THE ARTIFACT

VOL. 50, 2012 El Paso Archaeological Society, Inc. El Paso, Texas

David T. Kirkpatrick Editor

Ann Lewis Technical Editor

El Paso Archaeological Society, Inc. PO Box 4345 El Paso, Texas 79914-4345

Cover Image:
Location of Study Area South of the Hondo River.

The Artifact

ii

Volume 50 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Bison Hunting and the Emergence of Plains-Pueblo Interaction in Southeastern New Mexico: The View from Rocky Arroyo and Its Neighbors...................................................... 1 John D. Speth and Laura Staro ............................................................................................ 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1 Rocky Arroyo and Its Neighbors ........................................................................................ 5 The Rocky Arroyo Bison ...................................................................................................... 8 Roswell, Bison, and Plains-Pueblo Interaction................................................................ 20 Hunters, Middlemen, and Collapse ................................................................................. 23 Some Thoughts and Concluding Remarks ...................................................................... 28 Acknowledgments .............................................................................................................. 32 References Cited .................................................................................................................. 33 Dating El Paso Milk Bottles Part 2, Milk Bottles Made by Press-and-Blow Machines...... 45 Bill Lockhart 2012 ............................................................................................................ 45 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 45 BackgroundPress-and-Blow Machines used for Milk Bottles................................... 46 Characteristics of Press-and-Blow Machines........................................................... 48 Finishes and Removal Tools ...................................................................................... 49 Labeling ........................................................................................................................ 52 Plates ............................................................................................................................. 53 Sizes ............................................................................................................................... 54 Manufacturers Marks and Codes............................................................................. 54 The El Paso Dairy Industry and Bottle Laws .................................................................. 55 El Paso Milk Bottle Laws ............................................................................................ 55 The 1915/1916 Ordinance .......................................................................................... 56 The 1936 Ordinance..................................................................................................... 56 El Paso Milk Bottles Made by Press-and-Blow Machines ............................................. 57 El Paso Dairy Co. (1897-1927) .................................................................................... 57 Important Manufacturing Changes .................................................................................. 58 Bottle Variations .......................................................................................................... 59 El Paso Dairy Co.Type 1 ......................................................................................... 61 El Paso Dairy Co.Type 2 ......................................................................................... 63 El Paso Dairy Co.Type 3 ......................................................................................... 63 El Paso Dairy Co.Type 4 ......................................................................................... 64 El Paso Dairy Co.Type 5 ......................................................................................... 68 El Paso Dairy Co.Type 6 ......................................................................................... 68 ConclusionsEl Paso Dairy Co. ............................................................................... 68 Mrs. L.W. Hawkins and the Hawkins Dairy (1902-1954) .............................................. 68 Bottle Variations .......................................................................................................... 69 Mrs. L.W. HawkinsType 1 ..................................................................................... 69 Hawkins DairyType 2 ............................................................................................. 70 Volume 50 2012 iii The Artifact

Hawkins DairyType 3 ............................................................................................. 72 Hawkins Creamer ....................................................................................................... 75 Good Service Dairy (ca. 1917-1974) .................................................................................. 75 Bottle Variations .......................................................................................................... 77 Good Service DairyType 1 ..................................................................................... 78 Good Service DairyType 2 ..................................................................................... 78 Good Service DairyType 3 ..................................................................................... 78 Prices Dairy (1906-present) ............................................................................................... 79 Bottle Variations .......................................................................................................... 80 Prices DairyType 1 ................................................................................................. 81 Prices DairyType 2 ................................................................................................. 81 Prices DairyType 3 ................................................................................................. 81 Prices DairyType 4 ................................................................................................. 84 Prices DairyCottage Cheese .................................................................................. 85 Conclusion............................................................................................................................ 85 Manufacturing Characteristics .................................................................................. 85 Dairy Dominance......................................................................................................... 86 City Ordinances ........................................................................................................... 86 Acknowledgments .............................................................................................................. 86 References............................................................................................................................. 87 Having Fought and Died Together: Examining the Battle of Glorieta Pass Confederate Mass Grave................................................................................................................................... 91 By Matthew J. Barbour ....................................................................................................... 91 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 91 The American Civil War in New Mexico......................................................................... 92 Archaeology of the Confederate Dead ............................................................................. 95 Burial 1, a Solitary Grave............................................................................................ 96 Burial 2, the Mass Grave............................................................................................. 97 Forensic Analysis of the Human Remains..................................................................... 100 Burial 1A, Major John S. Shropshire ....................................................................... 104 Burial 2B, Blacksmith James Manus ....................................................................... 105 Burial 2E, Private Ebenezer Hanna ......................................................................... 105 Burial 2N, Private William Straughn ...................................................................... 105 Burial 2S, Private J. S. L. Cotton .............................................................................. 106 Burial 2X, Bugler G. N. Taylor ................................................................................. 106 Conclusion and Aftermath............................................................................................... 107 Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................... 107 References Cited ................................................................................................................ 109 El Paso Archaeological Society ............................................................................................... 111 Membership ............................................................................................................................... 111 Officers and Directors, 2012..................................................................................................... 112

