appropriate. For the purposes of this datarecovery plan, tentative strata designations havebeen made using site survey documentation andaerial photographs. These tentative strata areapproximations that serve to structure the site-specific excavation strategies. However, those

Field Methods for Prehistoric Sites

OAS Staff

strata and the associated specific strategies willbe amended once more precise information isavailable from the intensive surface characteriza-tion of each site, and as knowledge of the siteincreases during fieldwork.

GENERAL FIELD METHODS

Provenience Control

The first step in data recovery will be toestablish a Cartesian grid system across the site.A permanent main site datum will be establishedfor use as a reference for all horizontal and verti-cal measurements. TRC survey crews placed sitedatums outside the project area on all of the sites.These are relatively permanent, consisting ofrebar stakes with aluminum caps, and they willbe reused or supplemented as appropriate. UTMlocations of the site datums reported by Turnbowet al. (2000) are in error based on NMDOT reeval-uation, and new geographic positioning systemcoordinates will be obtained. A base map of thesite will be prepared using a total station, accu-mulating the locations of subdatums, excavationareas, structures, features, artifacts, and topo-graphic features, as warranted.

Surface collection and excavation units willbe linked to the grid system. These units will beidentified by the grid lines that intersect at theirsouthwest corners. Grid points will be staked andparallel tapes extended along grid lines at 2 mintervals to facilitate rapid documentation ofhigh-density artifact areas.

The basic excavation units will be 1 by 1 mgrids, but naturally defined horizontal and verti-cal units are considered optimal. Therefore, areaswithout surface-visible features will first becleared using grid control until a cultural unitsuch as a feature type is defined. At that time thefeature will become an independent provenienceunit, subdivided by grid units if appropriate.Very large features (such as structures) will besubdivided, usually into halves or quadrants, toincrease the precision of horizontal proveniencecontrol while maintaining cultural relevance ofthe excavation segments. Point proveniencingwithin 1 by 1 m grid units will be asserted when-ever horizontal integrity of cultural materialwithin structures or features is suspected (e.g.,

intramural or extramural surface artifact distri-butions).

Surface stripping of wide areas is necessaryfor the discovery and documentation of featuresas well as the artifact distributions in their vicini-ty. Target areas for surface stripping will bedefined based on surface observations of arti-facts, burned caliche, soil characteristics, andtopography. When defined, target areas will betransected by systematically placed 1 m widetrenches. Trench spacing will be determined bythe nature and size of the target area, with spac-ing up to 5 m between trenches. Trenches willserve both as discovery units and as means ofproviding stratigraphic expectations for the exca-vation of the areas between the trenches. A mini-mum of 1 in 4 grid squares will be screenedthrough 1/8-inch mesh in a systematic patternacross each target area. Artifacts will be collected,and altered rock and caliche will be recorded.Surface-visible features may be excavated as partof initial trenches only if that strategy is consis-tent with the feature excavation strategy definedbelow. Features discovered in subsurface expo-sures will be noted, and grid or trench excavationin that area will cease until their stratigraphic andspatial context can be defined. At that point, theywill be excavated using the feature excavationstrategy (for small features substantially con-tained within the trench), or their excavation willbe deferred until their extent and context can bedetermined around their entire perimeter.

Since some of the lithic debitage sizes andtypes necessary to the goals of the research ques-tions are likely to pass through 1/4-inch mesh,grid recovery will be changed to 1/8-inch mesh(or finer) whenever stratigraphy or the qualitiesof recovered artifacts suggest that increased pre-cision is warranted. Similarly, 1/8-inch screeningof grid units will be implemented within 1–2 m ofknown feature boundaries. Larger contiguousareas will be subject to high-precision recovery atthe discretion of the project director. In theabsence of these criteria, recovery will revert tothe systematic pattern of 25-percent high-preci-sion recovery.

Portions of target areas between trenches willbe stripped in grids, using the knowledge gainedfrom the trenches to modify recovery to higherlevels of screening precision, if warranted. High-precision screening will be implemented within 2

76

m of the perimeters of identified featureswhether they are visible on the surface or aredetected in the initial trenches. Similarly, if arti-fact recovery in the trenches or observations ofthe stratigraphy suggest the presence of defin-able surfaces or surface zones, recovery precisionwill be increased to at least 1/8-inch mesh. If thetrench excavation observations or evidence offeatures does not warrant increased recoveryprecision in areas between trenches, the system-atic pattern of 25-percent high-precision recoverywill resume.

Where target areas are too small or of inap-propriate shape for initial exploratory trenches,individual 1 by 1 m units will serve the purposesof discovery and the establishment of strati-graphic contexts. Recovery precision will be car-ried out so that a minimum of 25 percent of all tar-get areas is screened through 1/8-inch or finermesh.

Vertical Provenience

Just as the grid system will be linked to themain datum, so will all vertical measurements.All measurements will be made in meters relativeto an arbitrary elevation assigned to the main sitedatum. Since it is often difficult to provide verti-cal control for an entire site with one datum, sub-datums will be established as needed. Horizontaland vertical control of these points will be main-tained relative to the main datum.

Before it is possible to delimit the extent andnature of soil or sediment strata, it is usually nec-essary to examine them in cross section. Thisrequires the excavation of exploratory units ortrenches, which will consist of 1 by 1 m grid unitsexcavated in arbitrary 10 cm horizontal levels.When natural divisions—soil or sediment stra-ta—have been defined, they will be used todelimit the boundaries of vertical proveniences.Outside the boundaries of exploratory grid unitsor trenches, strata will be used as the main unitsof vertical excavation. In the absence of definablestratigraphic units, horizontal levels will be con-tinued. In general, stratigraphic control for anyfeature will be established through controlledexcavation of part of the feature to provide a pro-file. The profile will then guide removal of theremaining fill in natural stratigraphic units.Homogeneous fill immediately above defined

use surfaces (formal floors or other definableactivity surfaces) will be removed as single unitsof 10 cm or less, leaving floor artifacts in place forpoint proveniencing. Floor artifacts and sampleswill be numbered sequentially (point prove-nience or PP numbers), located horizontally andvertically relative to the site datum, and indicat-ed on structure or feature maps. Subfloor testswill be placed in excavated features to ascertainwhether cultural deposits continue below; allexcavations will be taken to sterile soil. Augers ormechanical equipment will be used to confirmthe absence of lower cultural deposits for largeexcavation areas.

Mechanical Excavation

Exploratory backhoe trenches and mechani-cal removal of overburden are planned for thedata recovery excavations where deeper soils areexpected and where dunes may mask buried cul-tural deposits. Backhoes will be equipped withbuckets between 32 to 36 in (81 to 91 cm) wide,and trenches will be excavated to a minimumwidth of 90 cm (35 inches) and to a maximumdepth of 4 ft (1.2 m) where close-up observationof trench stratigraphy is required. The 4 ft depthwill be exceeded only where trench observationscan be made without personnel entering thetrenches. If personnel entry is required for select-ed trenches, trench sides will be stepped to con-form with Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration requirements.

An archaeologist will monitor the excavationof each backhoe trench. Any functionally or tem-porally diagnostic artifacts will be opportunisti-cally collected from trench backdirt as they areobserved. After excavation, loose and smearedsoil will be cleared from the trench walls withhand tools, and all trenches will be closely exam-ined for cultural deposits or features, deposition-al facies boundaries, and evidence of soil hori-zons. The stratigraphic character and culturalcontent of each backhoe trench will be document-ed on a standardized excavation form. Artifactsfound in situ in trench walls may be point-prove-nienced. Horizontal provenience of trenches willbe maintained at each site by assigning eachtrench a unique number and recording trenchlocations on the site map.

77

Mechanical scraping will be employed whenhand excavation fails to encounter intact featuresor cultural deposits. Scraping will also be used toremove noncultural overburden from above cul-tural deposits or explore for horizontally exten-sive cultural deposits or features. Mechanicalscraping may be accomplished with a wide,smooth-edged bucket or scraping blade. Soil willbe removed in 5 to 10 cm thick layers to minimizedisturbance or displacement of features,deposits, or artifact concentrations that may beexposed. An archaeologist will monitor anddirect all scraping activities with the goal of iden-tifying and exposing use-surfaces, features, orstratigraphic breaks as the scraping proceeds.

Recovery of Cultural Materials

Most artifacts will be recovered in two ways:visual inspection of levels as they are excavated,and screening though variable-sized mesh. Othermaterials may be collected as bulk samples thatcan be processed in the laboratory rather than thefield. Regardless of how cultural materials arecollected, they will all be inventoried and record-ed in the same way. Collected materials will beassigned a field specimen (FS) number whichwill be listed in a catalog and recorded on allrelated excavation forms and bags of artifacts. FSnumbers will be tied to proveniences, so that allmaterials collected from the same horizontal andvertical provenience units will receive the sameFS number. The FS number will be the primarytool that will maintain the relationship betweenrecovered materials and associated spatial infor-mation. FS designations will be maintained fromexcavation through analysis and curation.

Most artifacts will be recovered by systemat-ically screening soil and sediment removed fromexcavation units. All soil and sediment fromexploratory grids and features will be passedthrough screens. Two sizes of screen, 1/4-inchmesh and 1/8-inch mesh, will be used routinely.Mesh finer than 1/8 inch will be used when aspecific target material has been identified (suchas seed beads). While many artifacts are usuallylarge enough to be recovered by 1/4-inch mesh,some such as smaller biface flakes are too smallto be retrieved in a 1/4-inch screen (Carmichaeland Franklin 1997). These artifacts can provideimportant clues about the activities that occurred

at a site. However, there is a trade-off in gainingthis additional information. As the size of meshdecreases, the amount of time required to screensoil and sediment to recover artifacts increases.Sampling is a way to balance these concerns; andcoarser mesh will be used when the expectationsfor the interpretive value of small artifacts is low(such as when there is no temporal control for thecontext of the items, or when there are no featureassociations that would support functional inter-pretation). However, the presence of small arti-facts provides some information, and even inlarge, open excavations without evidence of fea-tures, 1/8-inch mesh will be used on at least 25percent of 1 by 1 m grid units in a systematic pat-tern. Higher proportions of 1/8-inch screeningcan be instituted at the discretion of the sitesupervisor. Once feature limits have beendefined, 1/8-inch screen will be used for exteriorunits within 2 m of the feature perimeter.However, as a minimum, all sediments withinfeatures (such as hearths and ash pits) will bescreened through 1/8-inch mesh, as will all soiland sediment at floor or living-surface contacts.

At any point where artifact recovery becomesredundant and inefficient in terms of achievingthe goals of the research questions, the projectdirector can request consultation and concur-rence from HPD staff to reduce the level ofscreening precision from the standards set forthin this plan.

Other cultural materials, such as macrobot-anical samples, will be recovered from bulk soilor sediment samples. In general, samples forflotation analysis will be collected from cultural-ly deposited strata and features. Where adequatematerial is available within a provenience, sam-ples should contain at least 2 liters of soil.Macrobotanical materials such as corncobs, acorncaps, wood samples for identification, and char-coal will be collected as individual sampleswhenever found. All botanical samples will becataloged separately and noted on pertinentexcavation forms.

SPECIFIC FIELD METHODS: FEATURES, STRUCTURES,AND EXTRAMURAL AREAS

Most excavation will be accomplished withhand tools. Methods of excavation will vary

78

depending upon whether a feature, structure, orextramural area is being examined.

Features

Features are horizontally (and usually dis-cretely) bounded cultural deposits and will con-stitute individual horizontal provenience units.Features will be assigned sequential numbers asthey are encountered at a site. Feature numberswill be recorded on a feature log. Feature infor-mation will be recorded on a feature formdescribing in detail shape, content, use-history,construction, and inferred function. All featureswill be photographed with 35 mm black-and-white film, documenting the excavation process.Other photographs, including 35 mm color slidesand digital images showing construction or exca-vation details, will be taken at the discretion ofthe excavator.

After defining the horizontal extent of a fea-ture, small features (less than 2 sq m) will bebisected. One-half of the feature will be excavat-ed in one or more 10 cm levels, and fill will bescreened through 1/8-inch mesh. A scaled profileof internal strata will be drawn. The second halfof the feature will be removed by internal strata.Flotation and pollen samples will be recoveredfrom each stratum, and remaining fill will also bescreened through 1/8-inch mesh. After all the fillhas been removed, a second cross section, per-pendicular to the original profile, will be drawnillustrating the feature’s vertical form. In addi-tion, a scale plan of the feature showing the gridlocation, size, and location of profile lines will bedrawn.

Intermediate size features (between 2 and 4sq m) may be bisected (as in small features) ormay be further subdivided into quadrants or 1 by1 m grids at the discretion of the site supervisor.

Large Features or Structures

Excavation of large features or structures(greater than 4 sq m) differs from small-featureexcavation procedures only in that additionalhorizontal subdivisions are required. Individualnumeric designations will be assigned as part ofthe feature sequence within each site. Excavationwill begin by removing one half of the fill or bydigging an exploratory trench across the center of

feature. Because of safety concerns, exploratorytrenches will not exceed 1.2 m in depth withouthorizontal expansion to minimize the risk oftrench collapse. Exploratory trenches will beexcavated by grid units to provide controlledsamples and cross sections of the deposits. Thisprocedure will be repeated, perpendicular to theinitial trench, to provide additional informationon the filling processes. The exploratory crosssection(s) or profile(s) will be mapped and thenature of the fill defined. The remaining fill willbe excavated by quadrant. Quadrant boundarieswill be determined by the locations of grid linesor exploratory trench(es) and may not always bethe same size.

At least one quadrant, whether cultural ornoncultural in nature, will be excavated bydefined strata. This method will provide a sam-ple of materials associated with these strata,allowing for a more comprehensive understand-ing of the filling sequence. Recognizing thatquadrants are rarely equal in size, thequadrant(s) selected for sampling will usually bethe largest to maximize the number of artifactsrecovered from each stratum. However, a small-er quadrant may be chosen if defined strata arebetter represented. If a feature is filled with cul-tural deposits that address specific research ques-tions, more than one quadrant may be sampledby strata.

Smaller features are often found within larg-er ones, especially structures. These smaller fea-tures, including architectural details, will beexcavated and recorded independently while stillbeing associated with the encompassing feature.Scaled plan and profile maps of each large fea-ture will be drawn, detailing the locations ofinternal features, artifacts found in direct contactwith surfaces, and any other details consideredimportant. A series of 35 mm black-and-whitephotographs and digital photos will be taken foreach large feature or structure showing its over-all form, construction details, and the relation-ship of internal features with any architecturalelements. In addition, photographs may be takenduring excavation when warranted, and 35 mmcolor slides may be taken at the discretion of thesite supervisor.

Midden deposits will be considered large fea-tures. If subsurface midden deposits are encoun-tered by exploratory excavations, overburden

79

80

will be removed by hand or mechanical equip-ment to expose the feature limit. Once the mid-den extent is known, a trench consisting of con-tiguous 1 by 1 m units will be excavated acrosstwo axes. Perpendicular stratigraphic profileswill be recorded. If internal features are present,excavation units will be expanded to definethem. These features will then be excavated asoutlined above. If the site supervisor believes thatinformation recovery is complete and that arti-fact recovery has become redundant (in terms ofthe research questions) within a given middenexcavation, a sampling justification will be pre-pared and submitted to with HPD staff for con-sultation and concurrence.

Extramural Excavation Areas

Areas outside structures or around thermalfeatures were often used as work areas. Theseareas will be examined to determine whetherwork areas can be defined. Excavation in thesezones will proceed by grid unit. Soil and sedi-ment encountered within 2 m of recognized fea-tures will be screened through 1/8-inch mesh.Similarly, if exploratory trenches across targetedextramural areas reveal stratigraphic expressionsof surfaces or surface zones, those surfaces orstrata will be excavated with the higher precisionrecovery of 1/8-inch mesh. Plans of each extra-mural area investigated will be drawn, detailingthe excavation limits and locations of any fea-tures.

Sensitive Materials

At this time, the only special situations wecan prepare for are human burials, but few buri-

als are expected given the primarily transientnature of the sites. If human burials are encoun-tered, consultations will be initiated with BLMand NMDOT personnel upon the initial recogni-tion of fragmentary or articulated humanremains. Following approval to proceed, humanremains will be excavated using standard archae-ological techniques, including definition of theburial pit, use of hand tools to expose skeletalmaterials, mapping and photographing the posi-tions of the skeleton and grave goods, and thecollection of appropriate nonosteological sam-ples.

While human remains or other sensitivematerials are being excavated, no person will beallowed to handle or photograph them except aspart of data recovery and repatriation efforts.Photographs of sensitive materials related to datarecovery efforts will not be released to the mediaor general public.

Unanticipated Discoveries

There is always a risk of finding unanticipat-ed deposits or features during an archaeologicalexcavation. This is especially true of the projectoutlined in this plan, since it is based solely onsurvey observations. Procedures that will be fol-lowed in the event of an unanticipated discoverywill vary with the nature and extent of the find.Small features, structures, or cultural depositsthat were not anticipated will be excavatedaccording to the procedures outlined above. Onthe other hand, finds that have the potential tosignificantly alter the scope and intent of thisplan will be investigated after consultation withthe NMDOT, HPD, BLM, and any tribes thatrequest to be part of the consultation process.

81

LA 129214

A piece of aqua bottle glass with whatappears to be intentional retouch along one edgesuggests a historic period Native American com-ponent at LA 129214 (Turnbow et al. 2000). It wasfound in Feature 32, on the edge of the projectlimits. According to recent information, the man-ufacture of aqua glass started around 1880 (Polkand Phillips 2005), when the need to view andidentify the actual contents of bottles becamedesirable because the adhesion of labels was stillnot perfected (G. Martinez, pers. comm., 2006).Although the technological linkage between theretouched glass and a Native American historiccomponent seems to be strong, the dating of theaqua glass is imperfectly consistent with thatconclusion. By the mid- to late 1880s, all but a fewNative Americans had been placed on reserva-tions. If the temporal and cultural associationproves to be correct, it will be one of only a hand-ful of probable Apache components documentedfrom the region (such as the Rocky Arroyo Westsite, north of Carlsbad [Wiseman 2003]).

If a historic Native American component ispresent at LA 129214, it will be studied with thesame approach as the Archaic and Neo-Archaiccomponents. The basic research themes of estab-lishing chronology, finding and documentingstructures and other features, definition of activi-ties and subsistence system, and interpretation ofthe results in a regional perspective will beundertaken with the same degree of thorough-ness as the prehistoric components.

LA 129220

The beginning of the recent historic period ofEuromerican movement into and use of what we

now call the lower Pecos Valley and environs ofsoutheastern New Mexico started in earnest in1865, immediately after the American Civil War(Sebastian and Larralde 1989). In 1866 large herdsof cattle were driven into the region from Texas.They were rested and fed before being movednorthward to the Bosque Redondo reservationfor the Navajos and Mescaleros, to the mines andsettlements in Colorado, and later to railheads forshipment to the east. During this time, largetracts of land were claimed by Texas cattlemenwho established large cattle ranching enterprisesto supply and further develop the markets start-ed in the mid 1850s and 1860s.

Although the period of the very large ranch-es came to an end in the late 1880s, both cattleand sheep ranching continued as smaller opera-tions that have continued throughout the regionto this day (Sebastian and Larralde 1989; Katzand Katz 1985b). The structures and features ofLA 129220, a mid-twentieth-century site,belonged to one of these operations.

To our knowledge, no recent historic ranch-ing properties in southeastern New Mexico anddating to the mid-twentieth century have beeninvestigated beyond basic field recording at thesurvey level and through investigation of variouswritten sources. In both respects, much more canbe done to document LA 129220. The site features(stock pens, pipes, fallen windmill stand, watertanks, etc.) need to be more thoroughly invento-ried, measured, described, and photographed.Archival research is needed to document the his-tory of site use, land ownership through time,and the overall ranching operation of which thissite was a part. A variety of archival sources(homestead deeds if applicable, ownershipdeeds, local histories, etc.) should be consulted,and long-time residents and other knowledge-able persons should be interviewed.

Data Recovery Plan for Historic Components

83

Our current knowledge of the sites is limitedto observations of surface materials, some ofwhich may have been exposed by constructionactivities and erosion, and limited shovel andtrowel testing performed by TRC in 2000.Consequently, data recovery excavations at thesites will proceed in phases oriented towardassessing the nature, depth, and extent ofdeposits at each site, and toward recovering datafrom the components represented at each site.Table 23 summarizes the number of featuresidentified and the area within current project lim-its of each of the sites.

GENERAL SAMPLING STRATEGY

Areas defined as sites are in several casesvery large, as are portions of the sites within theproject limits. It is not possible to completelyexcavate areas this large, and the following sam-pling strategy will be implemented to maximizecultural data recovery and supplement it withgeomorphological observations to establish envi-ronmental context. In all phases of excavation, itis critical that the field personnel have flexibilityto adapt levels of coverage to the sites as theybecome better understood and defined. The pro-

cedures outlined here are designed to examineand record areas of high likelihood of culturalremains and to provide high probabilities ofdetecting features not apparent from the surface.These sampling strata will be addressed in orderat each site. Not all sites contain all three strata.

Stratum 1

Large areas of five sites have been exposed,showing wholly or partially articulated featuresand artifact concentrations suggesting that intactfeatures and surface artifact distributions arepresent. Excavation will include a feature-

focused strategy to include 1/8-inch screening ofboth the feature and a continuous area of at least2 m outside the perimeter of the feature.Excavation will also include a surface-focusedstrategy based on sampling, with expansionwhere additional features are encountered. Atleast 40 percent of Stratum 1 areas will be subject-ed to hand excavation. Backhoe trenching andblading will follow, with hand excavation expan-sions from any discovered features. We will fol-low surfaces under any immediately adjacentoverburden or dune areas (into Stratum 3 areas)to define the relationships between the overbur-

Data Recovery Strategies for LA 113042, LA 129214, LA 129216,LA 129217, LA 129218, LA 129220, LA 129222, AND LA 129300

Site Area Number ofw ithin Features Stratum 1 Stratum 2 Stratum 3Project w ithin (sq m) (sq m) (sq m)(sq m) Project

LA 113042 37047 4 4975 16224 5885LA 129214 16174 17 4918 2557 9470LA 129216 1789 0 0 1258 531LA 129217 5975 4 548 0 5427LA 129218 6384 6 632 0 5752LA 129220 5251 1 0 0 0LA 129222 6353 0 0 0 6353LA 129300 7700 3 495 4076 2103Total 86673 35 11568 24115 35521

Table 23. Area, features, and sampling strata w ithin the project limits

Area of Strata w ithin Project Limits

Table 23. Area, features, and sampling strata within the project limits

den and the cultural deposits prior to initiatingStratum 3 investigations.

Stratum 2

Areas with good surface visibility in whichcultural evidence is sparse or clearly disturbedwill be sampled on a surface-focused basis.Hand-excavated grid units will be placed judi-ciously to explore specific cultural and deposi-tional settings within the stratum, covering atleast 4 percent of the stratum (equivalent to a sin-gle 1 by 1 m unit in each 5 by 5 m area of the stra-tum). All isolated units will be screened through1/8-inch mesh, while the site supervisor mayelect to use 1/4-inch mesh for contiguous units aslong as at least 25 percent of the contiguous unitsare screened through 1/8-inch mesh. Any fea-tures or surfaces encountered by these test unitswill be excavated by procedures outlined forStratum 1. In areas of Stratum 2 where features orsurfaces are not encountered, backhoe trencheswill be judiciously placed, with a density of atleast one per 20 m of the maximum dimension ofthe area. Any cultural evidence exposed by thetrenches will be pursued consistent with Stratum1 procedures, after the mechanical removal ofoverburden. The final phase of investigation inStratum 2 areas will be surface blading to exposelarge areas quickly. Any features will be investi-gated as indicated for Stratum 1.

Stratum 3

Areas with substantial dune accumulation orroad construction fill will be investigated with atrenching strategy to determine the presence andnature of cultural deposits, features, or surfaces.In most cases, these procedures will be initiatedafter adjacent Strata 1 and 2 investigations havebeen completed, since extensive use of heavyequipment in this phase will be deleterious to theintegrity of other site areas. Initial trenches willbe placed judiciously through the overburdenmaterial to provide profiles for the observation ofboth cultural stratigraphy and geomorphology.Trench location and length will be determined bythe nature and extent of the overburden (ratherthan the more systematic placement of Stratum 2trenches), with spacing equivalent to one trenchper 20 m of the longest dimension of the stratum.

Features or surfaces exposed within the duneoverburden will initiate feature- or surface-focused excavation strategies. After the natureand depth of the overburden is understood fromthe trenches, and after included cultural featuresor surfaces are excavated, heavy equipment willbe used to remove the overburden to a depthimmediately above any basal cultural surfaces asdefined within the trenches and at the margins ofadjacent Stratum 1 or 2 excavations. Any featuresor surfaces encountered will be investigated byinvoking feature- or surface-focused strategies asdescribed for Stratum 1. Additional mechanicalscraping will proceed as the penultimate inves-tigative tactic, as described for Stratum 2. Anyfeatures noted during these mechanical investi-gations will be subject to hand excavation. Finalmechanical trenching will evaluate the possibili-ty of addition buried features or culturaldeposits.

INDIVIDUAL SITE INVESTIGATION PLANS

The following plans are examples of how thedata recovery might proceed at the sites, giventheir individual characteristics, the research goalsof the project, and the basic procedures that havebeen proposed to achieve those goals. Field per-sonnel will make the final decisions concerningimplementation of this data recovery plan, con-sulting with NMDOT, BLM, and HPD staff if thedecisions could be construed as a departure fromthe general principals and procedures outlinedabove.

LA 113042

Temporally diagnostic artifacts indicate thatArchaic and Formative period components arepresent. Prehistoric surface artifacts are most vis-ible and abundant in deflated or blowout areasthat cover the site area. Cultural deposits areexpected to be of mixed age and will be found atvariable though mostly shallow depth. Apartfrom dune overburden, localized deposits at least0.5 m deep are known to exist because of priordisturbance. A total of 37,047 sq m of the total sitearea of 109,111 sq m are within the project limits.The project limits overlap two discontinuousareas of the site, one defined by the new high-

84

way, where construction activities will takeplace, and one where the old right-of-way will beremoved and the easement will be rehabilitated.Relatively few recorded features are within theproject limits, and they are mostly smaller con-centrations of burned caliche, although oneextensive area of burned caliche is present. Dunedevelopment within the project limits is suffi-cient to make considerable sand removal neces-sary. The site area as originally defined by TRCextended across the gas pipeline at the east end ofthe present site boundary, and that area will beexamined during surface collection to confirmthe accuracy of the present boundary location.

We expect that surface characterization with-in the project limits will define four discontinu-ous Stratum 1 areas, totaling about 5,000 sq m(Fig. 23). Three of these areas include defined fea-tures, while one may include a feature. Four larg-er areas are defined as Stratum 2, encompassingabout 16,000 sq m. This area includes portions ofthe existing right-of-way that were cut duringoriginal road construction. Two areas that aredefined as Stratum 3 within the proposed roadalignment, about 5,900 sq m, are covered bydunes.

Site treatment sequence:

1. Establish site grid and main datums. The TRCdatum is in place, but UTM location needs to beverified.

2. Systematic surface characterization within theproject limits. This consists of 100-percent artifactcollection employing an electronic total stationfor point-proveniencing in low-density areas and2 by 2 m collection units in higher-density areas.Surface occurrences of burned rock and burnedcaliche will be mapped and quantified. Siteboundaries will be redefined following this stage,if warranted.

3. The site surface will be divided into the threetreatment strata based on surface distributions ofartifacts, burned caliche and rock, and topogra-phy.

4. Feature and surface-focused excavations willbe initiated within the four Stratum 1 areas. Inaddition to the features and their surrounding

surfaces, trenches of contiguous 1 by 1 m unitswill be placed across the areas away from the sur-face-visible features. Additional isolated unitswill be placed judiciously to document spatialvariability and discover the nature of subsurfacedeposits away from features. Excavation unitswill be placed at the transitions between Stratum1 and Strata 2 and 3 deposits to help guide laterdecisions concerning overburden removal andcorrelations between any cultural strata withinthe dunes and the apparently deflated depositsthat dominate Stratum 1.

5. Stratum 1 areas will be investigated by judi-ciously placed excavation units and exploratorytrenches along with focused excavations aroundsurface-defined features.

6. If additional subsurface-defined features orartifact concentrations are identified in the initialinvestigations of Stratum 1, then excavations willfollow the intensive strategy described below.

7. Features or deposits will be intensively exca-vated. Hand excavation will be expanded fromtest units or exploratory trenches to define fea-tures or define the extent and depth of artifactdistributions or cultural deposits. Excavationsaround features will be expanded to expose asso-ciated surfaces, features, or deposits.

8. Features, including structures, will be excavat-ed using hand techniques and fully documented.

9. Four percent of the area where subsurfacedeposits are less likely (Stratum 2) will be sam-pled using 1 by 1 m units placed judiciously inindividual areas of the stratum. Shovel tests,backhoe trenching, and mechanical scraping willbe used to confirm the extent of negative resultsfrom these test units.

10. If subsurface cultural materials, features, ordeposits are encountered in Stratum 2, the areaswill be investigated using Stratum 1 procedures.Excavations will be expanded and will follow theintensive strategies for features and surfaces.

11. The site map will be continuously annotatedto show excavation areas and features or theextent of the cultural deposit.

85

86

Str

atu

m 1

Str

atu

m 2

Str

atu

m 3

site

lim

its

0

m

ete

rs

1

00

20

0

site

lim

its

pro

posed R

-O-W

exis

ting R

-O-W

pro

posed R

-O-W

featu

re

exis

ting R

-O-W

LA

11

30

42

Figu

re 2

3. D

ata

reco

very

str

ateg

y, L

A 1

1304

2.

12. Once hand excavation and documentation ofartifacts, features, or cultural deposits has beencompleted in adjacent Stratum 1 and 2 areas,mechanical equipment will be used to trenchthrough areas of overburden (Stratum 3). Thetrenches will be documented for cultural andgeomorphological information.

13. If cultural features or deposits are encoun-tered, the Stratum 1 procedures will be invoked.Mechanical equipment may be used to removenoncultural material–bearing overburden toadvance the hand-excavation effort. Followingcompletion of hand excavation of any culturalmaterials within the overburden layer, the over-burden will be removed. Additional mechanicaltrenching and scraping will confirm the absenceof cultural features. If features are encountered,they will be excavated per Stratum 1 procedures.

14. Final site mapping will be conducted.

LA 129214

This multicomponent site has evidence ofArchaic through Formative occupations, includ-ing a possible historic Native American compo-nent. Large quantities of cultural material are vis-ible in blowouts between dunes over a large area,and a number of features are indicated. Intact,subsurface deposits are likely, and large collec-tions of artifacts may be anticipated, since over16,000 sq m of the site as currently defined arewithin the project limits. The combination of avery high density of cultural material in exposedareas and a high proportion of dune coveragemakes this site a candidate for requiring the mostwork of any on the project. In addition to theidentified features, we observed continuingburned caliche and some artifacts along the baseof the existing highway prism extending easttoward LA 113042 within the old right-of-way.Surface recording along this portion of the siteboundary may extend the site area further duringthe early stages of data recovery operations.

The majority of the site area within the proj-ect limits falls tentatively within the definitionsof Stratum 1 or 3 (Fig. 24). Four discontinuousareas of Stratum 1 are within the project area(about 4,900 sq m). A long, narrow area lies to thesouth of the present highway alignment, and two

slightly smaller circular areas lie in blowouts tothe east along the planned alignment. A muchlarger area (about 2,850 m), surrounding a dune,occupies most of the northwestern quarter of theproject limits. Two areas of Stratum 2 aredefined, one at the southwestern corner of theproject area, and one at the northeastern corner(about 2,560 sq m). Both areas are adjacent toareas of Stratum 1. Areas of high dunes or theexisting highway grade cover the remainder ofthe site (about 9,470 sq m).


1. Establish site grid and main datums.

2. Conduct systematic surface artifact collectionand characterization within project limits.Artifacts will be point-provenienced in low-den-sity areas within 2 by 2 m collection units in areasof moderate density areas, and within 1 by 1 mcollection units in the areas of highest artifactdensity within Stratum 1.

3. Formal strata definitions will be refined basedon the surface information.

4. Feature- and surface-focused excavations willbe initiated within the four Stratum 1 areas. Inaddition to the features and their surroundingsurfaces, trenches of contiguous 1 by 1 m unitswill be placed across the areas away from the sur-face-visible features. Additional isolated unitswill be placed judiciously to document spatialvariability and discover the nature of subsurfacedeposits away from features. Excavation unitswill be placed at the transitions between Stratum1 and Stratum 3 deposits to help guide later deci-sions concerning overburden removal and corre-lations between any cultural strata within thedunes and the apparently deflated deposits thatdominate Stratum 1.

5. Any subsurface features or cultural depositsdetected away from the surface-visible featureswill be excavated by expansions of the trenchesor isolated units. We expect that considerablymore than 40 percent of the surface of theStratum 1 areas will be excavated at this site(more than 1,970 sq m).

87

88

0 m

ete

rs

100

Str

atu

m 1

Str

atu

m 2

Str

atu

m 3

featu

re

exis

ting R

-O-W

pro

pose

d R

-O-W

pro

posed R

-O-WLA

12

92

14

exis

ting R

-O-W

site

lim

its

site lim

its

Figu

re 2

4. D

ata

reco

very

stra

tegy

, LA

129

214.

6. The two Stratum 2 areas are contiguous withStratum 1 areas. Judicious placement of test unitswithin these areas will be guided by the experi-ence gained in the adjacent higher-density areas.At least 4 percent of the area will be sampled (atleast 103 sq m). Any discoveries of intact featuresor cultural deposits will result in expansions ofthe excavation units, following Stratum 1 proto-cols.

7. Backhoe trenching and mechanical scraping ofStratum 1 and contiguous Stratum 2 areas will becarried out at the conclusion of hand excavations.Backhoe trenches will be placed judiciously, withan average density of at least one trench per 20 mof linear dimension. South of the existing high-way, backhoe trenches will be placed parallel tothe length of the right-of-way. Features and cul-tural deposits detected in the backhoe trencheswill be documented, and hand excavation of fea-tures and adjacent surfaces will be pursued. Thetrenches will also provide information on sitegeomorphology.

8. Backhoe trenches will be carried into the adja-cent dune areas of Stratum 3. Trenches will beplaced judiciously, aligned to provide strati-graphic exposures through dune areas for bothgeomorphologic and archaeological observa-tions. Trench density will be equivalent to onetrench per 20 m of linear dimension.

9. Features or cultural deposits encounteredwithin the dune overburden will be excavatedper Stratum 1 protocol, with the ancillary goal ofsetting a lower bound definition for massivedune removal.

10. Any features, surfaces, or other culturaldeposits that had been defined by Stratum 1excavations and that had continued underneaththe overburden of Stratum 3 would be followedinto the Stratum 3 areas. We anticipate that morethan 4 percent of Stratum 3 ultimately will besubject to hand excavation.

11. Upon the completion of the hand excavationsample within Stratum 3, mechanical equipmentwill be used to systematically trench the areas,extending geomorphic observations downwardand serving to discover any additional features

or surfaces. Any such discoveries will be subjectto hand excavation.

12. Following trenching, and guided by strati-graphic observations, remaining unexcavatedareas of Stratum 3 will mechanically scraped, andany identified features will be excavated.


LA 129216

About 16 percent of the site area (about 1,790sq m) falls within the project limits, within a stripthat is less than 15 m wide and 170 m long.Visible features are outside the project limits,although two burned caliche concentrations arewithin 10 m of the project boundary. A singlearrow point is evidence of a Formative periodoccupation of the site, although the combinationof burned caliche and the lack of pottery suggestthat pre-Formative components may also bepresent or dominant. The surface manifestationof this site was considered inconclusive in termsof determining whether the site was eligible forinclusion in the NRHP.

The site is in a dune area, although the dunesat this site are not as high as in many of the sitesto the east (this is the westernmost site in theproject area). None of the site surface within theproject limits qualifies as Stratum 1. A large areaat the west end (about 1,250 sq m) and a smallerarea on the east end (about 110 sq m) fall withinthe definition of Stratum 2 (Fig. 25). A small inter-mediate portion of the site (about 530 sq m) iscovered by dunes and is defined as Stratum 3.


1. Establish site grid and main datums.

2. Conduct systematic surface artifact collectionand surface characterization within project lim-its. Artifacts will be point-provenienced overmost of the site surface, using 2 by 2 m grids onlyif any areas of high artifact density are discov-ered.

3. Formal strata definitions will be made basedon the surface information.

89

90

0 m

ete

rs 100

Str

atu

m 2

Str

atu

m 3

fea

ture

LA

12

92

16

pro

pose

d R

-O-W

site lim

its

site lim

its

pro

pose

d R

-O-W

Figu

re 2

5. D

ata

reco

very

str

ateg

y, L

A 1

2621

6.

4. At least 4 percent of the area where subsurfacedeposits are not expected (Stratum 2) will besampled using 1 by 1 m units placed judiciouslywithin the stratum.

5. If subsurface cultural materials, features, ordeposits are encountered in Stratum 2, the areaswill be expanded with hand excavation.Excavation protocols will follow the intensivestrategies for features and surfaces.

6. Backhoe trenching will take place parallel tothe length of the highway and adjacent to theedge of the project limits. The trenches will becarried through the areas of Stratum 2 and intothe area of Stratum 3 to establish the relationshipbetween the dune field and the adjacent portionsof the site.

7. Backhoe trenches will be placed within thedune field (Stratum 3) to establish geomorphicprofiles and to look for internal cultural featuresor deposits. Two site features lie within 10 m ofthe project boundary adjacent to Stratum 3deposits, and that area will be examined closely.

8. Any features or cultural deposits encounteredwithin the dune overburden will be excavated byhand.

9. Using stratigraphic profiles and any informa-tion from hand excavation as a guide, the duneoverburden material will be removed from theStratum 3 area. If features or cultural deposits areencountered, they will be excavated per Stratum1 procedures.

10. Upon the completion of the hand-excavationsample within Stratum 3, mechanical equipmentwill be used to systematically trench the areas,extending geomorphic observations downwardand serving to discover any additional featuresor surfaces. Any such discoveries will be subjectto hand excavation.

11. Following trenching, and guided by strati-graphic observations, remaining unexcavatedareas of the site within the project limits will bemechanically scraped, and any identified fea-tures will be excavated.


LA 129217 and LA 129218

LA 129217 and LA 129218 are adjacent toeach other in the same geomorphic setting. Theirpartition is more administrative than substan-tive. They will be maintained as distinct adminis-trative units, but their excavation will be carriedout in tandem for the sake of efficiency and com-parability.

Both sites within the project limits consist ofdunes and the existing highway right-of-way cut-ting through those dunes. Both sites exhibit fea-tures of burned caliche scatters within blowouts,with light artifact scatters and projectile pointstyles suggesting Archaic occupations. Intact cul-tural features were documented for LA 129218,and it is considered eligible for inclusion in theNRHP. Surface observations of LA 129217 wereconsidered inconclusive for determination ofNRHP eligibility.

The entire site area of both sites is covered bylarge dunes, and all could logically be consideredStratum 3. However, there are some areas withconcentrated features, and these have beenplaced in Stratum 1 so that they can be investigat-ed during the first phase of excavation (Fig. 26).This will prevent the features from being dam-aged during subsequent sand removal and pro-vide insight into the depth and nature of culturalmaterials and surfaces. The remainder of the siteswithin the project limits is Stratum 3. It includesa portion under the existing NM 128 pavement,which will be rehabilitated. The project boundaryon the northeast side is therefore determined bythe location of the existing right-of-way fence.The site portions placed in Stratum 3 will requireextensive sand removal and monitoring for fea-tures. The Stratum 1 excavations will serve asguides to the nature and depth of occupation sur-faces, as will the excavations at LA 129218.


1. Establish an encompassing grid and datumsystem for both sites.

2. Conduct systematic surface artifact collectionand surface characterization within the projectlimits. Artifacts will be point-provenienced over

91

92

Stratum 1 Stratum 3

site limits

0 meters 100 200

site lim

its

proposed R-O

-W

proposed R-O

-W

feature

existing R-O

-W fence

LA 129127

LA 129128

Figure 26. Data recovery strategy, LA 129217 and LA 129218.

most of the site surface, using 2 by 2 m gridswhere areas of high artifact density are encoun-tered.

3. Site administrative boundaries will be set, andthe stratum definition will be formally confirmedor modified based on the surface information.

4. Burned caliche scatters within the duneblowout areas will be subjected to hand test exca-vation using individual and contiguous trenchesof 1 by 1 m grid units. The excavations will beconsidered tests to determine the extent andintegrity of cultural deposits in the blowouts. Ifintact features or cultural deposits are presentwithin the burned caliche scatters, they will besubject to intensive feature- and surface-focusedhand excavation.

5. Backhoe trenches will be placed judiciouslythrough dunes, creating geomorphic and archae-ological profiles that connect with blowout areasthat were subject to hand investigation. The pro-files will be examined and described, includingtheir articulations with observations from adja-cent hand-excavated areas. Trench density willbe at least one trench per 20 m of linear sitedimension, but trench location and orientationwill be determined by the dune configuration,locations of burned caliche concentrations, andgeomorphic data needs.

6. Any features or cultural deposits noted intrenches will be subjected to hand excavation,with selective mechanical removal of dune over-burden., if warranted.

7. Guided by information gained from the trench-ing and hand excavations, dune overburden willbe removed to facilitate excavation of underlyingdeposits.

8. Any features or cultural deposits encounteredwill be hand excavated using either feature- orsurface-focused strategies.

9. Backhoe trenching will be carried out to extendgeomorphic observations downward and toserve as an additional discovery opportunity.Trenches will be placed judiciously, achieving anapproximate density of one per 20 m of linear site

dimension.

10. Any features or cultural deposits identified intrench profiles will be subject to hand excavationas expansions from trench exposures. Mechanicalequipment may be used to remove overlyingdeposits if they are determined to be noncultural.

11. Mechanical scraping of the untrenched siteareas will be used as a final discovery tactic, fol-lowed by hand excavation of any features thatare discovered.


LA 129220

This mid-twentieth century historic site is onNew Mexico state trust land. It is a nonresidentialranching complex, and only the portion of thesite within the project limits is a corral with rail-road tie posts. As part of this project, the site willbe investigated through archival research andsurficial recording only. The site has been thor-oughly recorded by TRC (Turnbow et al. 2000),and that record will be field checked and aug-mented. No excavation will be conducted.

LA 129222

LA 129222 consists of three burned calicheconcentrations (features) and a light scatter ofburned caliche and artifacts. The site lacks dunesand is characterized by stunted vegetation. A sin-gle Chupadero Black-on-white sherd suggests alate Formative component. The margins of thesite overlap the limits of the new and the oldhighway alignments, and the features liebetween the rights-of-way, outside the projectlimits. The portions of the site within the projectarea qualify as Stratum 2 and cover more than6,300 sq m (Fig. 27).


1. Establish a grid and datum system for bothareas of the site.

2. Conduct systematic surface artifact collectionand surface characterization within the projectlimit portions. Artifacts will be point-prove-

93

94

Stratum 2

site limits

0 meters 100

site limits

proposed R-O-W

existing R-O-W

proposed R-O-W

feature

existing R-O-W

LA 129222

Figure 27. Data recovery strategy, LA 129222.

nienced over most of the site surface, using 2 by2 m grids only where areas of high artifact densi-ty are encountered.

3. The stratum definition will be formally con-firmed or modified based on the surface informa-tion. Areas within the existing right-of-way thathave been cut and that lack surficial evidence ofcultural materials will be excluded from the defi-nition of Stratum 2 for hand excavation, but theywill be included for the purposes of mechanicalinvestigation.

4. The Stratum 2 areas exclusive of the cut areasas defined above will be sampled with judicious-ly placed 1 by 1 m excavation units. At least 4percent of the areas of Stratum 2 within the proj-ect limits will be subject to hand excavation.

5. If subsurface cultural materials, features, ordeposits are encountered, excavations will beexpanded and follow feature- or surface-focusedstrategies.

6. A single backhoe trench will be placed withinthe site area along the edge of the existing high-way right-of-way. Multiple backhoe trenches willbe placed through the site area within the projectlimits of the proposed right-of-way. These back-hoe trenches will be judiciously placed with anapproximate density of one trench per 20 m oflinear site dimension within the project limits.The trench profiles will be examined for culturaland geomorphic information.

7. If features or cultural deposits are present inthe trenches, they will be investigated by handexcavation using the feature- or surface- focusedstrategies defined for Stratum 1.

8. Mechanical scraping will be used to examineareas not investigated areas of the portions of thesite within the project limits. Any features dis-covered during scraping will be excavated byhand.


LA 129300

Late Archaic projectile point styles and

Formative pottery have been noted at LA 129300,indicating the multicomponent nature of the site.Features are often well developed and diverse innature, suggesting recurrent occupations andpotential residential occupations. The strongestconcentrations of surficial cultural material areassociated with blowouts between dunes. Accessto the site is restricted by its 1/4-mile distancefrom the existing highway right-of-way, an activerailroad track whose grade and track bed definethe north boundary of the site, and localizedflooding caused by potash mine effluent that pre-vents access from north of the railroad line. Threefeatures are known to exist within the projectlimits.

Areas around each of the three features aredefined as Stratum 1, with individual areas ofabout 128, 128, and 239 sq m (Fig. 28). Two ofthese areas are bounded in whole or in part bythe majority of the site area, which has a low den-sity of cultural material and a low probability ofincluding intact subsurface features (Stratum 2)due to shallow soils and mechanical disturbance.Stratum 2 covers 4,076 sq m of the site area with-in the project limits. Sand dune and sand sheetaccumulation characterizes the southeastern one-third of the project area (circa 2,105 sq m), sur-rounding one feature and adjacent to another.


1. Establish a grid and datum system for the site.

2. Conduct systematic surface artifact collectionand surface characterization within the projectlimits. Artifacts will be point-provenienced overmost of the site surface, using 2 by 2 m grids onlywhere areas of high artifact density are encoun-tered.

3. The stratum definitions will be formalizedbased on the surface information.

4. The three Stratum 1 areas will be intensivelyexcavated by hand. In addition to feature-focused excavations, judiciously placed 1 by 1 munits, including trenches composed of contigu-ous units, will be placed to determine the natureand extent of cultural deposits. Feature 1 is adja-cent to the railroad grade cut at the north edge ofthe site, and the area may have been modified by

95

96

0 m

ete

rs 1

00

Str

atu

m 1

Str

atu

m 2

Str

atu

m 3

fea

ture

pro

posed R

-O-W

pro

posed R

-O-W

LA

12

93

00

site limits

site lim

itsFi

gure

28.

Dat

a re

cove

ry s

trat

egy,

LA

129

300.

cutting and deposition of spoil from the gradeconstruction. An initial goal of the Stratum 1investigations in this area will be to assessintegrity and to determine if portions of this area(and the adjacent portion of Stratum 2) should beexcluded from the data recovery effort. Anothergoal (in addition to recovering feature- and sur-face-oriented data) will be to determine thenature of the interface between the three Stratum1 areas and the adjacent areas of both sand accu-mulation and low cultural material density. Atleast 40 percent of Stratum 1 will be subject tohand excavation, but the total area defined asStratum 1 may be reduced by the integrity assess-ment.

5. Stratum 2 is extensive within the project limits,but the portion adjacent to the railroad grademay subject to exclusion depending on theStratum 1 integrity assessment around Feature 1.Investigation of Stratum 2 will be carried outwith judiciously placed 1 by 1 m hand excavationunits. Subsurface features or cultural depositsdiscovered by these excavations will be investi-gated by expansions with feature- or surface-focused excavations. Judicious placement willconsider the need to understand the stratigraph-ic interfaces between Stratum 2 and adjacentareas of Strata 1 and 3 in preparation for mechan-ical trenching and overburden removal. At least 4percent of Stratum 2 will be investigated by handexcavation.