The Artifact

iv

Volume 50 2012

BISON HUNTING AND THE EMERGENCE OF PLAINS-PUEBLO INTERACTION IN SOUTHEASTERN NEW MEXICO: THE VIEW FROM ROCKY ARROYO AND ITS NEIGHBORS JOHN D. SPETH AND LAURA STARO
INTRODUCTION
It is truly a pleasure for us to offer this paper in celebration of the long, distinguished, and productive career of Regge N. Wiseman, an archaeologist who over many years has added immeasurably to our understanding of Southwestern prehistory. Not only are Regges contributions many and substantial, he has also worked in just about every corner of the Southwest and on just about every time period and type of sitefrom the small ephemeral encampments of nomadic archaic foragers to the imposing multi-room pueblo communities of the sort that come to mind when we think of what archaeology in the Southwest is supposed to be all about. But among the many areas of the Southwest that Regge has worked in, one is especially meaningful to us. Regge shares with us the same passion for the archaeology of a huge and very neglected chunk of the American Southwestsoutheastern New Mexico. Over the many years that he has been doing archaeology, Regge has come back to this part of the state over and over again, and, with each return, his work has added a valuable new chapter to our understanding of what happened in the past in this vast region, and how developments there dovetailed with happenings, not only to the west in the heartland of the Southwest, but also to the east in the Southern Plains (e.g., Wiseman 1975, 1981, 1985, 1988, 1991, 1996a, 1996b, 1997, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004a, 2004b, 2010; Wiseman et al.1976). There certainly is no shortage of archaeologists working in the heartland, the area that encompasses the three classical archaeological traditions that we all learn about when we take our first course in Southwestern archaeology: Anasazi (or its currently more politically correct though scientifically misleading rubric Ancestral Pueblo), Mogollon, and Hohokam. If one were to count up all the archaeologists working in the regionthose in academe, those doing CRM or contract archaeology, and those working for the myriad city, county, state, and federal agencies in the four states that form the core of the Southwestthe tally would be quite astounding, almost a veritable army of excavators, technicians, analysts, and report writers including specialists in ceramics, lithics, human and animal bones, ethnobotany, rock art, geophysical survey, geoarchaeology, pollen, phytoliths, starch grains, GIS, and many, many others. And by now literally hundreds of thousands of sites have been recorded, and many thousands have been surface collected, augered, tested, or entirely excavated. Looking back, it seems hard to believe that A. V. Kidder was told already early in the 20th century that the Southwest, archaeologically speaking, was a sucked orange (Kidder 1958:322). If that anonymous purveyor of sage advice could only see the Southwest today! It is really fortunate for all of us who work there that Kidder chose to ignore that little piece of very misguided wisdom.

Volume 50 2012

The Artifact

It is certainly true that for well over a century the Southwest has seen a tremendous amount of archaeological activity, and it is equally true that there are a lot of archaeologists living and working (and retiring) there today. But what is perhaps less well appreciated is the unfortunate fact that there are still more than a few quite substantial parts of that famous sucked orange that remain very poorly known, in some cases virtual terra incognita by comparison to what we know about the prehistory of the heartland. One such area is southeastern New Mexico, a vast expanse of real estate that stretches from the mountains flanking the eastern side of the Rio Grande eastward to the Texas border on the Llano Estacado, and southward from Interstate 40 to the West Texas border. This terribly understudied piece of the Southwest, roughly onequarter of the state of New Mexico, encompasses more than 77,700 km2 (>30,000 mi2), an area that matches or exceeds the size of 11 US states! Many of our colleagues will undoubtedly insist that, archaeologically, southeastern New Mexico belongs to the Southern Plains, not the SouthwestAfter all, where are the Pueblos? But thats precisely the kind of reaction our Plains colleagues have as wellSoutheastern New Mexico? Thats the Southwest, not the Plains. The pottery there is all Southwestern stuff. To most archaeologists (and we suspect to most tourists as well), southeastern New Mexico falls through the proverbial cracks; its one of those marginal areas, and to mostwhether archaeologist or touristthat seems to mean uninteresting. The fact that its also hot, much of it flat by Southwestern standards, dry, and relatively treeless certainly doesnt help. One wonders then why anthropologists spend so much time and effort studying and teaching about modern hunters and gatherers, groups like the Kalahari San (Bushmen) in Botswana and Namibia and the Hadza in Tanzania, since they too have been relegated by our profession to marginal areas (see discussion in Porter and Marlow 2007). Even the culture historical framework used by Southwestern archaeologists reflects southeastern New Mexicos perceived marginality in the prehistoric scheme of things. Thus, we have the Mogollon culture area, a fully respectable division within the cultural geography of the ancient Southwest, and one that has been with us for decades. Occupying much of southwestern New Mexico and southeastern Arizona, the Mogollon stands front and center with its equals, the Ancestral Pueblo (i.e., Anasazi) and Hohokam, and features prominently in any serious discussion of Southwestern prehistory (Cordell and McBrinn 2012). Moving eastward across southern New Mexico, we come to the Jornada Branch of the Mogollon (or Jornada Mogollon for short), an entity centered on the El Paso area but extending into southcentral New Mexico and northern Mexico. Though this culture area or tradition has been with us for a long time (Lehmer 1948; see also Miller and Kenmotsu 2004), it is far from mainstream. The Jornada Mogollon does get discussed by archaeologists who work outside the Jornada area, but most often as a kind of backwater occupied by less-developed cultures that somehow missed the boat while the really important things were happening elsewhere. Cordell and McBrinns Archaeology of the Southwest (2012) clearly shows just how little impact Jornada Mogollon archaeology has had on mainstream thinking in the profession; using their index as a guide, in the books 308 pages of text the term Jornada Mogollon shows up on only