6. Following the completion of hand excavationof Stratum 2, backhoe trenches will be putthrough the unexcavated portions of Stratum 2and the two northern Stratum 1 areas. At leastone trench will be placed along the southernboundary of the project to establish a stratigraph-ic context for the subsequent investigation ofStratum 3. Other backhoe trenches will be placedjudiciously, with an approximate density of onetrench per 20 m of linear site dimension.

7. Backhoe trenching will continue withinStratum 3, with judicious placement determinedby geomorphic profile needs, surface topogra-phy, and surface distributions of cultural materi-al. Profiles will be linked to the hand-excavatedand backhoe-trench profiles for Strata 1 and 2.Any subsurface features or cultural deposits will

be hand excavated.

8. The trenching in Stratum 3 will be followed byremoval of sand overburden. Any features or cul-tural deposits will be excavated as expansions offof the initial discoveries.

9. Additional backhoe trenches may be placed tocomplete the exposure of geomorphic stratigra-phy after the completion of hand excavation.Hand excavation will resume if any additionalfeatures or cultural deposits are encountered.

10. The final step in site excavation will be themechanical scraping of unexcavated portions ofall three strata.


ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATIONS

Geomorphic Studies

The need to establish geomorphic contextsfor site interpretations may require the place-ment of backhoe trenches outside of site bound-aries. In areas immediately adjacent to site exca-vations, and within the project limits, thesetrenches will be placed and described as a normalpart of excavation activities. If trenches well out-side of site boundaries are determined to beimportant for site or project interpretation,NMDOT and BLM (or other appropriate landmanagement personnel) will be consulted priorto trench excavation. If trenches outside of siteboundaries encounter cultural resources, excava-tion will stop, and NMDOT and BLM (or otherappropriate land management personnel) will beconsulted prior to resuming work.

Cultural Resources outside of the Project Limits

Circumstances can be envisioned whereinvestigations might be appropriate withinarchaeological site boundaries but outside of theproject limits.

The first of these is the mapping and collec-tion of surface artifacts that are found outside ofthe project limits. The new highway alignmentwill open up some site areas to illegal artifact col-

97

98

lection that were formerly afforded some degreeof protection by relative inaccessibility. This isespecially true of formal lithic tools and diagnos-tic pottery sherds. With the concurrence of BLMand NMDOT personnel, either adventitious ordirected collection and mapping of those itemswill be carried out as part of the data recoveryproject.

The second is the excavation of features out-

side of the project limits that will either be desta-bilized by proposed construction activities orwhose excavation will be essential to the inter-pretation of cultural features that have been exca-vated within the project limits. Such excavationswill be conducted in accordance with this datarecovery plan, only on BLM lands, and only afterconsultation with and approval by NMDOT,BLM, and HPD staff.

99

Analyses of artifacts and samples collectedduring data recovery fieldwork are designed toserve the data needs of the research themes andquestions. Analytic subsets are described bymaterial class in the sections that follow, whilethis introduction provides a brief integrateddescription of the research topics.

Chronology is an essential focus of the ana-lytic systems, providing the organizationalframework for all other research efforts.Stylistically distinctive projectile point andceramic styles will provide immediate feedbackas they are collected during fieldwork.Confirmation and refinement of the temporalimplications will be examined during laboratoryanalysis. Technical analysis of projectile pointscan contribute to arguments of style-date rele-vance by assessing production, use, and reusehistories, augmenting and revising interpreta-tions based on shape (e.g., Moore 1999, 2003).Pottery types have inherent albeit variable datinginformation, and interpretations of assemblages,including “nondiagnostic types,” are far moreprecise than interpretations based on individualtypes (Blinman 2000).

Radiocarbon samples will be analyzed fortaxonomic identification and condition prior tolaboratory submission to develop arguments ofvalidity prior to receiving expected or unexpect-ed results (Black and Ellis 1997:18–19). The sandysoils that dominate the project area are poorlysuited to archaeomagnetic sample collection andanalysis, but if any suitable sampling opportuni-ties arise, samples will be collected andprocessed. Archaeomagnetic date interpretationsdepend on independent evidence of relevant dat-ing-curve portions (Sternberg 1990; Wolfman1990), so confident use of this dating techniquewill require its combination with other chrono-metric techniques. Experimental use of thermolu-minescence dating techniques on pottery orburned caliche will be considered, but no specif-ic plans are in place (cf. Lewis 1985).

Within the chronological framework, ques-tions of taxonomic affiliation must be addressedwith evidence of subsistence, settlement charac-terization, and regional interaction. A central

issue is what functions are reflected by the tem-porally discrete components at the sites.Functional analysis of site structure, features, andall artifact categories are complementary andsynergistic. Models of collecting and foragingstrategies are detailed in the following sections,with heavy reliance on chipped stone analysisdata. Models of local pursuit of agriculture mustbe contrasted with models of the exchange ofagricultural foodstuffs, bringing to bear multi-variate models of storage, processing tools andfeatures, seasonality, and regional interaction.Regional interaction will be most reliably reflect-ed in chipped stone raw material characteriza-tions, with secondary contributions from ceramicprovenance studies for Formative period occupa-tions. The characterization of project area siteswill then need to be contrasted with regionalmodels, and it is as likely as not that taxonomicaffiliation will fluctuate through time.

Questions of subsistence change that areembedded in the larger taxonomic questionsabove are worthy of independent study. Theyrequire strong floral and faunal data sets, both todescribe subsistence mixes and strategies and tomodel the local and regional availability of eco-nomic resources. The ultimate contributions ofgeomorphological and paleoenvironmental stud-ies (including pollen) to the environmental char-acterization cannot be predicted at this time, butthe number and diversity of site settings suggestthat significant contributions might be made toour understanding of the paleoecology of theregion. Baseline studies of the productivity ofcontemporary shin oak communities, though notstrictly archaeological, will provide importantcomparative data, whether or not shin oak turnsout to be relevant in other than historic times.

The provenance-provenience contrast that isthe basis for all ceramic studies of exchange orinteraction (e.g., Blinman and Wilson 1993)underlies inferences of social interaction drawnfrom all material types. Initial questions of localresource availability and local production oftechnology need to be resolved, followed byassessments of whether “nonlocal” reflects theimportation of raw materials for local production

Analytic Framework and Procedures

or importation of finished products.Circumstantial arguments of exchange vs. pro-curement are complex, and they carry weightonly to the extent that patterns can be developedwith a degree of redundancy across multiplematerial classes. Wiseman (2000) provides exam-ples of the interaction of recovery technique (1/8-inch screening), contiguous excavation units, andexotic raw material patterns within lithic retouchtypes to develop theories of social boundaries.Such arguments cannot be definitive, but multi-dimensional inferences and models will provideproductive structures for future research.

CERAMIC ARTIFACTS

Regge N. Wiseman

Data recorded for pottery from individualcomponents and features includes pottery typeand descriptive attribute categories. Informationregarding distributions of various type andattribute categories contributes to the overallresearch goals by providing insights relating tothe production, area of origin, decoration, anduse of the associated pottery. One of the mostimportant uses of ceramic data is determining thetime of occupation represented at various sitesand contexts by comparing a particular assem-blage to those from other sites in the region.Examinations of pottery types and attributesfrom dated proveniences may provide informa-tion regarding trends in ethnic affiliation, pat-terns of pottery production and exchange, andthe use and function of pottery in various activi-ties.

Attributes of Ceramic Artifacts

Attribute categories in these investigationswill be similar to those employed in recent OASstudies: temper type, paint type, surface manipu-lation, post-firing modification, and vessel form.More detailed characterization of pastes throughrefiring and petrographic studies will be record-ed for smaller samples.

Basic pottery classification encodes a largeamount of information. Pottery types are basedon various combinations of paste and surfacecharacteristics with known temporal, spatial, and

functional significance. Sherds are initiallyassigned to specific traditions based on probablearea of origin as indicated by paste and temper.They are then placed in a ware group on the basisof general surface manipulation, paint designs,and color schemes. Finally, they are assigned totemporally distinctive types within various tradi-tion and ware groups.

Pottery Traditions and Types

Most of the pottery recovered from sites insoutheastern New Mexico resembles typesdefined for the Jornada Mogollon area to the westand northwest. These include the El Paso areatradition (the El Paso Brown/ Bichrome/Polychrome series; see Miller 1995 and referencestherein); the Jornada Brown/Three Rivers RedWare series of the New Mexico Sierra Blancaregion (Jornada Brown, Broadline Red-on-terra-cotta, San Andres Red-on-terracotta, ThreeRivers Red-on-terracotta, and Lincoln Black-on-red [Mera 1943; McCluney 1962]); andChupadero Black-on-white (Hayes et al. 1981;Warren 1981a, 1981b). Some of the types definedby Jelinek (1967) for the Middle Pecos valley inNew Mexico (especially South Pecos Brown) arealso found as far south as the Carlsbad area.Sherds of an as yet undescribed, presumablyregional “type” called Carlsbad Brown werenoted on one of the Loving Lakes project sitesand is discussed below.

In addition to the types mentioned above, awide variety of pottery types and wares from theSouthwest sporadically occur east of the PecosRiver in New Mexico and into Texas and mightbe recovered from the Loving Lakes sites. Theseinclude various of the Rio Grande glaze wares;Los Lunas Smudged; Mimbres Black-on-white;Kowina Black-on-red; Wallace Polychrome (nowcalled Kwakina Polychrome); Tewa Polychrome;Mexican Colonial Ware; “Mexican bean potware,” or historic Rio Grande micaceous utilityware; Red Mesa Black-on-white; White MountainRed Ware; and Cuahuatitlan Burnished, to namea few (Watts 1963; Wiseman 1999; Wiseman et al.1999).

Although no Southern Plains, Caddoan, orcentral Texas pottery types have been reportedfor a southeastern New Mexico site as far as I amaware, they have been reported for sites just over

100

the state line in Texas. Sooner or later, surelysome of them will show up in southeastern NewMexico, and archaeologists must be made awareof that possibility. Southern Plains, Caddoan, andcentral Texas pottery types reported from sites onthe Texas portion of the Llano Estacado, in theCaprock Canyonlands, and on the Rolling Plainsinclude an unspecified Caddoan incised ware,Leon Plain/Doss Red Ware, Bullard Brushed,and Borger Cordmarked (Watts 1963; Wisemanet al. 1999).

Finally, a “type” called Carlsbad Brown hasbeen reported over the past several decades forthe Carlsbad area. The validity of these sherds asa separate type is in question, and they may besubsumed under an established type such asJornada Brown. Carlsbad Brown sherds arenoted for their generally light brown to slightlyorange surface colors, very highly polished sur-faces (inside and out), and relatively hard pastes.Sherds conforming to these characteristics werenoted on some of the project sites, presenting ourpottery analysts with an excellent opportunity tostudy them in detail. Among other things, theymay hold the key to the origins of two SouthernPlains/Texas types: Ochoa Corrugated (Leslie1965b; Collins 1968) and Leon Plain (Johnson1994).

Pottery specialists working in southeasternNew Mexico have not conclusively demonstratedthat pottery was made by prehistoric peoplesinhabiting the part of New Mexico east of thePecos River. Furthermore, I have yet to be con-vinced that any of the types named by Jelinek(1967) were made in the Middle Pecos Valleybetween Roswell and Fort Sumner, as he con-tends. The rocks comprising the temper types ofmost of his types appear to have originated in theSierra Blanca country of Lincoln County and inthe general vicinity of Gran Quivira in Torranceand Socorro Counties, farther west in NewMexico. Thus, a major focus of the data acquisi-tion related to the Loving Lakes project will bethe collection of clay samples and potential tem-pering materials from the project area to test theirpottery qualities and compare them to potteryrecovered during the project.

Dating of Ceramic Artifacts

Unlike in other parts of the Southwest, pot-

tery is only a general dating tool in southeasternNew Mexico (Wilson 2000). Dendrochronology,or tree-dating, rarely works on woods recoveredfrom sites in the region, and most of the majorpottery types appear to have been long-lived.Surprisingly, even sites situated within or adja-cent to the south-central mountains (Gallinas,Jicarillas, Capitans, Sierra Blanca, Sacramentos),where several of the key pottery types are knownor believed to have been manufactured(Chupadero, Three Rivers, Lincoln, El PasoPolychrome), rarely produce datable tree-woodfragments.

A good example is LA 2112—the SmokeyBear ruin (Wiseman et al. 1976), or Block Lookoutsite (Kelley 1984). Although the tree-ring datingresults were not available when Wiseman et al.(1976) was published, the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research subsequently reported that noneof the many samples of ponderosa pine and onesample of piñon pine submitted for analysis pro-duced dates (W. Robinson, pers. comm., 1976).The trees were complacent; that is, their roots hadaccess to reliable water, and therefore the ringwidths were too uniform for dating. Robinsonwent on to say that this was often the case withsamples from the Sierra Blanca region.Accordingly, tree-ring dates are available foronly two sites in the southeastern quadrant ofNew Mexico, both from the south-central moun-tains: LA 1225, in the foothills of the GallinasMountains near Corona; and LA 1231, at ThreeRivers, on the west side of the Sierra Blanca(Breternitz 1966).

Recognized pottery types that are typicallyfound in quantity and ubiquity on southeasternNew Mexico sites include Jornada Brown, ElPaso Brown, Chupadero Black-on-white, El PasoPolychrome, Three Rivers Red-on-terracotta, andLincoln Black-on-red. Of these, El Paso Brown, ElPaso Polychrome, and Chupadero Black-on-white are fairly well dated.

El Paso Brown and Polychrome are radiocar-bon dated to A.D. 200/600–1000/1100 and1000/1100–1450, respectively. Attempts to dis-cover within-type distinctions for the purpose ofdating El Paso Brown by means of rim-sherd pro-file seriation have not been particularly success-ful (Miller 1995). Whalen (1996) has since sug-gested that changes in temper particle size mightbe useful in this regard, but his method has not

101

yet been fully tested.El Paso Polychrome has early and late vari-

ants denoted by systematic changes in rim thick-ness. The most common technique for establish-ing and dating these changes is the calculation ofa rim-sherd index (West 1982; Seaman and Mills1988). Generally speaking, the technique requiressomewhat larger sherds because two differentthicknesses are taken on each sherd. More recent-ly, Speth (2004:75–76) found that the same resultcan be accomplished with a single thicknessmeasurement, which permits the use of tiny rimsherds otherwise unusable for the West tech-nique. Although much work needs to be donewith the single-measurement technique, our abil-ity to get relative dates by means of rim-thicknessseriation means that more sites and componentswill be datable in the absence of absolute tech-niques, as long as sufficient numbers of rimsherds are available for measurement.

Using tree-ring-dated associations, Breternitz(1966) dated the beginning of the manufacture ofChupadero Black-on-white at A.D. 1150, notingthat it was made until at least 1400. He does notoffer an end date because Chupadero may havebeen made into the early historic period and thusbeyond the cutoff date of his study. Hayes et al.(1981) suggested an end date of A.D. 1545, basedon his work on Mound 7 at Gran Quivira.However, Snow’s (1985) analysis of stratigraphicassociations at several sites led him to suggest anend date of “no later than about 1500 and possi-bly as early as ca. 1450” (Snow 1985:23). On thebasis of Snow’s analysis, an end date of aboutA.D. 1475 seems more reasonable.

In summary, the use of pottery to date sitesand components in southeastern New Mexicocannot and should not be a primary techniqueduring the Loving Lakes project. The pottery canbe used as a general guide to where LatePrehistoric components are located, but the pri-mary means of dating the sites and componentswill be the collection of materials for absolutedating, such as charcoal for radiocarbon analysis.

Trends in the Production and Exchange of PotteryVessels

The analysis of temper and paste is an oppor-tunity to examine issues associated withexchange of vessels. The collection of potential

pottery-making materials (clays and temper)from the project vicinity will help establishwhether pottery manufacture took place there.Binocular microscope observations of temperand paste will be the basis for most source evalu-ations. Petrography will be used to confirm andrefine resource characterizations. Depending onsample characteristics, more precise paste analy-sis, such as instrumental neutron activationanalysis, may be warranted to distinguishregional production tracts.

The presence of trade pottery on southeast-ern New Mexico sites has been used in two ways.One is to date the occupations, for many of thetypes from other regions have been fairly accu-rately dated in their regions of manufacture. Theother is to look at questions of exchange relation-ships with other peoples and the potential mobil-ity patterns of the site occupants. These questionsare especially relevant to the project sites and thisregion in particular because of the juxtapositionof farming peoples with hunter-gatherers and thewell-known relationships of early Historic Plainsand Southwestern peoples. These relationshipsobviously started before the advent of theSpanish; the questions are, how much earlier,and why were they established (Baugh 1984;Boyd 1997; Spielmann 1983, 1996)?

As mentioned earlier, Southwestern potteryis frequently found on project area sites, butsherds from Plains and Texas sites are not.Surely, pottery from these latter regions did occa-sionally make it to New Mexico sites. In the past,not all sherds have been retrieved from the fieldby project personnel, the decision having beenmade to collect only a sample. However, bySouthwestern standards, many pottery typesfrom the Plains tend to weather more severelythan many Southwestern types; they may not beselected because of the natural tendency tochoose the best examples for study and curation.Therefore, all sherds will be collected from theproject areas regardless of size or condition.

CHIPPED STONE ARTIFACTS

James L. Moore

Chipped stone artifacts should be recoveredfrom all sites containing prehistoric components,

102

and in some cases should comprise most of theartifacts found during data recovery. Analysiswill be accomplished using a standardized for-mat aimed at providing long-term comparabilitybetween data collected from assemblages acrossNew Mexico and throughout the prehistoric (andin some cases, historic) period. This should allowthe comparison of assemblages that weredeposited during similar time periods but inwidely separated locations to see how differentenvironmental conditions can lead to similar orvery different cultural adaptations. One of themost important of these concerns residentialmobility, or how often people moved around thelandscape. Analysis of chipped stone assem-blages should allow us to examine mobility pat-terns exhibited by the occupants of these sitesand assess degrees of residential mobility. Thisline of inquiry may be important in helping todetermine whether the Archaic occupants ofthese sites operated as foragers or collectorswhile they were residing in these locations.

Other topics to be addressed include ties toother regions, site function, and site structure. Bytracking the occurrence of materials that are notnative to the project area, we should be able todefine some of the ties this population had toother regions. Such ties can include indirectacquisition of lithic raw materials throughexchange or direct procurement by forays aimedat acquiring desired materials. The condition ofmaterials when they were brought to sites canprovide information that will allow us to deter-mine which of these processes is most likely. Thevariety of tools in an assemblage provides infor-mation on the range of activities performed at asite, and an assessment of this data can helpdetermine how a site functioned in the settlementand subsistence system. The distribution of vari-ous classes of chipped stone artifacts across a siteoften provides clues to how different parts of asite were used and can augment data providedby other analyses. Though chipped stone arti-facts, primarily projectile points, are often used toprovide dates for sites, those dates have to betaken with a grain of salt. Especially in theArchaic period, certain projectile point stylescontinued in use for many hundreds or even afew thousand years, and often were collected andreused by later occupants of a region. Thoughchipped stone artifact styles are often the only

way to date many sites during a surface examina-tion, they are often not very reliable. Thus, datesbased on chipped stone artifacts must always beconsidered tentative until bolstered by othertypes of temporal data.

Reduction Strategies

Reduction is the process of striking flakesfrom an unmodified piece of lithic material (nod-ule) or a previously used piece (core). An assess-ment of strategies used to reduce lithic materialsat a site often provides evidence of residentialmobility or stability. Two basic reduction strate-gies have been identified for the Southwest.Efficient (or curated) strategies entail the manu-facture of bifaces that served as both unspecial-ized tools and cores, while expedient strategieswere based on the removal of flakes from coresfor use as informal tools (Kelly 1985, 1988).Technology was usually related to lifestyle.Efficient strategies tended to be associated with ahigh degree of residential mobility, while expedi-ent strategies were typically related to sedentism.The reason for this type of variation is fairly sim-ple:

Groups on the move tended to reduce therisk of being unprepared for a task by trans-porting tools with them; such tools weretransportable, multi-functional, and readilymodifiable. Sedentary groups did not neces-sarily need to consolidate tools into a multi-functional, lightweight configuration.(Andrefsky 1998:38)

Of course there are exceptions to this generalstatement. Highly mobile groups living in areasthat contained abundant and widely distributedraw materials or suitable substitutes for stonetools would not need to worry about efficiency inlithic reduction (Parry and Kelly 1987). Wherelithic materials suitable for chipping occurredonly in the form of small nodules, efficient reduc-tion may have been impossible, and anotherstrategy would have been used (Andrefsky 1998;Camilli 1988; Moore 1996). Either of these excep-tions could potentially apply to the study area.

Southwestern biface reduction strategieswere similar to the blade technologies ofMesoamerica and Europe in that they focused on

103

efficient reduction with little waste. While the ini-tial production of large bifaces was labor inten-sive and resulted in much waste, the finishedtools were easily and efficiently reduced.Efficient strategies allowed flintknappers to pro-duce the maximum length of usable edge perbiface. By maximizing the return from bifacecores, they were able to reduce the volume of rawmaterial required for the production of informaltools. This helped lower the amount of weighttransported between camps. Neither materialwaste or transport cost were important consider-ations in expedient strategies; flakes were simplystruck from cores when needed. Thus, analysis ofthe reduction strategy used at a site allows us toestimate whether site occupants were residential-ly mobile or sedentary.

Theoretical Perspectives: Chipped Stone Tools andMobility Patterns

From the limited amount of data that is cur-rently available, several residential patterns arepossible for the sites included in this examina-tion. Artifacts diagnostic of both Archaic andFormative period occupations were recoveredfrom these sites and often occurred at the samelocale. Archaic populations in the Southwesttended to live by hunting and gathering, thoughin many areas horticulture was added to this mixin the Late Archaic period. Farming grew inimportance during the Formative period, buthunting and gathering remained important.While hunters and gatherers tend to be highlyresidentially mobile, farmers are usually moreresidentially sedentary. While farmers still tendto move around the landscape quite a bit,depending on how important hunting and gath-ering are to their economy, their homes usuallyremain in one place for a comparatively longperiod of time. The scale of mobility is an impor-tant distinction between these lifestyles. Archaichunter-gatherers tended to move their residenceseveral times a year, and Formative period farm-ers tended to live in one place for a number ofyears.

By determining the type of occupation repre-sented by each site (or types of occupations ifmulticomponent), we can estimate the level ofmobility for the related occupational group. Sincelevel of mobility is closely related to the type of

settlement system and basic lifestyle, we canmake important inferences about how differentpeoples might have used this landscape duringtheir sojourn there. Chipped stone artifact assem-blages can provide information critical to makingsuch determinations. However, before proceed-ing to a discussion of how chipped stone artifactsfit into mobility patterns, we need to define thetypes of mobility we are looking for.

Mobility: Foragers, collectors, and farmers.Binford (1980) has identified two basic hunter-gatherer organizational systems, one in whichconsumers move to resources (foragers), and asecond in which resources are moved to con-sumers (collectors). Fuller (1989:17) has summa-rized Binford’s (1980) discussion of foragers,characterizing them as

highly mobile, moving frequently and cumula-tively several hundred miles annually; are highlyflexible in terms of social structure; have no needto invest much in facilities; live in environmentswhere resources are widely scattered or annuallyvariable; and procure daily food requirements ona day to day basis. Variability between recogniz-able sites will be based more on seasonal or annu-al differences of resource use and duration thanon site functional differences. Specialized activitysites are rarely recognizable except where rareresources are procured through an encounterstrategy.

Two basic site types are theorized: residential orbase camps, and resource extractive locales. Inmost instances, the latter are archaeologicallyinvisible (Moore 1980; Vierra 1980).

In addition to residential camps, collectors“should use field camps for short-term, taskgroup residence, for task-group informationexchange stations, and for caches for productstorage” (Fuller 1989:18). Fuller characterizes col-lectors as follows:

Collectors employ logistical mobility andspecialized task organization to keep sup-plied. They are characterized by use of stor-age facilities and logistically organized food-procurement parties (Binford 1980:10). Agroup tends to move into a resource zone andexploits that zone through specialized taskgroups in response to a resource structure

104

that is either temporally or spatially aggre-gated. Task groups consist of skilled individ-uals who seek to procure specific resources inspecific contexts, rather than through ran-dom encounter. (Fuller 1989:18)

The key difference between foragers and col-lectors, as defined by Binford (1980), is basicallyhow often they move their base camps. Foragersinhabit base camps for comparatively short peri-ods of time, often for only a day or two, andexploit food resources on an encounter basis.That is, foragers range out from their camps on adaily basis and collect whatever resources theyhappen to run into. Of course, these daily foraysare not necessarily random but are usually basedon an intimate knowledge of the local ecologyand landscape within the territory that is normal-ly exploited. Collectors, on the other hand, usual-ly occupy base camps for much longer periods oftime, ranging out from them using both day tripsand “logistical forays” to collect resources for useor storage at the central location (base camp). Theterm “logistical foray” refers to the planned andorganized nature of such expeditions. Groups ofresidents set out from the base camp with a spe-cific location in mind, where they can obtain acertain resource (or set of resources) that can bereturned to the base camp for use and/or storage.In contrast to day trips, logistical forays oftenrequire absences from the base camp of severaldays or more, allowing residents of the camp toexploit distant resources without having to movetheir homes. Collectors use storage features tocache resources at their residential camps inpreparation for seasons of limited food availabil-ity, a strategy that is not employed by foragers,who simply move on.

Kelly (1995:120) noted that Binford’s model“focuses not on the frequency of movement buton the organization of camp movement relative tofood-getting activities.” Thus, people might be onthe move daily, but base camps are moved lessfrequently by collectors than foragers. Foragersand collectors are essentially terms used todescribe the extreme ends of a continuum ofmobility patterns

that Binford saw as generally parallelingother scales of seasonal differentiation andpatchiness of food resources. Where

resources are homogeneously distributedand where food is available more or less yearround, a forager pattern is more likely; wherethe opposite conditions holds true, a collectorpattern can be expected. (Kelly 1995:120)

Thus, based on the availability and distribu-tion of food resources, foragers tend to moveoften, occupying base camps for periods rangingfrom a few days to several weeks. Collectors tendto occupy base camps for considerably longerperiods, perhaps on the scale of one or more sea-sons. While foragers usually exploit an area with-in an easy day’s walk of their base camp, collec-tors may exploit a larger area through the use ofshort-term field camps. However, it should benoted that both of these patterns can be used bythe same group during different parts of the year.Vierra and Doleman (1994) suggest thatSouthwestern hunter-gatherers tended to use aforager pattern of mobility from spring throughfall and a collector pattern during the winter.Thus, during seasons when food resources wererelatively abundant and more evenly distributed,Southwestern hunter-gatherers tended to movetheir residential base camps frequently, movingto resources rather than moving resources tothem. During the winter, when food resourceswere less abundant and more patchily distrib-uted, the same group tended to function as col-lectors. The main base camp was probably estab-lished where shelter and firewood were avail-able, and a large area surrounding that camp wasexploited by means of field camps.

The scale of mobility also varies for farmersaccording to their level of dependence on culti-vated foods. Farmers who depend on cultivatedfoods for only a small part of their diet andremain more heavily invested in a hunting-gath-ering lifestyle might use a mobility pattern indis-tinguishable from that of collectors. At the otherend of the spectrum, farmers who are heavilyinvested in a subsistence system based on culti-gens often occupy a residential site for manyyears or generations. Again, however, there issome resemblance to a collector mobility systemin that resources at a distance from the residencewould be exploited by means of logistical camps.

Foragers vs. collectors. Archaic components atthese sites are expected to reflect a foraging or acollecting lifestyle, and the differences between

105

these mobility patterns can be modeled.Theoretically, three types of camps are possiblefor Archaic occupations: residential bases, fieldcamps, and resource-extraction locales. The lastis presumed to be archaeologically invisibleexcept under rare circumstances. Residentialbase camps, where groups lived, were the focusof subsistence activities (Vierra 1994). A foragingresidential base camp should reflect a range ofmaintenance, production, and food-processingactivities without a heavy investment in habita-tion or storage structures. Structural remains, ifpresent, should be ephemeral and indicative ofshort-term use.

Collector residential base camps should notonly contain evidence of a wide range of activi-ties, they should also demonstrate a correspon-ding investment in habitation and storage struc-tures, denoting a lengthy occupation. Collectorfield camps should reflect temporary occupancyby a small group engaged in specialized activi-ties. Therefore, a severely limited range of tasksshould be represented, storage features shouldbe absent unless the site was used as a cache, andstructures (if present) should be ephemeral.

A potential problem in applying this modelinvolves separating foraging camps occupied forshort periods from field camps used by collec-tors. Both should exhibit evidence of short-termoccupation, and the range of activities visible inthe artifact assemblage might be quite limited forboth. In many cases, they may be indistinguish-able. This problem can be dealt with throughanalysis of the chipped stone assemblage.

The manufacture of general purpose bifacesreflects a mobile lifestyle and more commonlyoccurs at residential base camps than at fieldcamps or resource-extraction locales. Kelly(1988:731) defines three types of bifaces: (1)bifaces used as cores and general purpose tools;(2) bifaces functioning as long use-life tools thatcan be resharpened; (3) bifaces serving as func-tion-specific tools, with shapes designed for lim-ited uses.

Each type of biface is curated, but for differ-ent reasons and in different ways. Use of bifacesas cores is conditioned by the type and distribu-tion of raw materials. An expedient core-flaketechnology can be expected when suitable rawmaterials are abundant and tools are used wherethe materials from which they are made were

procured (Kelly 1988:719). Little use of bifaces ascores should accompany this pattern. When localraw materials are scarce or of poor quality,bifaces can be made to help overcome the diffi-culties in using materials obtained at a distancefrom where they are used (Kelly 1988:719). Whenraw materials are extremely scarce, mobility islow, or a specific bifacial tool is required foractivities performed away from the residentialcamp, there may be some use of bifaces as coresand extensive rejuvenation of bifacial tools (Kelly1988:720).

Bifaces with long use-lives may be manufac-tured under a variety of conditions:

In particular, tools designed for use on longsearch-and-encounter (as opposed to targetspecific) logistical forays will be undergreater pressure to be designed to meet avariety of needs and tasks (e.g., cutting orscraping tools) and thus will need to be bifa-cial. This requirement can be relaxed for theequipment of target-specific forays (Kelly1988:721).

Bifaces may also be manufactured as by-productsof the shaping process and illustrate the impor-tance of the haft to which the tool was attached(Kelly 1988:721). This type of biface might bemore frequently maintained or replaced at resi-dential rather than logistical sites (Kelly1988:721).

Using these concepts, Kelly developed amodel to aid in distinguishing between residen-tial and logistical or field camp sites. The modelhas not been rigorously tested, but it does pro-vide a series of predictions that can be applied tochipped stone assemblages. When combinedwith other data sets such as feature type andplacement, number and diversity of activity setsrepresented, and types of resources exploited, theapplicability of the model to the site can beassessed. For example, if residential features arepresent but analysis suggests that the site was alogistic locale or field camp, the model may beincorrect. However, if the residential pattern aspredicted by both Kelly’s model and site struc-ture are in agreement, the model may tentativelybe accepted as valid.

Collectors versus sedentary farmers. Becausethese sites are in an area that contains several

106

playas, we must consider the possibility that oneor more components could represent a farmingresidence. While a residential locale related tofarming use of this area would be easily distin-guished from a forager residential camp, thesame might not be true of a collector residentialcamp. A collector residential camp should con-tain evidence of a wide range of activities and arelatively heavy investment in habitation andstorage features denoting a lengthy occupation.Since occupation was sporadic or for only a sea-son or two, sheet trash rather than middens isexpected. A heavy dependence on bifaces shouldbe visible in the chipped stone assemblage.Collector field camps should reflect a severelylimited range of activities, storage structuresshould be absent (unless the site was a cache),and habitation structures (if present) should beephemeral.

A completely different pattern should be vis-ible if the site was a residence for sedentary farm-ers. Expediently produced and used chippedstone tools should be associated with substantialhabitation and storage features. A wide range ofactivities should be represented, and at least onemidden should occur. While general purposebifaces might be present, most formal chippedstone tools should have specialized shapes pro-duced for specific functions. Field camps shouldbe similar to those described for collectors, butthere should be an emphasis on expediently pro-duced and used chipped stone tools rather thanbifaces.

Foragers versus collectors versus farmers.Foragers and collectors should have left remainsbehind that can be distinguished from one anoth-er. Forager residential sites should reflect anoccupation of limited duration and may containephemeral structures. Collector residential sitesshould reflect a longer and more intensive occu-pation, and should contain more substantialhabitation structures as well as storage features.Collector field camps may resemble forager resi-dential sites in many ways, but it should be pos-sible to distinguish between them using therange and types of activity sets and chippedstone artifacts represented. Kelly’s (1988) modelof biface production and use will be employed tohelp make this distinction.

Residence by sedentary farmers should berelatively easy to distinguish from the other pat-

terns. Features should be more substantial andindicative of long-term occupation. Formal mid-dens should occur, and the character of thechipped stone assemblage should differ consid-erably from that of hunter-gatherers.

Expectations for the chipped stone assemblage. Asthe preceding discussion illustrates, chippedstone data cannot be completely and accuratelyevaluated in isolation; information on the rangeof features and structures identified at a site aswell as data sets related to other artifact classesare also needed. However, characteristics ofchipped stone assemblages can be of great inter-pretive value and help point to site function aswell as the type of mobility pattern used by siteoccupants. This is especially true of residentialsites, and to a lesser extent nonresidential sites.

Foragers are at the highest level of the mobil-ity spectrum and consequently are the mostinterested in efficient chipped stone reduction.That is, foragers are concerned with the weight ofthe raw lithic materials they carry with them andthe amount of waste involved with the reductionof those materials. Thus, carrying around a largecore of low-quality raw material that would tendto shatter when struck and create a high percent-age of waste is not efficient. However, carryingone or more large generalized bifaces made ofhigh-quality material that can be struck to pro-duce usable flakes with little waste or can befashioned into a formal tool as a replacement forimplements that are lost or broken is efficient.Thus, evidence of the production of large gener-alized bifaces should be most prevalent at foragerresidential camps. While the production of largegeneralized bifaces tends to create quite a bit ofwaste, once made these tools are light and effi-cient to carry. Large generalized bifaces aresources of sharp, thin flakes that can be used in avariety of cutting tasks and without modificationfor cutting or chopping, and as blanks for themanufacture of specialized tools. Thus, evidenceof the production and use of large generalizedbifaces should be very common at forager resi-dential camps. Expedient reduction should also beevident at these locales, particularly of locallyavailable materials. Expedient reduction can bedefined as the unplanned removal of flakes fromcores for use as informal tools. By unplannedremoval we mean that flakes are not struck in asystematic fashion, but wherever a good striking

107

platform occurs. The range of tool types, both for-mal and informal, will depend on the amount oftime a site of this type was occupied, and thetypes of tools present should reflect the range ofactivities performed during that occupation.

Collectors, who are in the middle of themobility spectrum, can afford to be a little lessefficient in chipped stone reduction than for-agers. Evidence of the production of large gener-alized bifaces should occur at collector residen-tial camps, but to a significantly lesser degreethan at forager camps. These assemblages shouldbe dominated by the expedient reduction oflocally available materials, but debris from theproduction and use of large generalized bifacesshould also comprise a significant proportion ofthe chipped stone assemblage. Collector residen-tial camps should display a wider range of for-mal and informal tools than forager residentialcamps, and tools may actually comprise a largerpercentage of the assemblage as a whole than istrue of forager residential camps.

Farmers, at the far end of the mobility spec-trum from foragers, can afford to be compara-tively inefficient in terms of chipped stone reduc-tion. Expedient reduction should completelydominate chipped stone assemblages from sitesof this type, and there should be little evidence ofthe manufacture of large generalized bifaces.Indeed, most of the bifacial tools recovered fromfarming residential sites should consist of smallspecialized tool forms, though large generalizedbifaces may occasionally occur.

Thus, two characteristics of chipped stoneassemblages are of particular importance to thisstudy: the amount of large biface manufacture inan assemblage, and the types and sizes of bifacialtools. The production of large bifaces should beevident and often dominant in hunter-gathererassemblages, while evidence of the manufactureof these types of tools should be absent or rare inchipped stone assemblages associated with afarming adaptation. Similarly, large generalizedbifaces that could be used or adapted to a varietyof purposes should be relatively common inhunter-gatherer assemblages, while farmingchipped stone tool assemblages should be domi-nated by small specialized forms, with little evi-dence of large, general purpose tools. Some ofthese differences can be expected to carry over tologistical camps associated with collector or

farming modes of subsistence. Collector fieldcamps should display evidence of the use of largebifaces such as tools, cores, or blanks. Some evi-dence of the use of these tools might occur atfarming logistical sites, but to a much smallerdegree.

As should be evident from this discussion,there are no cut and dried boundaries betweenforaging, collecting, and farming chipped stoneassemblages. Rather, they occur on a curve rang-ing from efficient to expedient reduction. Thedegree of efficient or expedient reduction dis-played depends on a number of factors, includ-ing level of mobility, availability of local materi-als, and suitability of local materials for reduc-tion. Thus, in an area that contains an abundanceof local materials amenable to chipped stonereduction, there might be little need for efficientreduction, even by foragers. Similarly, in areaswhere suitable materials occurred only in smallnodules, efficient reduction might not have beenpossible, even for foragers. To accurately assessthe meaning of the reduction strategies displayedat sites in the project area, some familiarity withthe relative abundance of materials and the sizerange in which they occur will be necessary.

Studies at Salt Creek (Moore 2003), in theRoswell area, suggest that many of these trendshave been observed at sites near the study area.At Salt Creek, though most chipped stone reduc-tion through time was focused on the use oflocally available materials, mostly cherts andquartzites, some imported materials were used,and the percentage of imports dropped from theLate Archaic to the Early Formative period.Residential mobility decreased between the sametwo general time periods and was reflected bychanges in chipped stone assemblages. Thisdecrease was especially visible in the manufac-ture and use of large generalized bifaces, whichnever stopped but did decline significantlythrough time. Chipped stone analysis suggestedthat most of the sites examined during the SaltCreek study were forager base camps.

Methods of Chipped Stone Analysis

All chipped stone artifacts will be examinedusing a standardized analysis format developedby the OAS (1994a). Standardization is aimed atincreasing comparability between projects com-

108

pleted across the state. Hopefully, this will even-tually allow analysts to investigate specific prob-lems with a much larger database representingsites distributed through both time and space.The OAS chipped stone analysis format includesa series of mandatory attributes that describematerial, artifact type and condition, cortex, strik-ing platforms, and dimensions. In addition, sev-eral optional attributes have been developed thatare useful for examining specific questions. Thisanalysis will include both mandatory and option-al attributes.

The main areas that will be explored arematerial selection, reduction technology, and tooluse. These topics provide information about tiesto other regions, mobility patterns, and site func-tion. While material selection studies cannotreveal how materials were obtained, they can usu-ally provide some indication of where they wereprocured. By studying the reduction strategyemployed at a site it is possible to compare howdifferent cultural groups approached the prob-lem of producing usable chipped stone toolsfrom raw materials, and how the level of residen-tial mobility affected reduction strategies. Thetypes of tools on a site can be used to help assigna function, define the range of tasks accom-plished with this artifact class, and examine thestructure of work areas. Chipped stone tools cansometimes provide temporal data, but they areunfortunately usually less time-sensitive thanother artifact classes like pottery and wood.

It may be necessary to sample if very largeassemblages are recovered. If this becomes neces-sary, a rough sort will first be performed to pro-vide a characterization of entire assemblages.Any rough sort will include, but will not neces-sarily be limited to, assessing each provenienceunit for counts of artifact and material types.Macroscopic examination will be used to assignartifacts to categories included in the rough sort.While such an approach does not provide theprecise information available from intensiveanalysis, it will allow us to determine whether ornot samples are representative of the assem-blages they were drawn from.

Intensive analysis will include the examina-tion of each chipped stone artifact under a binoc-ular microscope to help define morphology andmaterial type, examine platforms, and determinewhether it was used as a tool. The level of magni-

fication will vary between 20X and 100X. Highermagnification will be used for wear-patternanalysis and identifying platform modifications.Utilized and modified edge angles will be meas-ured with a goniometer; other dimensions will bemeasured with a sliding caliper. Results will beentered into a computerized database for moreefficient study and comparison with data fromother sites.

Four classes of chipped stone artifacts will berecognized: flakes, angular debris, cores, andtools. Flakes exhibit one or more of the followingcharacteristics: definable dorsal and ventral sur-faces, bulb of percussion, and striking platform.Angular debris lack these characteristics. Coresare nodules from which flakes and angulardebris have been struck and on which three ormore negative flake scars originating from one ormore platforms are visible. Tools can be dividedinto two distinct categories: formal and informal.Formal tools are artifacts that were intentionallyaltered to produce specific shapes or edge angles.Alterations take the form of unifacial or bifacialflaking, and artifacts are considered intentionallyshaped when flake scars obscure their originalshape or significantly alter the angle of at leastone edge. Informal tools are flakes, angulardebris, or cores that were used in various taskswithout being purposely altered to produce spe-cific shapes or edge angles. This class of tool isdefined by the presence of marginal attritioncaused by use. Evidence of informal use is divid-ed into two general categories: wear and retouch.Retouch scars are 2 mm or more long, while wearscars are less than 2 mm long. While formal toolsare morphologically distinguished from the by-products of chipped stone reduction, informaltools are morphologically classified as flakes,angular debris, or cores.

Attributes that will be recorded on all arti-facts include material type and quality, artifactmorphology and function, amount of surfacecovered by cortex, portion, evidence of thermalalteration, edge damage, and dimensions.Platform information will be recorded for flakesonly. Following are descriptions of attributesincluded in the standardized OAS analysis.Because material color can often be a clue to ori-gin, a series of relevant color codes will be gener-ated and applied to all chipped stone artifacts.

109

Material type. This attribute is coded by gross cat-egory unless specific sources are identified.Codes are arranged so that major material groupsfall into sequences progressing from generalundifferentiated materials to named materialswith known sources. The latter are given individ-ual codes.

Material texture and quality. Texture is a subjectivemeasure of grain size within rather than acrossmaterial types. Within most materials texture isscaled from fine to coarse. Fine materials exhibitthe smallest grain sizes and coarse the largest.Obsidian is classified as glassy by default, andthis category is generally applied to no othermaterial. Quality refers to the presence of flawsthat can affect flaking characteristics, includingcrystalline inclusions, fossils, cracks, and voids.Inclusions that do not affect flaking characteris-tics, such as specks of different colored materialor dendrites, are not considered flaws. Theseattributes are recorded together.

Artifact morphology and function. Morphology cate-gorizes artifacts by general form. Function catego-rizes artifacts by inferred use.

Cortex. Cortex is the weathered outer rind onnodules; it is often brittle and chalky and doesnot flake with the ease or predictability ofunweathered material. The amount of corticalcoverage is estimated and recorded in 10-percentincrements.

Cortex type. The type of cortex present on an arti-fact can be a clue to its origin; thus, cortex type isidentified, when possible, for any artifacts onwhich it occurs.

Portion. All artifacts are coded as whole or frag-mentary; when broken, the portion is recorded ifit can be identified.

Flake platform. This attribute refers to the shape ofand any alterations to the striking platform onwhole flakes and proximal fragments.

Thermal alteration. When present, the type andlocation of thermal alteration are recorded todetermine whether an artifact was purposelyaltered.

Wear pattern. Cultural edge damage denoting useas an informal tool is recorded and describedwhen present on debitage. A separate series ofcodes are used to describe formal tool edges,allowing measurements for both categories oftools to be separated.

Edge angles. The angles of all modified informaland formal tool edges are measured; edges lack-ing cultural damage are not measured.

Dimensions. The maximum length, width, andthickness of all artifacts are measured.

Summary

Analysis of chipped stone assemblages willaid in examining questions related to the basiccharacteristics of life in the project area. The gen-eral questions that will be addressed include:

1. How can the process of selecting raw materialsbe characterized? Were certain materials andqualities selected for, and can any differences inthis process be seen between components andsites? Is there variation in the types and amountsof exotic materials used through time?

2. What do the types of tools tell us about therange of activities that occurred at these sites?

3. How were raw materials reduced? Were therepurposeful attempts to enhance their flakingcharacteristics, or were materials left unmodi-fied?

4. Can the range of materials found on a site tellus anything about the size of the area beingexploited on a regular basis? Is there any evi-dence of changes in the size of the territory beingexploited through time?

5. Can the distribution of chipped stone artifactsprovide information on where activities occurredon a site, or were most of these materials rede-posited in specific discard areas?

Analysis of chipped stone artifacts will focuson providing data that can be used to character-ize the assemblages from these sites and addressthe general questions discussed above. It will

110

also provide information that can be used to dealwith more complicated issues concerning charac-teristics of the region’s prehistoric occupationand mobility patterns.

GROUND STONE ARTIFACTS

James L. Moore

Ground stone artifacts should be recoveredfrom most of the prehistoric sites in the LovingLakes project. This class of artifact is often used toprovide subsistence information. Such data canbe derived either indirectly or directly. Tool size,form, and other general characteristics have beenused in the past to infer function. However,many assumptions are made when such attrib-utes are used to determine how an artifact wasused. A better way to do this is to collect data thatare directly related to that use such as recoveringresidues (especially pollen) and analyzing wearpatterns on grinding surfaces. But while groundstone artifacts can provide information on subsis-tence, can they tell us anything about how aregion was occupied?

Theoretical Perspectives

As with other artifact classes, the analysis ofground stone tools may provide information thatwill help us examine residential mobility. Thatthere are differences between the types of groundstone tools used by residentially mobile andsedentary peoples should come as no great sur-prise. Archaic hunter-gatherers tended to useone-hand manos, basin or slab metates, and mor-tars. These are fairly generalized tools that can beused to grind a variety of wild and domesticplant foods, but these forms were not designed torapidly and efficiently process large quantities offood. Ground stone tools used by Southwesternfarmers, specialized toward the processing ofcorn, usually included trough (one end closed) orthrough-trough (both ends open) metates andtwo-hand manos. Such tools allow foods likecorn to be processed rapidly and efficiently(Lancaster 1983). A group that is wholly depend-ent on hunting and gathering would be expectedto use the simple, generalized tools described forthe Archaic. Farming populations would be

expected to mostly use the specialized forms,which increase grinding speed and efficiency.People in the process of becoming farmers andreducing their dependence on wild resourcesshould use a grinding tool kit that is neitherwholly generalized nor completely specialized.Examination of ground stone tool kits shouldhelp us estimate the level of mobility demonstrat-ed by occupants of these sites. By comparingmobility trends through time we may be able toillustrate some of the effects of the transitionfrom mobile hunter-gatherer to sedentaryfarmer.

Measures of grinding efficiency and dependenceon cultigens. In studying grinding tools from theMimbres area, Lancaster (1983, 1986) determinedthere was a steady rise in efficiency over time.This took the form of increasingly large grindingareas and the use of materials of variable texture.Experiments showed that efficiency wasenhanced by enlarging the size of the grindingsurface (Lancaster 1983:81), which appeared inhis sample as an increase in the size of metategrinding surfaces through time (Lancaster1983:88). While the popularity of basin and slabmetates seemed to fluctuate, and these types mayhave been used as utility grinding implements,trough metate varieties clearly reflect this ten-dency (Lancaster 1983:48–49). Trough metateswere the most popular form during the EarlyPithouse period, but through time they weremostly replaced by the through-trough type(Lancaster 1983:47). This modification increasedthe length of the grinding surface and conse-quently its area. Thus, trough metates had anaverage grinding surface of 758 sq cm, whilethrough-trough metates averaged 1,123 sq cm, a33-percent increase (Lancaster 1983:42–43).Apparent functional differences between troughand basin/slab metates were based on wear pat-terns. Both varieties of trough metate exhibitedstriations parallel to the long axis of the tool,while striation patterns on a large percentage ofbasin and slab metates were random (Lancaster1983:45).

There was also variation in the types and tex-tures of materials used. Trough metates weremostly made from vesicular basalt, andbasin/slab metates from nonvesicular basalt andrhyolite. Medium-coarse materials dominatedthe assemblage before the Classic phase, while

111

during that period the assemblage containednearly equal amounts of coarse- and fine-grainedmaterials. This is interpreted as a shift from a sin-gle-stage to a multistage grinding process(Lancaster 1983:87).

Though Lancaster (1983) was unable to dis-cern any similar patterning in manos, a study byHard (1986) shows that these tools vary corre-spondingly, perhaps because of the nature of thesamples examined. Lancaster did not look atArchaic sites from the Mimbres area, concentrat-ing on sites occupied by people who were moreor less dependent on farming. Hard examined aconsiderable amount of data on the use ofground stone tools by both hunter-gatherers andfarmers. Thus, his sample was broader, and pat-terns were undoubtedly easier to discern.

Hard (1986:105) feels that as reliance on culti-gens increases, there is a corresponding increasein mano length and mean metate grinding sur-face area. Only manos were examined by hisstudy, though Lancaster’s (1983) study supportsthe latter pattern. After an examination of ethno-graphic and archaeological materials, Hard(1986:161) determined that degree of reliance onagriculture can be measured by mano length. Thebreak between hunting and gathering anddependence on cultigens appears to occurbetween average lengths of 10 and 13 cm.Hunter-gatherer manos average 10.6 cm long,while a mean length of 13 cm corresponds with asubstantial dependence on cultigens (Hard1986:161). The longest mean in his sample was 25cm, which appears to equate with about a 70-per-cent dependence on cultigens (Hard 1986:161).The mean length of Tarahumara manos is 20.8cm, and they depend on cultigens for about 60percent of their diet (Hard 1986:161).

Thus, examination of mano length and thesize of metate grinding areas provide a means ofassessing the degree of reliance on agriculturalproduction versus gathering. Archaic groupslacking any reliance on farming should have pro-duced assemblages in which average manolength would be at or near the low end of Hard’srange. Metates should predominantly be of theslab or basin form, and there should be no evi-dence of the use of trough metates. A lowdependence on domesticates (primarily corn)should produce manos that are shorter andmetates with smaller grinding surfaces than is

the case for groups that exhibit a long history ofagricultural dependence. A single-stage grindingsystem would be expected, and trough metatesmay occur, though basin and slab forms shoulddominate the assemblage. Through-troughmetates are not expected. Farmers should pro-duce a ground stone assemblage that demon-strates a high degree of subsistence dependenceon cultigens. Manos should be at the long end ofHard’s range, the size of grinding surfaces onmetates should indicate processing efficiency, amultistage grinding process may be evidenced,and trough and through-trough metates mayoccur.

Ground stone tools and prehistoric foods.Analysis of ground stone assemblages may alsoprovide information about the range of foodsconsumed by site occupants. Pollen oftenadheres to some of the types of plants that areprocessed with ground stone tools and can berecovered by a washing procedure. The materialacquired in this way can be analyzed like otherpollen samples. A study of this nature can poten-tially provide two types of information. The firstis economic in nature. Recovery of pollen thatadhered to materials processed by ground stonetools can help determine what those foods were.Of course, our ability to accomplish this dependson whether pollen is preserved in pores in therock, and the condition of preserved pollen. Likemany other analyses, the examination of econom-ic pollen recovered from ground stone tools is ahit-or-miss proposition. Thus, our study of theuse of plants for food will not focus on this analy-sis, but any information derived will be used toexpand and amplify other sources of data. Grainsof corn starch can also sometimes be identified onground stone and will be monitored to supple-ment and amplify pollen information.

A study of this type also has the potential toprovide corroborative data concerning differen-tial uses of ground stone tools. As discussed ear-lier, researchers have suggested that varioustypes of metates were used for different purpos-es. Pollen analysis could potentially provide datathat will either help corroborate or refute sucharguments. Of course, several potential problemsshould be kept in mind. Recovery of economicpollen from ground stone tools is not a given,especially if they have been exposed to the ele-ments. Thus, tools that appear to have been

112

buried since discard or abandonment, preferablywithin structures, will be the focus of this analy-sis. Tools from extramural trash deposits willalso be considered, depending on their condition,position, and evidence of weathering. In all like-lihood, only a sample of tools will be studied,and examples of each type (e. g., slab, basin,trough, or through-trough) may be included inthe sample.

Methods of Ground Stone Analysis

Ground stone artifacts will be examinedusing a standardized methodology (OAS 1994b),which is designed to provide data on materialselection, manufacturing technology, and use.Artifacts will be examined macroscopically, andresults will be entered into a computerized database for analysis and interpretation. Several gen-eral attributes will be recorded for each groundstone artifact, and specific attributes will berecorded only for certain tool types. Attributesthat will be recorded for all ground stone artifactsinclude material type, material texture and qual-ity, function, portion, preform morphology, pro-duction input, plan view outline form, groundsurface texture and sharpening, shaping, numberof uses, wear patterns, evidence of heating, pres-ence of residues, and dimensions. Specializedattributes that will be recorded include manocross-section form and ground surface cross sec-tion.

By examining function(s), it is possible todefine the range of activities in which groundstone tools were used. Because these tools areusually large and durable, they may undergo anumber of different uses during their lifetime,even after being broken. Several attributes aredesigned to provide information on the life histo-ry of ground stone tools, including dimensions,evidence of heating, portion, ground surfacesharpening, wear patterns, alterations, and pres-ence of adhesions. These measures can help iden-tify post-manufacturing changes in artifact shapeand function, and describe the value of an assem-blage by identifying how worn or used it is. Suchattributes as material type, material texture andquality, production input, preform morphology,plan view outline form, and texture provideinformation on raw material choice and the costof producing various tools. Mano cross-section

form and ground surface cross section are spe-cialized measures aimed at describing aspects ofform for manos and metates, since as these toolswear they undergo regular changes in morpholo-gy that can be used as relative measures of age.

Pollen washes will be conducted in the labo-ratory, necessitating certain precautions. Groundstone tools from trash deposits will be placed inplastic bags after being removed from the groundand lightly brushed to remove loose soil. A thincover of dirt will be left on tools found on floorsor in mealing bins until they are ready for photo-graphing. Loose dirt will be removed prior tophotographing, and then the artifacts will beplaced in plastic bags.

Laboratory processing will proceed as fol-lows. The entire surface of tools will be brushedbefore samples are collected. Grinding surfaceswill be scrubbed to collect embedded materialsusing distilled water and a toothbrush. The sizeof the area sampled will be measured and noted.Wash water will be collected in a pan placedunder the sample and packaged for storage.Samples selected for analysis will receive a short(10-minute) acetolysis wash. Under certain cir-cumstances, this may help preserve the cyto-plasm in some modern pollen grains, allowingrecent contaminants to be distinguished fromfossil pollen.

Pollen samples from ground stone artifactswill be subjected to a full analysis to distinguisheconomically used wild plants and cultigens. Theoccurrence of broken and whole grains andclumps of grains will be monitored during count-ing. In addition, evidence of corn starch in sam-ples will be noted.

Summary

Ground stone artifacts will be used to pro-vide data in three general areas. We have sug-gested that there will be differences in the typesof tools used by hunter-gatherers who were fullymobile, hunter-gatherers who were in theprocess of settling down and farming, and farm-ers with a long history of sedentary life. Both thetypes of metates found in assemblages and theaverage lengths of associated manos can be usedto examine this phenomenon. Fully mobilehunter-gatherer ground stone assemblagesshould contain generalized tools, including rela-

113

tively short manos and metates with small grind-ing surfaces. Recently settled hunter-gathererassemblages should be dominated by metatesdesigned to grind corn with moderate efficiency,and manos of moderate length. Established farm-ing populations should possess an assemblagedominated by metates that are highly efficient forcorn processing and manos that are relativelylong. Both Lancaster’s (1983) and Hard’s (1986)analyses should provide useful comparisons.

Ground stone tools will also be sampled todetermine what foods they were used to process.In particular, we will try to determine whetherbasin/slab and trough metates were used togrind different suites of materials. Of course, thisstudy depends on the range of ground stone toolsrecovered, how well pollen is preserved ongrinding surfaces, and whether or not postdepo-sitional processes have been at work.Unfortunately, we will not be able to determinethis until at least a sample of specimens havebeen analyzed.

FAUNAL REMAINS

Nancy J. Akins

The Loving Lakes sites have deposits thatcover a considerable time span within differentvegetation zones and could contribute importantinformation on the prehistory of this region.Unfortunately, bones tend to be poorly preservedin this part of the state (e.g., Akins 2003b:130;Staley 1996:204), severely limiting our ability toframe and address questions about subsistencestrategies, mobility, and change through time. Toovercome a lack of data for the surrounding area,it is necessary to look to other areas and build onrecent OAS projects in southeastern New Mexico.

In their regional overview, Katz and Katz(1994) provide basic themes and observationsthat provide a basis for approaches to faunaldata. Most relevant are those pertaining to settle-ment intensity. The Late Archaic is viewed as aperiod of expanding settlement and subsistencewith widespread and numerous burned-rock fea-tures. Pottery was added in the Early Formativewith indications of initial sedentism in the moun-tain/plains border region. Domestic architectureand burned rock rings indicating increasing set-

tlement and subsistence stability occurredbetween A.D. 750 and 950. Exploitation of shin-nery oak may have facilitated these changes.Village life continued to intensify until A.D.1075–1125, when sites became smaller and fewer.Another expansion followed (A.D. 1125–1200),and bison hunting became a viable strategybetween A.D. 1200 and 1300. Athabaskans madetheir appearance around A.D. 1375, and bisonhunting occurred on the plains between A.D.1500 and 1600 (Katz and Katz 1994:50–53).

Faunal Assemblages in the Area

Many of the sites in this region are short-term, repeatedly occupied sites, suggestingexploitation of similar resources over time. Thesesmall camp sites generally represent but oneaspect of a broader subsistence strategies thattranscend chronology. For example, the generalconcept of Archaic adaptation is one of smallmammal utilization (e.g., Sebastian 1989:52), yetparticular sites were used for large-animalexploitation regardless of time period. Roney’sexcavations at Hooper Canyon Cave found thatalmost 84 percent of the Archaic bone was fromlarge mammals and only 11 percent from smallmammals. The same was true of his ceramic-levelfaunal assemblage (Roney 1995:72).

More typical is the assemblage from MachoDunes (LA 29363), a seasonal camp dating fromthe Middle Archaic (A.D. 610–950) just west ofCarlsbad (Zamora 2000:147–148). A small butdiverse faunal assemblage, mostly small mam-mals (squirrel, kangaroo rat, small mouse,woodrat, porcupine, cottontail, jackrabbit, canid,badger, bison, bird, and turtle), was recovered.Almost all of the bone was from the Formativecomponent, but the few attributed to the Archaiccomponent are mice and cottontail (Moga2000:119, 122).

At Punto de los Muertos (LA 116471), north-west of Carlsbad, an unusually large assemblageof animal bone (n = 8,053) and human bone wasrecovered from a rock circle dating from the LateArchaic to after A.D. 1000 (Wiseman 2003:101).Excavation recovered a fairly small number ofspecies for the sample size—at least 26 that aremostly rodents, small mammals, and birds—butthe assemblage also includes appreciableamounts of medium-sized artiodactyls such as

114

deer and pronghorn. Much of the bone is burnedand broken into small pieces (Akins2003b:118–119).

Late Prehistoric sites in the Carlsbad areagenerally produce faunal assemblages dominat-ed by small mammals and mussels. In theBrantley Reservoir area, northwest of Carlsbad,the Champion Site, consisting of a ring midden, anumber of hearths, and scattered lithic andceramic artifacts, had a small but varied faunalassemblage. In addition to an abundance offreshwater mussels, there were small numbers ofjackrabbit, cottontail, squirrel, prairie dog,woodrat, turtle, and carnivore bones (Gallagherand Bearden 1980:119–120). Later excavations ata range of sites, including ring middens andstone enclosures, recovered freshwater mussel,cottontail, jackrabbit, woodrat, pocket gopher,deer, bird, and fish remains (Robertson1985:A19–A20).

Just north of the project area, sites excavatedin conjunction with WIPP produced little fauna.One lithic and ceramic artifact scatter (ENM10418) contained cottontail, deer, bison, andfreshwater mussel (Lord and Clary1985:183–188).

In the Roswell area, the Fox Place, with mate-rial mainly dating between A.D. 1250 and 1300,produced a very large amount of bone (over25,000 specimens) along with 10 small pit struc-tures and a rectangular ceremonial structure. Thefauna is diverse, including numerous bird, fish,and turtle species in addition to rabbit, prong-horn, deer, and mussels. The age distribution ofthe animals indicates that many were taken fromlate spring into early fall, and possibly duringwinter (Akins 2002; Wiseman 2002).

The Henderson site, an adobe pueblo withabout 60 rooms in the Roswell area, datedbetween A.D. 1275 and 1350. It was the residenceof a semisedentary community that occupied thesite from early spring until after the harvest andspent the colder months elsewhere. Early in theoccupation, subsistence was an even mix of farm-ing, hunting, and fishing, while the later phase,beginning around A.D. 1300, has an abundanceof transported bison and indications of a fullynomadic bison-hunting economy (Speth1997:1–3).

Little fauna was recovered from sites exca-vated in a transmission line excavation in Eddy

and Lea Counties. With the exception of a bisonkill (LA 22107) dating between A.D. 1445 and1625, very little bone was found, and most wasnot identifiable. In addition to the bison, proba-ble pronghorn, rodent, jackrabbit, and bird wererecovered (Staley 1996:195–197, 204).

Faunal Research Orientation

The basic research framework for the workwill follow that developed for the faunal remainsrecovered from the Townsend Site (LA 34150), onthe north edge of Roswell. Faunal preservationwas relatively good at the site. It included com-ponents dating to the Archaic and Formativeperiods (Akins 2003a). This framework assumesthat these short-term and repeatedly occupiedsites lacking evidence of sedentary occupationwere meant to take advantage of water sourcesand exploit one particular or various resources,generally plants. With the exception of bison,which fluctuated over time, the main resourcesexploited would be similar, regardless of the timeperiod. Changes over time may be subtle, involv-ing slight changes in the proportion of a resourceused, what season or how it was used, and howit was processed and discarded. Because theresources were generally similar, it is often neces-sary to look at all aspects of the data and gobeyond the faunal assemblage to infer aspects ofsettlement and mobility. This framework alsoassumes (based on evidence found in the humanremains from this site and from Henderson) thatin the southeast, even more sedentary agricultur-alists continued to hunt and gather, utilizingmany of the same sites as Archaic and moremobile groups. Furthermore, it assumes that thelength of occupation, diversity of occupation,season of occupation, and size of the group canbe inferred in at least some instances and helpprovide an interpretative framework.

The Townsend Site is both north and south ofSalt Creek. The creek is not a perennial streambut, like the NM 128 playas, the stream bed andtributary channels support lush plant growth,and they may have supported springs in the past.Small mammals and artiodactyls may have usedthe spring and associated vegetation, as bisonprobably did when they occupied the SouthernPlains. Bison were absent or rare on the SouthernPlains from about 6000 to 2500 B.C. and from

115

A.D. 500 to 1200 or 1300 (Dillehay 1974), possiblyas early as A.D. 1000 (Hofman et al. 1989:165).The Townsend Site Archaic components consist-ed of two distinct camp sites, one just north of thecreek and the other considerably south of thecreek. No evidence of structures was found, butwidely scattered thermal features, a possibleactivity surface, and a sparse distribution of arti-facts suggest short-duration occupation in thesouth area. That to the north had numerous ther-mal features, a mano and metate cache, and alack of concern for where trash was disposed,suggesting these groups anticipated fairly shortstays but intended to return. Fauna from thenorth indicates a fairly balanced use of small (4.6percent rodent and 40 percent small mammal)and large animals (37.5 percent large mammal),with no mussel, bird, turtle, or fish. Site structureand artifact assemblages, especially the presenceand quantity of nonlocal lithic materials, suggestthese groups were more mobile and anticipatedfairly short stays. This is consistent with viewsthat Archaic people relied on a broad spectrum ofplants and animals, moving to take advantage ofhighly seasonal foods that were available forshort periods of time (Sebastian 1989:54-56). Likeannual plants, small mammals have shorter lifespans, reproduce and mature rapidly (Binford2001:366–367), and are often encountered duringforaging expeditions (Akins 2003a:276, 304–308).

Assuming that populations increased duringthe Formative, the effective foraging area wouldhave been reduced as other groups occupied andexploited parts of their former range. This wouldhave forced the inhabitants to extract more foodfrom the same or an even smaller area. Means forachieving this include increasing the amount oflabor directed at subsistence activities, shifting tospecies that occur in greater concentrations (e.g.,bison), increasing the use of resources that takemore time to process (such as shinnery oak), useof traps (e.g., for fish and birds), increasing theuse of aquatic resources (e.g., fish, turtles, mus-sels, and some bird species), and adoptingdomesticated plants (e.g., corn) or animals (e.g.,turkeys) (Binford 2001:188–189, 210).

The earlier Formative groups at Townsend(A.D. 570–940) built and occupied shallow pitstructures with little storage or evidence thatthey were built for a lengthy stay at the site.Extramural features clustered around the struc-

tures with relatively dense artifact concentrationsand charcoal-stained soil. The lithic assemblagehad less nonlocal material, while the floral andfaunal assemblages suggest the initial responsewas to expand the range of plant and animalfoods used. Faunal assemblages dating to thisperiod have mainly small forms (55 to 84 percentsmall mammal, depending on the structure),including rodents, birds, turtle, and fish, andmore of the bone was processed, burned, andfragmented. Thus, the use of fewer large animalsand a decrease in the use of nonlocal lithic mate-rial suggests a reduction in the size of the arearegularly exploited (Akins 2003a:304–308).

Slightly later (A.D. 990–1050) structures weredeeper but had no formal features, few extramu-ral features, and only sparse trash in the vicinityof the structures. Greater intensity of resourceuse is indicated by the fauna and flora. Corn wasmore abundant, suggesting these groups mayhave increased their reliance on corn. The faunaremains diverse, with rodents, carnivores, fish,and considerable amounts of freshwater mussel.One of the two structures had relatively largeamounts of artiodactyl bone (39.7 percent largemammal in a sample of 141 specimens). A humanburial found in the fill of this same structure hadmorphological traits suggesting a fairly seden-tary and probably agricultural population (Akins2003a:304–308).

Specific Research Questions

If sufficient material is recovered, the faunaldata will be used to document the use of thesesites over time. The perspective will be one ofobserving how groups adapted to demographicand possibly environmental changes andwhether they extracted increasing amounts ofresources from smaller areas. In particular, isthere evidence for a change in use of larger tosmaller animal forms as mobility became limitedby increasing regional population? Is there evi-dence of a more intense and broader use ofspecies that would suggest constraints on mobil-ity and attempts to exploit a smaller area moreeffectively? Is there evidence of intensive bisonuse at any of the sites? Is there evidence that thesites at the western and eastern ends of the proj-ect area exploited a different range of animalresources or exploited them in different amounts

116

and ways? Are there particular animal resourcesthat could provide information on the microenvi-ronments found around these playas? Are theredomestic species or differences in how animalswere used that could indicate use by Athabascangroups?

HUMAN REMAINS

Nancy J. Akins

Human burials and even isolated elementsare rarely found in sites like those in the projectarea. Nevertheless, there is a possibility that buri-als or isolated remains will be encountered.

Land status determines which laws and reg-ulations govern the treatment of human remainsrecovered from archaeological sites. All but oneof the project sites are on federal land, invokingthe Native American Graves Protection andRepatriation Act (25 U.S.C. 3002, 1990). This actstates that human remains and associated funer-ary objects, sacred objects, or objects of culturalpatrimony found on federal land belong to thelineal descendants or tribe or organization whichhas the closest cultural affiliation or is recognizedas aboriginally occupying the area where theobjects were discovered and states a claim for theremains. For intentional archaeological excava-tions, it is the responsibility of the federal agencyto “take reasonable steps to determine whether aplanned activity may result in the excavation ofhuman remains, funerary objects, sacred objects,or objects of cultural patrimony” and to notifyand consult with groups that occupied the areaaboriginally before issuing any approval or per-mits (43CFR10.3).

The other site, on State Trust Land, consistsof a 1940-era corral. However, in the unlikelyevent that human remains were to be discoveredwhile recording this corral, state law (NMSA §18-6-11.2, 1989; and HPD Rule 4, NMAC 10.11)would apply. Since human remains are unantici-pated at this site, they will be treated as discoverysituations and excavated under the annual burialpermit issued to the Office of ArchaeologicalStudies.

In addition to NGPRA and the State BurialLaw, the draft Department of Cultural AffairsPolicy Regarding Tribal Consultation requires

that OAS make a good-faith effort to consult withNative American governments when actionscould affect Native American human remains.Under this policy, OAS will at a minimum informIsleta del Sur, Acoma, Mescalero, the Kiowa ofOklahoma, Comanche, and the Apaches ofOklahoma of the project location and nature ofthe sites. Otherwise, if human remains areencountered, OAS will provide written informa-tion to any other pueblo, tribe, or nation that hasan interest in the geographic area where thehuman bone was discovered. If any of thesegroups express an interest in making a claim tothe remains, OAS will assist them in any waypossible.

Research Background and Objectives

None of the project sites are large enough,nor were they occupied long enough, that weexpect to encounter human remains as isolatedelements or intact burials. If any are found, it isunlikely that the number will be large, and theprimary objective will be to provide life-historyinformation that can be integrated into broaderresearch perspectives on topics such as subsis-tence, diet, and demography (e.g., Martin 1994).Even in small samples, the basic analysis ofhuman remains has the potential to contributesignificant information on prehistoric life.Human bones and teeth record conditions duringlife as well as in death (Goodman 1993:282).Several indicators of physiological stress are usedto address general health. These include adultstature, which may be related to nutrition, andsubadult size, which can indicate the timing ofstress events. Defects in dental enamel(hypoplasias or pitting) are associated with spe-cific physiological disruptions and can beassigned an age of onset. Dental asymmetrybegins in utero and reflects developmental stress,while dental crowding can be nutritional orgenetic. Dental caries reflect refined carbohy-drates in the diet and can lead to infection andtooth loss. Dental abscessing can become sys-temic and life-threatening. Osteoarthritis andosteophytosis can indicate biomechanical stress.Osteoporosis, related to calcium loss and malnu-trition, can be acute to severe during pregnancyand lactation, and can also affect the elderly.Porotic hyperostosis is related to iron deficiency

117

anemia and leaves permanent markers.Periosteal reactions result from chronic systemicinfections (Martin 1994:94–95). Although limitedby the quality of preservation of bone and theintegrity of the interment, all of these observa-tions can be made without invasive or destruc-tive analyses.

Other types of information can be obtainedthrough simple metric observations. For exam-ple, femur shaft size is an indication of strength,while the shape reflects mobility. As mobilitydecreases, shaft shape become more circular,while more ovoid shapes are characteristic ofhunter-gatherers (Bridges 1996:112, 118–119).

In addition, mortuary treatment places theindividual in a social context, adding valuableinformation on social, demographic, and eco-nomic conditions (Brown 1995:7; Larsen1997:247). Recent mortuary analyses haveapproached a variety of topics ranging from indi-vidual, gender, ethnic, political, and social identi-ty, to interpersonal conflict, resource control,labor and organization, ritual and meaning,social inequality, trade, population dynamics,and residential patterning (Larsen 1997:260).

Few burials have been recovered from theCarlsbad area. Summarizing burials from thispart of the state, Stodder (1989:302–303) foundreferences to 49 from Eddy County and 10 fromOtero County. Many were found by Mera (1938)in caves in the Guadalupe Mountains. Morerecent excavations at Punto de los Muertos (LA116471) encountered a large amount of fragment-ed human bone (n = 2,194) from at least 12 indi-viduals mixed with animal bone in a largely dis-turbed context. Nearly half of the bone wasburned, and some had traces of hematite.Calibrated ASM dates on human bones (n = 3)range between 775 and 5 B.C., while those on ani-mal bone (n = 2) indicate a wider spread (805B.C.–A.D. 450). The remains appear to indicate arelatively healthy and mobile population. Noporotic hyperostosis was noted, and only a fewteeth exhibit hypoplasia lines. The hypoplasiasindicate some form of stress in at least two indi-viduals. No caries were found, but some teethhave heavy attrition, indicating use of stone-grinding tools. One or two of the males werelarge and robust, with femur shapes suggestingconsiderable mobility (Akins 2003c:131–141).

In contrast, the single burial from the

Townsend Site was a young female (18–22 years).While the site has no indication of a settled agri-cultural existence, this individual may havebelonged to a Late Prehistoric group of relativelysedentary agriculturalists. The evidence consistsof caries, which are more consistent with aprocessed carbohydrate diet, and a round femurcross section (Akins 2003a:297–300).

Another young (16–18 years old) female wasfound at Las Molinas (LA 68182), a large numberof bedrock basin metates and mortars and atrash-filled crevice near the Townsend Site. Shelacked some teeth, but those recovered have nocaries and little dental attrition. A number ofhypoplasia lines indicate repeated episodes ofstress during childhood. Her femur shaft wasquite ovoid, and the index larger than any of thefemales from Henderson or the Townsend burial(Akins 2004:121–125).

In an area with so little information onhuman remains, collecting basic descriptive datais always a primary goal. Beyond this, data fromany remains recovered during this project will beexamined for evidence of mobility verses seden-tism and for the agricultural commitment of thegroups who inhabited the sites. Mortuary prac-tices, metric observations, demographic struc-ture, indications of general heath and nutrition,dental wear, caries frequencies, and femur sizeand shape are all indications of diet and mobility.

ARCHEOBOTANICAL REMAINS

Mollie S. Toll

Floral studies provide direct evidence of thepatterning of daily economic activities, contribut-ing an informative layer of details to the emerg-ing picture of human occupation in southeasternNew Mexico. Multiple questions at issue in theprehistory of the Eastern Plains can be addressedby examining associated plant remains. Botanicalremains will be recovered in soil samples to beprocessed by water flotation, pollen samples,wood charcoal, and larger botanical artifacts col-lected during field excavation. Flotation can beexpected to recover parts of wild plants (chieflyseeds, but also, importantly, leaf, fruit, and rootfragments from monocot leaf succulents such asagave, sotol, and yucca) and cultivars, should we

118

encounter any farmers.

What We Know about Prehistoric Plant Use inSoutheastern New Mexico

Available comparative flotation data includeassemblages from Archaic and Formative periodseasonal base camps and special activity sitesfrom Chihuahuan Desert or semidesert grasslandand desert scrub communities. Useful compar-isons can be drawn from sites in the intermon-tane basins of south-central New Mexico, as wellas the lower Pecos River Valley. In addition to thevery hot, desiccated climatic conditions that per-sist throughout this region, the project area is dis-tinguished by soil conditions that further limitprimary productivity, vegetation cover, and flo-ral diversity. Underlying gypsum bedrock, gyp-sum soils, saline springs, and extensive alkaliplayas all contribute to soil chemical conditionsthat dramatically limit plant growth. Two floralcommunities characterized by taxa tolerant ofsaline conditions comprise fully 38 percent of the100.8 ha study area (Marron and Associates2000:3.9). The closed basin alkali riparian com-munity is dominated by saltbush, alkali sacaton,seepweed, and pickleweed, while the highlylocalized endemic gypsum bedrock communityis distinguished by taxa rarely encountered else-where in the state: Tiquilia (borage family),Nerisyrenia (mustard family), and Sartwelia (gyp-sumweed).

Recovery of perennial plant species presentsa complex interpretive problem for sites of south-ern New Mexico Basins and the Hueco Bolson.Ethnographic studies from the historic era pointto a heavy focus on concentrated perennialresources such as the leaf succulents, cacti, andmesquite (Castetter and Opler 1936; Bell andCastetter 1937, 1941; Castetter et al. 1938;Baseheart 1974). Previous discussions of sitefunction and subsistence strategies have centeredon defining small sites consisting primarily offire-cracked rock thermal features as special pro-cessing camps. Many studies have concludedthat small rock hearths as well as considerablylarger fire-cracked rock features from sites exca-vated in the foothills and basins of south-centralNew Mexico and northern Texas were predomi-nately used to process leaf succulents(O’Laughlin 1980; Carmichael 1985; Seaman et al.

1987; Gasser 1983). Interpretations of feature useare based on feature distributions, presence andquantity of fire-cracked rock, and distributions ofleaf succulents today (O’Laughlin 1980; Seamanet al 1987). However, very little direct archaeob-otanical evidence exists to reinforce these inter-pretations. Those sites where agave remains havebeen recovered are in the foothills or valley mar-gins, where agave is easily accessible. Oxalic acidis a component of agave and causes contact der-matitis, providing motivation for processing theplant as close to the source as possible(Niethammer 1974:4; Buskirk 1986:170;Franceschi and Horner 1980; Kearney andPeebles 1951:193; Johns 1990). Buskirk notes thateach agave crown can weigh as much as 20pounds. Because it was common practice to roast40 or more crowns at a time, their weight couldalso have been a compelling factor in the place-ment of roasting pits.

With only one questionable yucca/agavecarpel as evidence of the possible processing ofleaf succulents during the Archaic period atKeystone Dam Site 33, O’Laughlin (1980:93) stillstates that the primary function of small fire-cracked rock hearths at the site was to “bake leafsucculents such as soap-tree yucca, lechuguilla,and sotol.” Evidence of exploitation of other eco-nomic plants at this site comes in the form of car-bonized seeds of two species of cacti, sedge, andseveral edible weeds. While it is possible that leafsucculents were processed at Site 33, it seemsmore accurate to assume that plant processingincluded a variety of plants at this and otherArchaic sites of the Chihuahuan Desert.

Prehistoric exploitation of shinnery oak(Quercus havardii) is an additional topic for whichfloral taxonomic data will be sought. Sand shin-nery communities are found on about six millionacres of the Southern Plains, largely in the south-eastern corner of New Mexico, and neighboringportions of Texas and Oklahoma (Peterson andBoyd 1998). Though there are considerabledebates about the extent of this community, bothtoday and in the past, it is evident that this oakspecies is well adapted to this inhospitable envi-ronment and has been locally present for hun-dreds or thousands of years (Peterson and Boyd1998:1, 2) . Cleverly, shin oak consists of massiveunderground stem systems supporting meagerabove-ground growth (short-lived twigs, mostly

119

30-60 cm high) and some of the largest acorns, upto 25 mm long, known in the desert Southwest(Martin and Hutchins 1981:519). Clearly shin oakhas the potential of providing a critical foodresource for humans and game species in thisdesperately dry corner of New Mexico.Important questions thus include: How edibleare these giant Q. havardii acorns? What preserva-tion problems affect the archeological recovery ofprehistoric specimens? Acorn remains have beenconspicuously absent from most Southwestarcheobotanical assemblages, and we are as yetunable to determine why. Acorns are found atvery few sites, often as unburned, rodent-gnawed specimens in caves or dry shelters,where their presence may not be related to pre-historic subsistence at all (e.g., Adams andHuckell 1986:297). Recovery of small numbers ofpartially carbonized acorns at Fresnal Shelter(Bohrer 1972:214) may be the only reason to pur-sue the study of shin oak as a prehistoricresource.

Plant use over time. Floral remains from sitesinvestigated in southern New Mexico and north-ern Texas for all time periods are providing accu-mulating evidence that a variety of plants wereexploited. Prehistoric populations living in anenvironment that is cyclically very dry and veryhot might reasonably choose a varying and flexi-ble economic strategy, growing domesticates andjourneying to the nearby mountain foothills andhigher elevation basins for exploitable resources.

Plant remains recovered from the Archaicperiod and early Mesilla phase reflect the geo-graphical locations of the sites. The richest arrayof economic plant remains is found at theKeystone Dam Site and Fresnal Shelter (Bohrer1981). Keystone Dam is on an alluvial terrace eastof the Rio Grande and west of the FranklinMountains, giving site occupants access to bothriverine and montane plant resources. FresnalShelter is in a limestone cliff overhang of FresnalCanyon in the Sacramento Mountains. More lim-ited floral remains from these time periods at thePiñon project may indicate true resource-specificprocessing of leaf succulents and cacti atCornucopia Draw (Toll and McBride 1999). Otherfloral studies come from sites situated in ariddunal basins, where resource availability is limit-ed to grasses, weedy annuals, and yucca; here,grasses are the most widespread seed genera

recovered. Evidence of domesticated plant useduring the Archaic is restricted to Fresnal Shelter,in the Sacramento Mountains of southeasternNew Mexico. Bohrer (1981:45) classifies maize asone of the “less commonly eaten foods” at theshelter based on constancy and presence ratios ofall plant remains recovered. During the Archaic,it would appear that grasses, annuals, and peren-nials (including leaf succulents) were all used toa greater or lesser degree, depending on whatenvironmental zone was under exploitation,while domesticates played a minor role in thediet.

Prickly pear seeds are the most commonplant remain recovered from Mesilla phase con-texts. Goosefoot, hedgehog cactus, mesquite, andpurslane form a second tier of exploited taxa.Cultigens are present in a wider range of loca-tions, in both basin and valley margin areas.Plant remains from Piñon were more restricted indiversity, consisting of agave and prickly pear.The most diverse array of plant taxa was recov-ered from Turquoise Ridge, including maize anddomesticated beans (Whalen 1994). Consideringthat Turquoise Ridge is on the edge of the HuecoBolson, the best-watered spot between the desertbasin zone and the mountain zone, this diversityis not surprising. Evidence of the exploitation ofleaf succulents is present at several sites, but pos-itive identification of agave is limited to Piñonand Wind Canyon. Fewer grass taxa were recov-ered from Mesilla phase sites, suggesting thatgrasses could have been exploited more duringthe Archaic than during the early Formative.

Plant remains recovered from Doña Ana/ElPaso phase sites indicate that the role of domesti-cated plants may have stayed much the same asin the Mesilla phase. Cultigens have been foundat several Formative period sites (Ford 1977;Wetterstrom 1980). Corn caches in storage pitswere discovered by Scarborough (1985) atAnapra Pueblo near Sunland Park, and Brook(1966:41) notes that 200 bushels of corn wereexcavated from a village about 64 km north ofHot Well Pueblo in El Paso. During the Doña Anaand El Paso phases, goosefoot is the most widelyrecovered plant taxon. Amongst perennials,agave and hedgehog cactus surpass the previous-ly common prickly pear. In this period, a widearray of annuals and perennials were utilized,including taxa that did not occur in previous time

120

periods (Mexican buckeye, tepary beans, Pectistype, and sedge).

Wood use. Mesquite is the dominant woodtaxon identified at sites throughout the lowerPecos Valley, Mesilla Bolson, Hueco Bolson, andTularosa Basin. A dense wood that provides “abed of hot, slow burning coals,” Mesquite’sadmirable fuel qualities are surely responsible forthe clear prehistoric preference for this fuel, evenin areas of the El Paso region, where it is not par-ticularly abundant today, such as the high desertzone on Fort Bliss (Ford 1977:200). The predomi-nance of mesquite charcoal is also significant atsites in the lower elevation zones, wheremesquite flourishes today in Chihuahuan desertscrub communities (Brown 1994), since the extentand density of mesquite has increased dramati-cally in this zone in the last hundred years (Yorkand Dick-Peddie 1969). The greater abundance ofmesquite in the archeological record than in thecontemporary environment (Minnis and Toll1991:397) points to the particular usefulness anddesirability of this fuel.

We can expect to see heavy use of mesquitein the Loving Lakes sites as well, bolstered bysmaller amounts of locally available but less use-ful shrubby taxa such as creosotebush, tarbush,acacia, condalia, and ocotillo (Martin 1980). Theabsence of larger arboreal species with more sub-stantial timbers no doubt affected site architec-ture and even size in the dunes and playas of thelower Pecos. Where arboreal species are moreeasily gathered, as in the Hondo Valley andRoswell areas, a very different wood assemblageis seen. Here, inhabitants took advantage of theconsiderable diversity of woody taxa from thevaried habitats afforded by topographic hetero-geneity and the presence of an active stream.Towards the bottom of this elevational gradient,structures at Fox Place showed ash as the appar-ent material of choice for construction, followedby cottonwood/willow (Toll 2002). Ash, likehackberry, is a hard, heavy, and relatively weakwood (Lamb 1975:5-6) used in the historic periodfor fenceposts, fuel, and axe handles (Vines1960:207, 863). In addition to substantial timbers,roofing needs include smaller fill elements,which are also found in roof deposits. Reedgrassand muhly grass stems have been recovered, aswell as oak twigs and ponderosa twigs and nee-dles at sites at various elevations. Shrubby wood

associates clearly with fuel use at all elevations.Taxa include mesquite, creosotebush, grease-wood, and several members of the rose family.At higher elevations, coniferous wood (largelyjuniper and piñon) collected from ridges orwashed down from upstream habitats forms asignificant portion of fuel assemblages.

Cornucopia Draw, southwest of the LovingLakes project area, presents an entirely differentapproach to wood use, linked to available speciesand a different constellation of subsistence activ-ities. Here, mesquite is nearly absent, and wooduse is distinguished by a marked emphasis onocotillo, with small amounts of juniper, creosote-bush, Mormon tea, and saltbush/greasewood(McBride 1996; Toll and McBride 1999). The highpercentage of ocotillo wood may be linked to theagave pit-roasting process. Pennington(1963:130) describes the use of dead stalks of a tallcactus that grows in western canyons and middlesections of canyon slopes in the Tarahumaracountry of Mexico. The spiny branches are laidcrosswise upon the layer of plants that cover thestones in the roasting pit, and the mescal heartsare placed on top of the branches and then cov-ered with a layer of grass or pine needles.Ocotillo branches may have been used in muchthe same way, accounting for the unusually highpercentage of ocotillo in the charcoal assemblage.

Macrobotanical studies of cultigens.Morphometric parameters of corn are our chiefsource of information about Formative periodfarming in the southeastern plains. We mightreasonably expect to see evidence of more inten-sive, productive farming at floodplain pueblos inthe area, such as Henderson and Bloom Mound,compared to pithouse villages such as Fox Place,which appear to have grown by accretion.Careful analysis of the corn remains atHenderson (Dunavan 1989) would seem to rejectany such differential effort or success: theHenderson cobs are small, slender, and cigar-shaped ( “Chapalote-type”), predominantly 10-rowed, with significant numbers of 8- and 12-rowed cobs. These cobs match those found at FoxPlace (A.D. 1200s; Toll 2002). Our small and scat-tered sample of prehistoric corn from the south-eastern plains is thus far relatively homogeneous,extending back into the Beth’s Cave and FeatherCave eras (very early Formative, A.D. 500–800;Adams and Wiseman 1994). While Zea is the only

121

domesticate recovered at many Formative periodsites in the southeast, there is every reason tobelieve that farming included a more diversifiedrepertoire. Differential preservation leaves a verypoor record of squash and beans. Both taxa havebeen recovered from other (largely higher eleva-tion) sites in the area (Minnis et al. 1982; Adams1991; Struever and Donaldson 1992; Toll 1996),though in very low frequency. CarbonizedCucurbita pepo seeds were also recovered at BlockLookout (Ford 1977). We have much to learnabout farming and its relation to other subsis-tence pursuits in this area; as details emerge, thepicture may well be more diverse and complex.

Guidelines for Botanical Data Collection

Flotation sampling. The potential contributionof flotation analyses to the project will be maxi-mized by attention to reasonable and appropriatesampling in the field. It is helpful to recognize afundamental difference between floral data col-lected in soil samples and virtually every otherartifact category. Standard field procedure nowdictates collection and curation with provenienceinformation of every sherd, bone, and lithic arti-fact encountered during most excavation situa-tions; sampling of this universe may take placelater in the lab. Doing the equivalent for botani-cal materials would mean bringing home theentire site: a ludicrous proposition. This makesevery soil sample collected in the field a samplingdecision. Samples not taken are generally goneforever. On the other hand, a decision to samplewidely and intensively (e.g., alternate metergrids in every cultural stratum) to guard againstsuch information loss can generate hundreds orthousands of unanalyzed samples. Lacking infi-nite time and resources, we must try to garner themost information from judicious sampling. Twoaspects hallmark the most effective samplingprotocols: awareness of which depositional con-texts are most productive of floral remains, andrecognition of site areas from which subsistencedata will be most useful in addressing theresearch foci of the project.

Previous experience with flotation analysis atsites on the plains of southeastern New Mexicowarns us that preservation of floral materials islikely to be poor. We will generally be dealingwith shallow sites with few structures in wind-

blown settings. Our best option is to maximizethe size of individual soil samples from carefullyconsidered proveniences. In practice, this willmean full collection of intact features (especiallyburn features) whenever possible.

Pollen sampling. Pollen sampling should beconsidered complementary rather than parallelto flotation. Pollen is preserved in very differentcontexts from carbonized seeds and has differentcontributions to make to the biological data cor-pus that informs on subsistence and environmen-tal parameters. Whereas primary and secondarydeposits from thermal features make up much ofthe useful flotation record (along with far less fre-quent catastrophic burn events), pollen does notsurvive burning or deposition in alkaline, water-holding features (such as ash-filled, linedhearths). Pollen’s particular gift lies in locatingand identifying plant utilization activities thataren’t likely to involve burning in places such asmilling bins, ground stone artifacts, storage fea-tures, coprolites, and interior floors. Since struc-tures will likely be rare in these sites, well-pre-served interior floors are not expected to beencountered with any regularity. These surfacesdo provide opportunities for productive use ofpollen data and should be sampled with care.Systematic intensive sampling (e.g., alternatemeter grids) of pollen and flotation can work welltogether to produce relatively detailed mappingof activity areas of interior space, revealingaspects of site and household economic organiza-tion. The potential contributions of pollen analy-sis are generally wasted on strata such as trashfill, roof fall, and middens.

Agricultural fields are another culturalprovenience not likely to be encountered in thisproject but have information potential that can beaddressed with unburned floral artifacts. Fieldpersonnel should be alert to this potential, just incase. Pollen analysis has been used effectively toverify designation of prehistoric fields and iden-tify specific crops grown. Pollen, and not flota-tion samples, should be taken from protectedspots in any possible farm fields. Suitable loca-tions might be from among or tucked underrocks forming field borders or water-diversionfeatures.

Macrobotanical and wood sampling. Attentivefield collection of wood and charcoal can greatlyincrease the interpretive value of this artifact cat-

122

123

egory. Charcoal samples should be directedtoward proveniences that can most clearly repre-sent fuelwood or construction elements. To thedegree that such deposits can be identified confi-dently, species composition data will provide farmore detailed and accurate pictures of prehis-toric wood utilization. We know from numerousprojects (including the Fox Place, Toll 2002:129and Table 60) that fuelwood and constructionwood often had distinctly different selection cri-teria. Consequently some of the most interestingaspects of prehistoric wood use emerge whenthese functional contexts are differentiated. Thenumber of charcoal loci that are clearly one func-tional context or the other may be few, but exca-vation surely constitutes the best opportunity foridentifying suitable samples. Primary deposits inthermal features, and secondary trash strata

(room and floor fill, secondary deposits in pitsand structures, middens) are likely fuel contexts,while roof fall, intact roofs, and in situ posts areall likely contexts for construction materials.

Some wood taxa recovered from archeologi-cal sites on the Eastern Plains of New Mexico aregood candidates for transportation as driftwood.At Salt Creek sites, for instance, oak, rose family,pine, and juniper grow today at considerablyhigher elevations and may have been carrieddown the creek as driftwood from the CapitanMountains to within reasonable collecting rangeof site occupants (McBride and Toll 2003:293).Out-of-range woody taxa encountered in ouranalysis will alert us to possibilities of driftwoodtransportation or changes in vegetation commu-nities over time.

125

The data recovery program of the LovingLakes project is challenging. The sites are large,their content and integrity are largely obscured,and their true data potential is unknown prior toexcavation. Regional research problems are bothbasic and sophisticated in their nature and poten-tial. Even if the sites enclose little more than isevident from surface observations, the archaeo-logical record will contribute to a substantialimprovement in our understanding of bothregional history and prehistory. If the overlyingdunes have encapsulated discrete components

(as opposed to temporally mixed palimpsests),the data recovery effort will provide an opportu-nity for substantial substantive and methodolog-ical contributions to the archaeology of south-eastern New Mexico. Key elements are thorough-ness in the assessment of the data potential of thesite strata, flexibility in response by the fieldsupervisors so that they can take advantage ofopportunities while minimizing redundancy,and targeted high-precision recovery using fea-ture- and surface-oriented strategies.

Conclusion

127

Adams, Karen R., and Regge N. Wiseman1994 Uncarbonized Zea mays Cob Population from

Beth Cave, Lincoln County, New Mexico.Artifact 32(1):7–22.

Adams, Karen R., and Lisa W. Huckell1986 Plant Remains. In The Archaeology of Gila Cliff

Dwellings, by Keith M. Anderson, Gloria J.Fenner, Don P. Morris, George A. Teague, andCharmion McKusic, pp. 277–323. Publications inAnthropology 36. Western Archeological andConservation Center, Tucson.

Agogino, G., and I. Rovner1969 Preliminary Report of a Stratified Post-Folsom

Sequence at Blackwater Draw Locality No. 1.American Antiquity 34:175–176.

Akins, Nancy J.2002 Fox Place Fauna. In The Fox Place: A Late

Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherer Pithouse Villagenear Roswell, New Mexico, by Regge N.Wiseman, pp. 133–156. Archaeology Notes 234.Office of Archaeological Studies, Museum ofNew Mexico, Santa Fe.

2003a Salt Creek: Data Recovery at Seven PrehistoricSites along US 285 in Chaves and De BacaCounties, New Mexico. Archaeology Notes 298.Office of Archaeological Studies, Museum ofNew Mexico, Santa Fe.

2003b Fauna from LA 116471 (Punto de los Muertos). InThe Roswell South Project: Excavations in theSacramento Plain and Northern ChihuahuanDesert of Southeastern New Mexico, by Regge N.Wiseman, pp. 117–130. Archaeology Notes 327.Office of Archaeological Studies, Museum ofNew Mexico, Santa Fe.

2003c Human Bone from LA 116471 (Punto de losMuertos). In The Roswell South Project:Excavations in the Sacramento Plain andNorthern Chihuahuan Desert of SoutheasternNew Mexico, by Regge N. Wiseman, pp.131–149. Archaeology Notes 327. Office ofArchaeological Studies, Museum of New Mexico,Santa Fe.

2004 Human Burial at LA 68182. In Prehistory of the

Berrendo River System in the Southern Plains ofNew Mexico by Regge N. Wiseman, pp. 121–125.Archaeology Notes 236. Office of ArchaeologicalStudies, Museum of New Mexico, Santa Fe.

Andrefsky, William, Jr.1998 Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis.

Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.

Applegarth, Susan R.1976 Prehistoric Utilization of the Environment of the

Guadalupe Mountains. Ph.D. diss., Department ofAnthropology, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Ayer, M.1936 The Archaeological and Faunal Material from

Williams Cave, Guadalupe Mountains, Texas.Philadelphia Academy of Natural SciencesProceedings 88:599–618.

Baseheart, Harry W.1974 Mescalero Apache Subsistence Patterns and

Socio-Politico Organization. In Apache Indians,vol. 12. Garland Publishing, New York.

Baugh, Timothy G.1984 Southern Plains Societies and Eastern Frontier

Pueblo Exchange during the Protohistoric Period.In Collected Papers in Honor of Harry L.Hadlock, edited by Nancy L. Fox, pp. 157–167.Papers of the Archaeological Society of NewMexico 9. Albuquerque.

Beckett, Patrick H.1976 Seasonal Utilization of the Mescalero Sands.

Awanyu 4(4):23–33.

Bell, Willis H., and Edward F. Castetter1937 The Utilization of Mesquite and Screwbean by the

Aborigines in the American Southwest. Universityof New Mexico Bulletin, Biological Series 5(2).

1941 The Utilization of Yucca, Sotol, and Beargrass bythe Aborigines in the American Southwest.University of New Mexico Bulletin, BiologicalSeries 5(5).

Binford, Lewis R.1980 Willow Smoke and Dogs Tails: Hunter-Gatherer

References Cited

Settlement Systems and Archaeological SiteFormation. American Antiquity 45:4–20.

2001 Constructing Frames of Reference: An AnalyticalMethod for Archaeological Theory BuildingUsing Ethnographic and Environmental DataSets. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Black, Stephen L., and Linda W. Ellis1997 Introduction. In Hot Rock Cooking on the Greater

Edwards Plateau: Four Burned Rock MiddenSites in West Central Texas, vol. 1, edited byStephen L. Black, Linda W. Ellis, Darrell G.Creel, and Glenn T. Goode, pp. 1-21. Studies inArcheology 22, Texas Archeological ResearchLaboratory, University of Texas, Austin; andArcheology Studies Program Report 2, TexasDepartment of Transportation, Austin.

Black, Stephen L., L. W. Ellis, D. G. Creel, and G. T.Goode1997 Hot Rock Cooking on the Greater Edwards

Plateau: Four Burned Rock Midden Sites in WestCentral Texas. 2 vols. Studies in Archeology 22,Texas Archeological Research Laboratory,University of Texas, Austin; and ArcheologyStudies Program Report 2, Texas Department ofTransportation, Austin.

Blinman, Eric2000 The Foundations, Practice, and Limitations of

Ceramic Dating in the American Southwest. InIt’s About Time: A History of ArchaeologicalDating in North America, edited by Stephen E.Nash, pp. 41–59. University of Utah Press, SaltLake City.

Blinman, Eric, and C. Dean Wilson1993 Ceramic Perspectives on Northern Anasazi

Exchange. In The American Southwest andMesoamerica: Systems of Prehistoric Exchange,edited by Jonathon E. Ericson and Timothy G.Baugh, pp. 65–94. Plenum Publishing, New York.

Bohrer, Vorsila L.1972 Tentative List of Utilized Plant Remains from

Fresnal Shelter. In Technical Manual: 1973Survey of the Tularosa Basin, by MarkWimberley, Pete Eidenbach, et al., pp. 211–218.Human Systems Research, Albuquerque.

1981 Former Dietary Patterns of People as Determinedfrom Archaic-age Plant Remains from FresnalShelter, South-Central New Mexico. In

Archaeological Essays in Honor of MarkWimberley, edited by Michael S. Foster. TheArtifact 19(3–4):41–50.

Boyd, Douglas K.1997 Caprock Canyonlands Archeology: A Synthesis of

the Late Prehistory and History of Lake AlanHenry and the Texas Panhandle-Plains. Reports ofInvestigations 954. Prewitt and Associates,Austin.

Boyd, Douglas K., Jay Peck, and Karl W. Kibler1993 Data Recovery at Justiceburg Reservoir (Lake

Alan Henry), Garza and Kent Counties, Texas:Phase III, Season 2. Reports of Investigations 88.Prewitt and Associates, Austin.

Boyer, Jeffrey L., Steven A. Lakatos, and James L.Moore2003 A Plan for Data Recovery Investigations at LA

84927, LA 89021, and LA 138960, U.S. 84/285Santa Fe to Pojoaque Corridor, Santa Fe County,New Mexico. Archaeology Notes 323. Office ofArchaeological Studies, Museum of New Mexico,Santa Fe.

Bradfield, Maitland1971 The Changing Pattern of Hopi Agriculture.

Occasional Paper 30. Royal AnthropologicalInstitute of Great Britain and Ireland, London.

Breternitz, David A.1966 An Appraisal of Tree-Ring Dated Pottery in the

Southwest. Anthropological Papers of theUniversity of Arizona 10. Tucson.

Bridges, Patricia S.1996 Skeletal Biology and Behavior in Ancient

Humans. Evolutionary Anthropology 112–120.

Brown, David E.1994 Biotic Communities: Southwestern United States

and Northwestern Mexico. University of UtahPress, Salt Lake City.

Brown, James1995 On Mortuary Analysis, with Special Reference to

the Saxe-Binford Research Program. In RegionalApproaches to Mortuary Analysis, edited by LaneAnderson Beck, pp. 3–26. Plenum Press, NewYork.

Bullock, Peter Y.1999 Red Lake Tank: The Excavation of Four Sites

128

East of Roswell, New Mexico. ArchaeologyNotes 250. Office of Archaeological Studies,Museum of New Mexico, Santa Fe.

Buskirk, Winfred1986 The Western Apache. University of Oklahoma

Press, Norman.

Camilli, Eileen L.1988 Lithic Raw Material Selection and Use in the

Desert Basins of South-Central New Mexico. TheKiva 53:147–163.

Carmichael, David L.1985 Transitional Pueblo occupation on Doña Ana

Range, Fort Bliss, New Mexico. In Views of theJornada Mogollon, edited by Colleen M. Beck,pp. 34–53. Contributions in Anthropology 12.Eastern New Mexico University, Portales.

Carmichael, David L., and Terry Franklin1997 Archaeological Screening Techniques and Their

Effects on the Recovery of Lithic Artifacts. InArchaeology of the Jornada Mogollon,:Proceedings from the 10th Jornada MogollonConference, compiled by M. Stowe and M.Slaughter, pp. 151–156. Geo-MarineIncorporated.

Castetter, Edward F., Willis H. Bell, and Alvin Grove1938 The Early Utilization and Distribution of Agave in

the American Southwest. University of NewMexico Bulletin, Biological Series 5(4).

Castetter, Edward F., and M. E. Opler1936 The Ethnobiology of the Chiricahua and

Mescalero Apache. University of New MexicoBulletin, Biological Series 4(5).

Collins, Michael B.1968 The Andrews Lake Locality: New Archeological

Data from the Southern Llano Estacado, Texas.Master’s thesis, University of Texas, Austin.

1971 A Review of Llano Estacado Archaeology andEthnohistory. Plains Anthropologist16(52):85–104.

1991 Thoughts on Future Excavation of Burned RockMiddens. In The Burned Rock Middens of Texas:An Archeological Symposium, edited by ThomasR. Hester, pp. 1–24. Studies in Archeology 13.Texas Archeological Research Laboratory,

University of Texas, Austin.

Condon, Peter C.2002 A Data Recovery at Two Burned Rock Midden

Sites near Sheep Draw Canyon, Eddy County,New Mexico. Mesa Field Services Report 495M.Carlsbad.

Corley, John A.1965 A Proposed Eastern Extension of the Jornada

Branch of the Mogollon. In Transactions of theFirst Regional Archeological Symposium forSoutheastern New Mexico and Western Texas, pp.30–36.

1970 A Proposed Eastern Extension of the JornadaBranch of the Mogollon. Reprinted inTransactions of the First Regional ArcheologicalSymposium for Southeastern New Mexico andWestern Texas, pp. 30–36.

Dane, Carl H., and George O. Bachman1965 Geologic Map of New Mexico. United State

Geological Survey, Denver.

Dering, Phil1999 Earth-Oven Plant Processing in Archaic Period

Economies: An Example from a Semi-AridSavannah in South-Central North America.American Antiquity 64(4):659–674.

Dick-Peddie, William A.1993 New Mexico Vegetation: Past, Present, and

Future. University of New Mexico Press,Albuquerque.

Dillehay, Tom D.1974 Late Quaternary Bison Population Changes on the

Southern Plains. Plains Anthropologists19(65):180–196.

Doleman, William H.1997 Prehistoric Occupations near the Lower Placitas

Arroyo: Excavations along State Road 26 West ofHatch, New Mexico. Office of ArcheologicalStudies, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

Dunavan, Sandra L.1989 Maize on the Middle Pecos River: An Analysis of

Cobs from the Henderson Pueblo. In Corn andCulture in the Prehistoric World, edited by SisselJohannessen and Christine A. Hastorf. WestviewPress, Boulder.

129

2004 Life on the Periphery: Economic Change in LatePrehistoric Southeastern New Mexico, edited byJohn D. Speth, pp. 394–415. Memoir 37. Museumof Anthropology, University of Michigan, AnnArbor.

Duncan, R. B., and W. H. Doleman1991 Fire-Cracked Rock Studies. In Landscape

Archaeology in the Southern Tularosa Basin. Vol.2, Testing, Excavation, and Analysis, edited byWilliam H. Doleman, R. C. Chapman, J. A.Schutt, M. K. Swift, and D. D. Morrison, pp.317–344. Office of Contract Archeology,University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

Emslie, S., J. Speth, and R. Wiseman1992 Two Prehistoric Puebloan Avifaunas from the

Pecos Valley, Southeastern New Mexico.Ethnobiology 12(1):83–115.

Ericson, Jonathon E.1972 Geo-Science at the Castaic Site (4-LAn-324). On

file, California State Department of Parks andRecreation, Sacramento.

Ferdon, Edwin N., Jr.1946 An Excavation of Hermit’s Cave, New Mexico.

School of American Research Monograph No. 10.Santa Fe.

Ford, Richard I.1977 Archeobotany of the Fort Bliss Maneuver Area II,

Texas. Appendix E in Settlement Patterns of theEastern Hueco Bolson, by Michael E. Whalen.Publications in Anthropology 4. El PasoCentennial Museum, University of Texas, ElPaso.

Franceschi, Vincent R., and Harry T. Horner Jr.1980 Calcium Oxalate Crystals in Plants. Botanical

Review 46(4):361–427.

Fuller, Steven L.1989 Research Design and Data Recovery Plan for the

Animas–La Plata Project. Four CornersArchaeological Project Report No. 15. CompleteArchaeological Service Associates, Cortez,Colorado.

Gallagher, Joseph G., and Susan E. Bearden1980 Excavation of Cultural Resources at Brantley

Reservoir, Eddie County, New Mexico.Archaeology Research Program, Department ofAnthropology, Southern Methodist University,

Dallas.

Gibson, D. V.1996 A Salvage Plan for Four Sites Located along Line

1009 Replacement from Eunice Plant to CarlsbadJunction. Prepared for the Bureau of LandManagement, Carlsbad District, Carlsbad, NewMexico. Western Cultural Resource Management,Farmington.

Goodman, Alan H.1993 On the Interpretation of Health from Skeletal

Remains. Current Anthropology 34.

Greer, John W.1965 A Typology of Midden Circles and Mescal Pits.

Southwestern Lore 31(3):41–45.

1967 Midden Circles versus Mescal Pits. AmericanAntiquity 32(1):108–109.

1968 Notes on Excavated Ring Midden Sites,1963–1968. Bulletin of the Texas ArcheologicalSociety 38:39–44.

Gunnerson, D.1956 The Southern Athapaskans: Their Arrival in the

Southwest. El Palacio 63(346–365).

Hall, Stephen A.1984 Pollen Analysis of the Garnsey Bison Kill Site,

Southeastern New Mexico. In The GarnseySpring Campsite: Late Prehistoric Occupation inSoutheastern New Mexico, edited by W. Parry andJ. Speth, pp. 85–108. Research Reports inAnthropology Contribution 10 and Museum ofAnthropology Technical Report 15, University ofMichigan, Ann Arbor.

2002 Field Guide to the Geoarchaeology of theMescalero Sands, Southeastern New Mexico.Report prepared for the State HistoricPreservation Division, New Mexico Departmentof Cultural Affairs, Santa Fe.

Hammond, G., and A. Rey1966 The Rediscovery of New Mexico, 1580–1594.

University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

Hard, Robert J.1986 Ecological Relationships Affecting the Rise of

Farming Economies: A Test from the AmericanSouthwest. Ph.D. diss., University of NewMexico, Albuquerque.

130

Haskell, J. Loring1977 Caprock Water System Archaeological Project,

Lea County, New Mexico. Agency ofConservation Archaeology, Eastern New MexicoUniversity, Portales.

Hayes, Alden C., J. N. Young, and A. H. Warren1981 Excavation of Mound 7, Gran Quivira National

Monument, New Mexico. Publications inArcheology 16. National Park Service,Washington, D.C.

Henderson, Mark1976 An Archaeological Inventory of Brantley

Reservoir, New Mexico. Archaeology ResearchProgram Contributions in Anthropology No. 18.Department of Anthropology, Southern MethodistUniversity, Dallas.

Hester, J.1972 Blackwater Locality No.1: A Stratified, Early Man

Site in Eastern New Mexico. Publication No. 8.Fort Burgwin Research Center, SouthernMethodist University, Fort Burgwin ResearchCenter, Ranchos de Taos.

Hines, Margaret H., S. A. Tomka, and K. W. Kibler1994 Earth-Sheltered Roasting as Known through

Ethnohistory and Experiment. In Data RecoveryExcavations at the Wind Canyon Site, 41HZ119,Hudspeth County, Texas. Reports of Excavations99. Prewitt and Associates, Austin.

Hofman, Jack L., Robert L. Brooks, Joe S. Hays, andDouglas W. Owsley1989 Adaptation Types for the Southern Great Plains

Region. In From Clovis to Comanchero:Archeological Overview of the Southern GreatPlains, by Jack L. Hofman, Robert L. Brooks,Hoe S. Hays, Douglas W. Owsley, Richard L.Jantz, Murray K. Marks, and Mary H. Manhein,pp. 157–182. Arkansas Archeological SurveyResearch Series No. 35. Fayetteville.

Holliday, V. 1985 Holocene Soil-Geomorphological Relations in a

Semi-Arid Environment: The Southern HighPlains of Texas. In Soils and QuaternaryLandscape Evolution, edited by J. Boardman. J.Wiley, New York.

Howard, Edgar B.1930 Archaeological Research in the Guadalupe

Mountains. Museum Journal 21:188–213.

University of Pennsylvania.

1932 Caves along the Slopes of the GuadalupeMountains. Bulletin of the Texas Archaeologicaland Paleontological Society 4:7–19.

1935 Evidence of Early Man in North America.Museum Journal 24(2–3):53–171. University ofPennsylvania.

Hurst, Winston1976 An Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Maroon

Cliffs, Eddy County, New Mexico. Agency ofConservation Archaeology, Eastern New MexicoUniversity, Portales.

Jelinek, A.1967 A Prehistoric Sequence in the Middle Pecos

Valley, New Mexico. Museum of Anthropology.Anthropological Papers No. 31. University ofMichigan, Ann Arbor.

Johns, Timothy1990 With Bitter Herbs They Shall Eat It. University of

Arizona Press, Tuscon.

Johnson, Leroy1994 The Life and Times of the Toyah-Culture Folks as

Seen from the Buckhollow Encampment, Site41KM16 of Kimble County, Texas. Office of theState Archaeologist Report 38. Austin.

Joyce, Daniel J., and Daniel G. Landis1986 Archaeological Testing and Evaluation of Site LA

32276, Eddy County, New Mexico. ReportAR85.8. Agency for Conservation Archaeology,Eastern New Mexico University, Portales.

Katz, Susana R., and Paul Katz1985a Prehistory of the Carlsbad Basin, Southeastern

New Mexico. Report prepared by theAnthropological Research Facility for the Bureauof Reclamation, Southwest Regional Office,Amarillo. Incarnate Word College, San Antonio.

1985b History of the Carlsbad Basin, Southeastern NewMexico. Incarnate Word College, San Antonio,Texas.

1995 Prehistory of the Pecos Country, SoutheasternNew Mexico. PRIAM, Panhandle, Texas.

2001 Prehistory of the Pecos Country, SoutheasternNew Mexico. In The Archaeological Record of

131

Southern New Mexico: Sites and Sequences ofPrehistory, edited by S. R. Katz and P. Katz.Historic Preservation Division, Department ofCultural Affairs, Santa Fe.

Kearney, Thomas H., and Robert H. Peebles1951 Arizona Flora. University of California Press,

Berkeley.

Kelley, Jane H.1984 The Archaeology of the Sierra Blanca Region of

Southeastern New Mexico.

Kelly, Robert L.1985 Hunter-Gatherer Mobility and Sedentism: A

Great Basin Study. Ph.D. diss., Department ofAnthropology, University of Michigan, AnnArbor.

1988 The Three Sides of a Biface. American Antiquity53:717–734.

1995 The Foraging Spectrum: Diversity in Hunter-Gatherer Lifeways. Smithsonian Institution Press,Washington, D.C.

Kemrer, Meade F.1998 Data Recovery at LA 103523: A Complex

Domestic Area in Eddy County, New Mexico.HSR Report 9516 (revised). Human SystemsResearch, Tularosa, New Mexico.

Kemrer, Meade F., and Timothy M. Kearns1984 An Archaeological Research Design Project of the

Abo Oil and Gas Field, Southeastern NewMexico. Chambers Planners and Consultants,Albuquerque.

Lancaster, James W.1983 An Analysis of Manos and Metates from the

Mimbres Valley, New Mexico. M.A. thesis,University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

1986 Ground Stone. In Short-Term Sedentism in theAmerican Southwest: The Mimbres Valley Salado,by B. Nelson and S. LeBlanc, pp. 177–190.Maxwell Museum of Anthropology PublicationSeries. University of New Mexico Press,Albuquerque.

Landis, Daniel G.1985 Archaeological Investigations at Portions of LA

17041 and LA 48356, Eddy County, New Mexico.Report MB85.1. Agency for Conservation

Archaeology, Eastern New Mexico University,Portales.

Larsen, Clark Spencer1997 Bioarchaeology: Interpreting Behavior from the

Human Skeleton. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.

Laumbach, Karl W.1979 A Cultural Resource Inventory of the Proposed

Laguna Plata Archaeological District. CulturalResources Management Division, Department ofSociology and Anthropology, New Mexico StateUniversity, Las Cruces.

LeBlanc, Steven A., and Michael E. Whalen1980 An Archaeological Synthesis of South-Central

and Southwestern New Mexico. Office ofContract Archaeology, University of NewMexico, Albuquerque.

Lehmer, Donald J.1948 The Jornada Branch of the Mogollon. Social

Science Bulletin 17. University of Arizona,Tucson.

Leslie, Robert H.1965a The Merchant Site (A Mogollon Site). In

Transactions of the First Regional ArcheologicalSymposium for Southeastern New Mexico andWestern Texas, pp. 24–29.

1965b Ochoa Indented Brown Ware. Facts and Artifacts:Newsletter of the Lea County ArchaeologicalSociety 1(2). Hobbs, New Mexico.

1970 The Merchant Site (A Mogollon Site). Reprintedin Transactions of the First RegionalArcheological Symposium for Southeastern NewMexico and Western Texas, pp. 24–29.

1978 Projectile Point Types and Sequence of theEastern Jornada Mogollon, Extreme SoutheasternNew Mexico. In Transactions of the 13thRegional Archeological Symposium forSoutheastern New Mexico and Western Texas, pp.81-157. Southwestern Federation ofArcheological Societies, Midland.

1979 The Eastern Jornada Mogollon: ExtremeSoutheastern New Mexico. In Jornada MogollonArchaeology: Proceedings of the First JornadaConference, edited by P. H. Beckett and R. N.Wiseman, pp.179–199.

132

Lewis, Donald R.1985 Thermoluminescence Project. In Prehistory of the

Carlsbad Basin, Southeastern New Mexico, edit-ed by Susana R. Katz and Paul Katz. Report pre-pared by the Anthropological Research Facilityfor the Bureau of Reclamation, SouthwestRegional Office, Amarillo. Incarnate WordCollege, San Antonio.

Lord, Kenneth J., and Karen H. Clary1985 Biological Studies. In Archaeological

Investigations of Three Sites within the WIPPCore Area, Eddy County, New Mexico, edited byKenneth J. Lord and William E. Reynolds, pp.167–188. Chambers Consultants and Planners,Albuquerque.

Lord, K. J., and W. E. Reynolds1985 Archaeological Investigations of Three Sites with-

in the WIPP Core Area, Eddy County NewMexico. Chambers Consultants and Planners,Albuquerque.

Lucas, Spencer G., and Orin J. Anderson1993 Stratigraphy of the Permian-Triassic Boundary in

Southeastern New Mexico and West Texas. InNew Mexico Geological Society 44th AnnualField Conference: Carlsbad Region, New Mexico,and West Texas, edited by David W. Love, J. W.Hawley, B. S. Kues, J. W. Adams, G. S. Austin,and J. M. Barker, pp. 219–230. New MexicoGeological Society, Socorro.

Luke, Clive J.1983 Continuing Archeology on Interstate Highway 10:

The Musk Hog Canyon Project, Crockett County,Texas. Publications in Archaeology Report 24.Texas Department of Transportation, Austin.

Maker, H. J., H. E. Dregne, V. G. Link, and J. U.Anderson1978 Soils of New Mexico. Reprint. Agricultural

Experiment Station Research Report 285. NewMexico State University, Las Cruces.

Malainey, Mary E., and K. L. Malisza2004a Lipid Residue Analysis. In A Data Recovery of

Four Sites near Dark Canyon, Eddy County, NewMexico, by Sean Simpson, pp. 115–123. MesaField Services Report 438e. Carlsbad.

2004b Lipid Residue Analysis. In A Data Recovery of LA84982, Eddy County, New Mexico, by SeanSimpson, pp. 95–103. Mesa Field Services Report

672. Carlsbad.

Malainey, Mary E., R. Przybylski, and B. L. Sherriff1999a The Fatty Acid Composition of Native Food

Plants and Animals of Western Canada. Journal ofArchaeological Science 26:83–94.

1999b The Effects of Thermal and OxidativeDecomposition on the Fatty Acid Composition ofFood Plants and Animals of Western Canada:Implications for the Identification ofArchaeological Vessel Residues. Journal ofArchaeological Science 26:95–103.

1999c Identifying the Former Contents of LatePrecontact Period Pottery Vessels from WesternCanada: Implications for the Identification ofVessel Residues. Journal of ArchaeologicalScience 26(4):425–438.

2001 One Person’s Food: How and Why FishAvoidance May Affect the Settlement andSubsistence Patterns of Hunter-Gatherers.American Antiquity 66(1):141–161.

Mallouf, Robert J.1985 A Synthesis of Eastern Trans-Pecos Prehistory.

Master’s thesis, University of Texas, Austin.

Mariah Associates1987 Report of Class II Survey and Testing of Cultural

Resources at the WIPP Site at Carlsbad, NewMexico. Prepared for the US Corps of Engineers,Albuquerque District. Mariah Associates,Albuquerque.

Marron and Associates2005 An Initial Biological Report (2000) and

Supplemental Report: Addendum A (2005) of theNM 128 Study Area from the Junction of NM 31and NM 128 to Milepost 10.7. Report prepared forthe New Mexico Department of Transportation,Albuquerque.

Martin, Debra L.1994 Patterns of Diet and Disease: Health Profiles for

the Prehistoric Southwest. In Themes inSouthwest Prehistory, edited by George J.Gumerman, pp. 87–108. School of AmericanResearch Press, Santa Fe.

Martin, William C.1980 Floristics of the Los Medaños WIPP Study Area.

In A Report of Biological Investigations at the Los

133

Medaños Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Areaof New Mexico during FY 1978, pp.103–157.Sandia National Laboratories UC-48. SAND 7-0368. Albuquerque.

Mbutu, Stephen K.1997 Results of Phase II Investigations and

Recommendations for Phase III Data Recovery at37 Archeological Sites in Selected Areas ofManeuver Areas 1, 2, and 8, Fort Bliss, Texas.Miscellaneous Report of Investigations No. 88.US Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District.

McBride, Pamela J.1996 Plant Remains from the Diamond Shamrock

Pipeline Project. On file, Centennial Archaeology,Fort Collins, Colorado.

McBride, Pamela J., and Mollie S. Toll2003 Macrobotanical Remains. In Salt Creek: Data

Recovery at Seven Prehistoric Sites along US 285in Chaves and De Baca Counties, New Mexico, byNancy J. Akins, pp. 279–296. Archaeology Notes298. Office of Archaeological Studies, Museumof New Mexico, Santa Fe.

McCluney, Eugene B.1962 A New Name and Revised Description for a

Mogollon Pottery Type from Southern NewMexico. Southwestern Lore 27(4):49–55.

Mera, H. P.1938 Reconnaissance and Excavations in Southeastern

New Mexico. American AnthropologicalAssociation Memoir 51. Washington, D.C.

1943 An Outline of Ceramic Developments in Southernand Southeastern New Mexico. Technical SeriesBulletin 11. Laboratory of Anthropology, SantaFe.

Miller, Myles R.1995 Ceramics of the Jornada Mogollon and Trans-

Pecos Regions of West Texas. In Prehistoric andHistoric Aboriginal Ceramics in Texas, by T. K.Perttula, M. R. Miller, R. A. Rickliss, D. J.Prikryl, and C. Lintz. Bulletin of the TexasArcheological Society 66:210–220.

Miller, Myles R., and Nancy A. Kenmotsu2004 Prehistory of the Jornada Mogollon and Eastern

Trans-Pecos Regions in Texas. In The Prehistoryof Texas, edited by Timothy K. Perttula, pp.205–265. Texas A&M Press, College Station.

Moga, Susan M.2000 Macho Dunes Fauna. In Prehistoric Burned

Brush Structures and a Quarry Site along theCarlsbad Relief Route, Eddy County, NewMexico, by Dorothy A. Zamora, pp. 119–123.Archaeology Notes 203. Office of ArchaeologicalStudies, Museum of New Mexico, Santa Fe.

Moore, James L.1980 Archaic Settlement and Subsistence. In Human

Adaptations in a Marginal Environment: The UIIMitigation Project, edited by J. Moore and J.Winter, pp. 358–381. Office of ContractArcheology, University of New Mexico,Albuquerque.

1996 Archaeological Investigations in the SouthernMesilla Bolson: Data Recovery at the SantaTeresa Port-of-Entry Facility. Archaeology Notes188. Office of Archaeological Studies, Museumof New Mexico, Santa Fe.

1999 Projectile Points. In Archaeology of the MogollonHighlands: Settlement Systems and Adaptation.Vol 3., Analysis of Chipped and Ground StoneArtifacts, edited by Yvonne R. Oakes and DorothyA. Zamora, pp. 25–82. Archaeology Notes 232.Office of Archaeological Studies, Museum ofNew Mexico, Santa Fe.

2003 Chipped Stone. In Salt Creek: Data Recovery atSeven Prehistoric Sites along US 285 in Chavesand DeBaca Counties, New Mexico. ArchaeologyNotes 298. Office of Archaeological Studies,Museum of New Mexico, Santa Fe.

Nials, Fred L.1980 Environment. In Implications of Archaeological

Collections, Tests, and Excavations in theCarlsbad Area, edited by M. Thompson, pp.4–23. Cultural Resources Management DivisionReport No. 433. New Mexico State University,Las Cruces.

Niethammer, Carolyn1974 American Indian Food and Lore. Macmillan

Publishing, New York.

Oakes, Yvonne R.1982 Prehistoric Gathering Sites near Hackberry Lake,

Eddy County, New Mexico. Laboratory ofAnthropology Notes 305. Museum of NewMexico, Santa Fe.

134

1985 An Assessment of Gathering Sites near HackberryLake, Eddy County, New Mexico. Laboratory ofAnthropology Notes 415. Museum of NewMexico, Santa Fe.

OAS (Office of Archaeological Studies)1994a Standardized Lithic Artifact Analysis: Attributes

and Variable Code Lists. Archaeology Notes 24c.Office of Archaeological Studies, Museum ofNew Mexico, Santa Fe.

1994b Standardized Ground Stone Artifact Analysis: ADraft Manual for the Office of ArchaeologicalStudies. Archaeology Notes 24b. Office ofArchaeological Studies, Museum of New Mexico,Santa Fe.

O’Laughlin, Thomas C.1980 The Keystone Dam Site and Other Archaic and

Formative Sites in Northwest El Paso, Texas.Publications in Anthropology 8. El PasoCentennial Museum, University of Texas at ElPaso.

Parry, William J., and Robert L. Kelly1987 Expedient Core Technology and Sedentism. In

The Organization of Core Technology, edited byJ. Johnson and C. Morrow, pp. 285–304.Westview Press, Boulder.

Parry, W., and J. Speth1984 The Garnsey Spring Campsite: Late Prehistoric

Occupation in Southeastern New Mexico.Technical Reports No. 15; Research Reports inAnthropology Contribution 10. Museum ofAnthropology, University of Michigan, AnnArbor.

Pennington, Campbell W.1963 The Tarahumara of Mexico: Their Environment

and Material Culture. Editorial Agata,Guadalajara, Mexico.

Peterson, Roger S., and Chad S. Boyd1998 Ecology and Management of Sand Shinnery

Communities: A Literature Review. GeneralTechnical Report RMRS-GTR-16. RockyMountain Research Station, USDA ForestService, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Phippen, G. Robert, A. B. Silberberg, C. A. Zier, K. B.Menke, C. L. Wase, G. D. Smith, M. McFaul, G. W.Crawford, T. J. Kludt, D. V. Hill, and P. McBride2000 Excavation of Thirteen Archaeological Sites

along the D.S.E. El Paso Pipeline, Otero andChaves Counties, Southeastern New Mexico.Centennial Archaeology, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Polk, Harding, II, and David A. Phillips Jr.2005 Quick Reference: N.M. Historical Artifacts.

Version 4.0 (February 2005).

Post, Stephen S., and Charles A. Hannafordin prep.

The I-40, Exit 102 Acomita Interchange Study:Research Design and Data Recovery Plan for SixArchaeological Sites (LA 54902, LA 89019, LA89020, LA 108511, LA 145685, and LA 149868),Cibola County, New Mexico. Archaeology Notes371. Office of Archaeological Studies, Museumof New Mexico, Santa Fe.

Powers, Dennis W., and Robert M. Holt1993 The Upper Cenozoic Gatuna Formation of

Southeastern New Mexico. In New MexicoGeological Society 44th Annual FieldConference: Carlsbad Region, New Mexico, andWest Texas, edited by David W. Love, J. W.Hawley, B. S. Kues, J. W. Adams, G. S. Austin,and J. M. Barker, pp. 271–282. New MexicoGeological Society, Socorro.

Quigg, Mike, Mark Sechrist, and Grant Smith2002 Testing and Data Recovery of Burned Rock

Features in Sites on Otero Mesa, New Mexico.Directorate of the Environment, Fort Bliss, Texas.

Railey, Jim A, Paula M. Pflepsen, and Anna Osterholtz2006 A Cultural Resources Survey for a Proposed

Realignment and County Road Expansion alongPortions of NM 128, NM 31, and Adjoining RoadSegments in Eddy County, New Mexico. SWCAEnvironmental Consultants, Albuquerque.

Riches, Susan M.1970 Archaeological Survey of the Eastern Guadalupe

Mountains, New Mexico. Master’s thesis,Department of Anthropology, University ofWisconsin, Madison.

Roberts, F., Jr.1942 Archaeological and Geological Investigations in

the San Jon District, Eastern New Mexico.Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 103(4).Washington, D.C.

Robertson, Paul B.1985 Analysis of Vertebrate Materials from the

135

Brantley Project Area, Eddy County, NewMexico. In The Prehistory of the Carlsbad Basin,Southeastern New Mexico, by Susana R. Katz andPaul Katz, pp. A19–A23. Incarnate WorldCollege, San Antonio.

Rocek, T., and J. Speth1986 The Henderson Site Burials: Glimpses of a Late

Prehistoric Population in the Pecos Valley.Museum of Anthropology, Technical Reports No.18; Research Reports in Archaeology,Contribution No. 13. University of Michigan, AnnArbor.

Roney, John R.1995 Prehistory of the Guadalupe Mountains. The

Artifact 33(1):iii–99. El Paso ArchaeologicalSociety.

Runyan, John W.1972 The Laguna Plata Site, L.C.A.S. C-10-C, LA

5148. In Transactions of the 7th RegionalArcheological Symposium for Southeastern NewMexico and Western Texas, pp. 101–114.

Schelberg, John D., and Sandy Rayl1984 An Archaeological Survey of Two Sites in the

Proposed Railroad Right-of-way, WIPP.

Schlanger, Sarah H.1990 Artifact Assemblage Composition and Site

Occupation Duration. In Perspectives onSouthwestern Prehistory, edited by Paul E.Minnis and Charles L. Redman, pp. 103–121.Westview Press, Boulder.

Schroeder, Albert H. (assembler)1983 The Pratt Cave Studies. The Artifact 21(1–4).

Seaman, Timothy J., Peggy Gerow, and Glenna Dean1987 Archeological Investigations at Sites 030-3895

and 030-3900, Doña Ana Fairgrounds, NewMexico. Office of Contract Archeology,University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

Seaman, Timothy J., and Barbara J. Mills1988 El Paso Brownware Analysis. In The Border Star

85 Survey: Toward an Archeology of Landscapes,edited by T. J. Seaman, W. H. Doleman, and R. C.Chapman, pp. 169–189. Office of ContractArcheology, University of New Mexico,Albuquerque.

Sebastian, V. Lynne1989 The Archaic Period. In Living on the Land: 11,000

Years of Human Adaptation in Southeastern NewMexico, by Lynne Sebastian and Signa Larralde,pp. 41–57. Cultural Resources Series No. 6. NewMexico Bureau of Land Management.

Sebastian, V. Lynne, and Signa Larralde1989 Living on the Land: 11,000 Years of Human

Adaptation in Southeastern New Mexico. CulturalResources Series No. 6. New Mexico Bureau ofLand Management.

Sellards, E.1952 Early Man in America. University of Texas,

Austin.

Shelley, Phillip H.1994 A Geoarchaeological and Technological

Evaluation of the Archaic Archaeology of theLlano Estacado and Adjacent Areas of NewMexico. In Archaic Hunter-GathererArchaeology in the American Southwest, editedby Bradley J. Vierra, pp. 372–404. Eastern NewMexico University Contributions inAnthropology 13(1). Portales.

Simpson, Sean2004a A Data Recovery of Four Sites near Dark

Canyon, Eddy County, New Mexico. Mesa FieldServices Report 438e. Carlsbad.

2004b A Data Recovery of LA 84982, Eddy County, NewMexico. Mesa Field Services Report 672.Carlsbad.

Smith, Calvin B., Shirley East-Smith, and John W.Runyan1966 A Preliminary Investigations of the Rattlesnake

Draw Site. Lea County Special Series No. 1.Hobbs, New Mexico.

Snow, David H.1985 A Preliminary Ceramic Analysis, LA 120, Gran

Quivira, 1985: The Glazes and Black-on- WhiteWares. Draft report submitted to Arizona StateUniversity, Tempe.

Speth, John D.1983 Bison Kills and Bone Counts. University of

Chicago Press.

1997 Social Implications of Faunal Spatial Patterning

136

at the Henderson Site. Paper presented at the 62ndAnnual Meeting of the Society for AmericanArchaeology, Nashville, Tennessee.

Speth, John D. (editor)2004 Life on the Periphery: Economic Change in Late

Prehistoric Southeastern New Mexico. Memoir37. Museum of Anthropology, University ofMichigan, Ann Arbor.

Speth, J., and W. Parry1978 Late Prehistoric Bison Procurement in

Southeastern New Mexico: The 1977 Season atthe Garnsey Site. Museum of Anthropology,Technical Reports No. 8; Research Reports inArchaeology Contribution No. 4. University ofMichigan, Ann Arbor.

Spielmann, Katherine A.1983 Late Prehistoric Exchange between the Southwest

and Southern Plains. Plains Anthropologist28–102(1):257–272.

1996 Exchange and Evolution: Themes in the Study ofPlains-Pueblo Relations. In InterpretingSouthwestern Diversity: Underlying Principlesand Overarching Patterns, edited by Paul R. Fishand J. Jefferson Reid, pp. 35–40. AnthropologicalResearch Papers 48. Arizona State University,Tempe.

Staley, David P.1996 Faunal Remains. In Archaeological Investigations

along the Potash Junction to Cunningham StationTransmission Line, Eddy and Lea Counties, NewMexico, pp. 195–213. TRC Mariah Associates,Albuquerque.

Staley, D. P., and K. A. Adams1995 Cultural Resource Survey of a Powerline Route

between Potash Junction and CunninghamStation, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico.Prepared for Southwestern Public ServiceCompany, Amarillo. TRC Mariah Associates,Albuquerque.

Staley, David P., K. Adams, T. Dolan, J. E. Evaskovich,D. V. Hill, R. G. Holloway, W. B. Hudspeth, and R. B.Roxlau1996 Archaeological Investigations along the Potash

Junction to Cunningham Station TransmissionLine, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico. Vol.2 of Mescalero Plains Archaeology. TRC Mariah

Associates, Albuquerque.

Sternberg, Robert S.1990 The Geophysical Basis of Archaeomagnetic

Dating. In Archaeomagnetic Dating, edited byJeffrey L. Eighmy and Robert S. Sternberg, pp.5–28. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Stevens, D.1973 Blackwater Draw Locality No. 1, 1963–1972, and

Its Relevance to the Firstview Complex. Master’sthesis, Eastern New Mexico University, Portales.

Stodder, Ann Lucy Wiener1989 Bioarcheological Resources of New Mexico. In

Human Adaptations and Cultural Change in theGreater Southwest, by Allan H. Simmons, AnnLucy Wiener Stodder, Douglas D. Dykeman, andPatricia Hicks, pp. 300–317. ArkansasArcheological Survey Research Series 32.Fayetteville.

Stuart, David E, and Rory P. Gauthier1981 Prehistoric New Mexico: Background for Survey.

Historic Preservation Bureau, Santa Fe.

Suhm, D. A., and E. Jelks1962 Handbook of Texas Archaeology: Type

Descriptions. Texas Archaeological Society andTexas Memorial Museum, Austin.

Tennis, Cynthia, J. M. Hunziker, and J. D. Leach1997 Fire-Cracked Rock Use and Reuse in the Hueco

Bolson, Fort Bliss, Texas. Archaeological SurveyReport 257, Center for Archaeological Research,University of Texas, San Antonio; andArchaeological Technical Reports 12,Anthropology Research Center, University ofTexas, El Paso.

Thompson, Marc1980 Implications of Archaeological Collections, Test,

and Excavations in the Carlsbad Area. CulturalResource Management Division Report 433.Department of Sociology and Anthropology, NewMexico State University, Las Cruces.

Toll, Mollie S.2002 Plant Utilization. In The Fox Place: A Late

Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherer Pithouse Villagenear Roswell, New Mexico, by Regge N.Wiseman, pp. 127–131. Archaeology Notes 234.Office of Archaeological Studies, Museum ofNew Mexico, Santa Fe.

137

Toll, Mollie S., and Pamela J. McBride1999 Results of Flotation and Radiocarbon Sample

Analysis at Archaic through Protohistoric Sites(Piñon Project), Cornucopia Draw, Otero County,New Mexico. On file, Geo-Marine, El Paso.Technical Series 74. Ethnobotany Lab, Office ofArchaeological Studies, Museum of New Mexico,Santa Fe.

Tuan, Yi-Fu, C. E. Everard, J. G. Widdison, and I. Bennet1973 The Climate of New Mexico. Rev. ed. State

Planning Office, Department of Finance andAdministration, Santa Fe.

Turnbow, Christopher A., Timothy Graves, and Toni R.Goar2000 Cultural Resource Survey for the Proposed NM

128 Realignment, NMSHTD Project No. TMP-128(7)0, Control Number 3279, Eddy County,New Mexico. TRC Project 28946. Albuquerque.

Turner, E. W., and T. R. Hester1985 A Field Guide to the Stone Artifacts of Texas

Indians. Texas Monthly Press, Austin.

Van Devender, T., D. Wiseman, and J. Gallagher1978 Holocene Environments and Archeology in the

Rocky Arroyo and Last Chance Canyons. In pos-session of authors.

Vierra, Bradley J.1980 A Preliminary Ethnographic Model of the

Southwestern Archaic Settlement System. InHuman Adaptations in a Marginal Environment:The UII Mitigation Project, edited by J. Mooreand J. Winter, pp. 351–357. Office of ContractArcheology, University of New Mexico.Albuquerque.

1994 Archaic Hunter-Gatherer Archaeology in theAmerican Southwest. In Archaic Hunter-Gatherer Archaeology in the American Southwest,edited by B. Vierra, pp. 5–61. Contributions inAnthropology 13(1). Eastern New MexicoUniversity, Portales.

Vierra, Bradley J., and William H. Doleman1994 Archaic Hunter-Gatherer Mobility Strategies in

Northwestern New Mexico. In Archaic Hunter-Gatherer Archaeology in the American Southwest,edited by B. Vierra, pp. 76–102. Contributions inAnthropology 13(1). Eastern New MexicoUniversity, Portales.

Warnica, J.1961 The Elida Site: Evidence of a Folsom Occupation

in Roosevelt County, Eastern New Mexico. TexasArchaeological Society Bulletin 30:209-215.

Warnica, J., and T. Williamson1968 The Milnesand Site Revisited. In Transactions of

the Third Regional Archeological Symposium forSoutheastern New Mexico and Western Texas, pp.21-22. South Plains Archeological Society,Lubbock.

Warren, A. H.1981a Description of Pottery Tempering Materials. In

Excavation of Mound 7, Gran Quivira NationalMonument, New Mexico, by A. C. Hayes, J. N.Young, and A. H. Warren, pp. 179–182.Publications in Archeology 16. National ParkService, Washington, D.C.

1981b A Petrographic Study of the Pottery. InContributions to Gran Quivira Archeology, GranQuivira National Monument, New Mexico, editedby Alden C. Hayes, pp. 67–73. Publications inArcheology 17. National Park Service,Washington, D.C.

Watts, W. C.1963 Distribution of Pottery in Surface Sites on the

South Plains of Texas. Bulletin of the South PlainsArcheological Society 1:1–25.

Weather Bureau, US Department of Commerce1967 Precipitation maps, State of New Mexico.

Formerly available from the Office of the StateEngineer, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Wessel, Richard L.1990a Impact Assessment of Archaeological Site CA-

LAn-1166, Rowher Flat Off-Highway RecreationArea, Saugus Ranger District, Angeles NationalForest. USDA Forest Service, Angeles NationalForest, Cultural Resource Section, Arcadia,California.

1990a Report on Archaeological Investigations at BigRock Shelter (CA-LAn-1174) in Texas Canyon,Rowher Flat Off-Highway Recreation Area,Saugus Ranger District, Angeles National Forest.USDA Forest Service, Angeles National Forest,Cultural Resource Section, Arcadia, California.

Wessel, Richard L., and Michael J. McIntyre1986 1986 Results of Test Excavations of CA-LAn-

138

1174. In Archaeological Phase I Data Recoveryand Monitoring and Phase II Assessment andInventory Program for the Rowher Flat Off-Highway Recreation Area, pp. 98–110. SaugusRanger District, Angeles National Forest, USDAForest Service, Angeles National Forest, CulturalResource Section, Arcadia, California.

West, K.1982 Analysis of Rim Sherds from North McGregor

Range. On file, Directorate of FacilitiesEngineering, Environmental Office, Fort Bliss,Texas.

West, Stephen1994 Biological Inventory of Playas and Salt Lakes in

the Carlsbad Resource Area, Eddy and LeaCounties, New Mexico. Prepared for the CarlsbadResource Area, Bureau of Land Management.

Wetterstrom, Wilma E.1978 Plant Remains from Mesilla and El Paso Phase

Sites of the Hueco Bolson: A Preliminary Report.Appendix F in Settlement Patterns of the WesternHueco Bolson, by Michael Whalen. El PasoCentennial Museum Publications inAnthropology 6. University of Texas, El Paso.

Whalen, Michael E.1994 Turquoise Ridge and Late Prehistoric Residential

Mobility in the Desert Mogollon Region.University of Utah Anthropological Papers 118.University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

1996 Ceramic Typology and the Seriation of El PasoPlain Brown Pottery. Kiva 62(2):171–184.

White, W. E., and G. E. Kues1992 Inventory of Springs in the State of New Mexico.

Open File Report 92-118, U.S. GeologicalSurvey, Albuquerque.

Willey, G., and P. Phillips1958 Method and Theory in American Archaeology.

University of Chicago.

Wilson, C. Dean2000 The Ceramic Assemblage. In Prehistoric Burned

Brush Structures and a Quarry Site along theCarlsbad Relief Route, Eddy County, NewMexico, by D. A. Zamora, pp. 63–72.Archaeology Notes 203. Office of ArchaeologicalStudies, Museum of New Mexico, Santa Fe.

Wiseman, Regge N.1999 Cuahuatitlan Burnished: 17th Century Pottery

Made in the Valley of Mexico and Found on theSouthern Plains of Texas. In Transactions of the34th Regional Archeological Symposium forSoutheastern New Mexico and West Texas, pp.61–65. Midland.

2000 Bob Crosby Draw and River Camp:Contemplating Prehistoric Social Boundaries inSoutheastern New Mexico. Archaeology Notes235. Office of Archaeological Studies, Museumof New Mexico, Santa Fe.

2001a An Under-Appreciated Phenomenon: Small Non-Rock Thermal Features in Southeastern NewMexico. Journal of Big Bend Studies 13:1–10.Center for Big Bend Studies, Alpine, Texas.

2001b Precipitation, Dry-Land Farming, and Blackdom.In Glimpses of Late Frontier Life in New Mexico’sSouthern Pecos Valley: Archaeology and Historyat Blackdom and Seven Rivers, by R. N.Wiseman, pp. 49–50. Archaeology Notes 233.Office of Archaeological Studies, Museum ofNew Mexico, Santa Fe.

2002 The Fox Place: A Late Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherer Pithouse Village near Roswell, NewMexico. Archaeology Notes 234. Office ofArchaeological Studies, Museum of New Mexico,Santa Fe.

2003 The Roswell South Project: Excavations in theSacramento Plain and Northern ChihuahuanDesert of Southeastern New Mexico. ArchaeologyNotes 237. Office of Archaeological Studies,Museum of New Mexico, Santa Fe.

Wiseman, R. N., M. Y. El-Najjar, J. S. Bruder, M. Heller,and R. I. Ford1976 Multi-Disciplinary Investigations at the Smokey

Bear Ruin (LA 2112), Lincoln County, NewMexico. Monograph 4. COAS Publishing andResearch, Las Cruces.

Wiseman, R. N., David V. Hill, and Dennis McIntosh1999 The Llano Estacado Pottery Project: A Tabulation

Report on the Typology Study. In Transactions ofthe 34th Regional Archeological Symposium forSoutheastern New Mexico and West Texas, pp.15–60. Midland.

139

York, J. C., and W. A. Dick-Peddie1969 Vegetation Changes in Southern New Mexico

during the Past Hundred Years. In Arid Lands inPerspective, edited by W. G. McGinnies and B. J.Goldman, pp. 157–199. University of ArizonaPress, Tucson.

Young, Wayne1982 Excavations at the Ram’s Head Site, 41PC35,

Pecos County, Texas. Publications in ArchaeologyReport 23. Texas Department of Transportation,Austin.

Zamora, Dorothy A.2000 Prehistoric Burned Brush Structures and a

Quarry Site along the Carlsbad Relief Route,Eddy County, New Mexico. Archaeology Notes203. Office of Archaeological Studies, Museumof New Mexico, Santa Fe.

140

LOVING LAKES AND DUNES: RESEARCH DESIGN …Archaeological Notes 383 2006 MUSEUM OF NEW MEXICO OFFICE...

Documents

Transcript of LOVING LAKES AND DUNES: RESEARCH DESIGN …Archaeological Notes 383 2006 MUSEUM OF NEW MEXICO OFFICE...