The Artifact

Volume 50 2012

six pages (<2%). Of these, three pages have only a single sentence mentioning the term, the other three have six paragraphs more or less devoted to Jornada Mogollon. Moving still farther to the east, we come to the Eastern Extension of the Jornada Branch of the Mogollon. This mouthful, which encompasses most of southeastern New Mexico and a bit of adjacent Texas, is largely the creation of local amateurs who for years sought help from the archaeological establishment but were pretty much ignored (Corley 1965; Leslie 1979; Miller and Kenmotsu 2004). Then, from the early 1980s onward, the area was largely given over to contract archaeologists, who have been buried up to their proverbial ears pounding out endless streams of boilerplate surveys of well pads, pipeline rights-of-way, power lines, and potash mining leases. Although thousands of sites (read picked-over, deflated, surface manifestations) have been recorded, to the consternation of both state and federal officials there still is very little real prehistory for this vast area, no archaeological record that provides palpable grist for the mills of mainstream theorizing about cultural developments in the heartland of the Southwest or elsewhere in North America, a sad state of affairs that finally led to the development of a more streamlined and flexible research design for the contract industry operating in this part of the state (Hogan 2006). Southeastern New Mexico does get occasional lip service in broader treatments of the Southwest, but it remains very poorly known and largely ignored. Not surprisingly, the post-Paleoindian archaeology of this entire swath of New Mexico is not even mentioned in Cordell and McBrinns (2012) text. Over the years, Regge Wisemans work stands out among a handful of exceptions to the rather disheartening generalizations we have just made about the status of archaeology in southeastern New Mexico. He has worked long and closely with local amateurs, providing them with advice and assistance, identifying their ceramics, recording their collections, duplicating rare diaries, records, and photographs when they exist, and bringing orphaned collections to Santa Fe for study and permanent curation. He has also become a crucial liaison between the Southwest and Southern Plains, helping Plains archaeologists identify and date their Southwestern glazes and other ceramic types, and his Southwestern colleagues recognize trade goods and other evidence of connections with the Plains. Regge has also done a lot of his own first-class field work in southeastern New Mexico, and he has more than amply demonstrated the incredible research potential of the area for archaeologists who take the time to look carefully at the record. The record is seldom spectacular, certainly not by the standards we are accustomed to in the heartland, but it is definitely interesting and can provide much more than just local culture history. The Pecos Valley in the Roswell area, where Regge has done a lot of his work and made many valuable contributions along the way, provides some clear examples of the areas great potential. Thus, there are both 13th- to-14th-century pithouse villages (Fox Place, Rocky Arroyo) and nearly contemporary pueblo (note the small p here as in communities; Henderson, Bloom Mound) (Figure 1; Emslie et al. 1992; ; Kelley 1984; Speth 2004, 2008; Speth and Newlander 2012; Wiseman 1985, 1988, 2002). And the size of some of these villages is respectable even by Southwestern standards (e.g., Plog 1983:309-310, who postulates a Southwestern-wide average Volume 50 2012 3 The Artifact

of only 6.5 rooms per site)at Fox Place, 11 pitrooms excavated and probably a comparable number remain unexcavated (Wiseman 2002, personal communication 1997); at Henderson, 14 rooms partially or completely excavated out of an estimated 70+ rooms (Speth 2004).

Figure 1. Location of Study Area South of the Hondo River.

The Artifact

Volume 50 2012

The Roswell communities offer much for our understanding of the whens, whys, and wherefores of Plains-Pueblo interaction, a topic of perennial interest to Southwestern archaeologists (Speth 1991; Spielmann 1991). They have produced abundant evidence showing that far-flung interregional connections emerged in the mid- to late 13th century and rapidly intensified during the 14th and 15th centuries. The material remains testifying to this network of interdependency are manifold: from the Southern Plainsliterally thousands of buffalo bones, and ample quantities of Alibates, Tecovas, and Edwards Plateau cherts; from the west turquoise and marine shell ornaments, obsidian, decorated ceramics from as far afield as northern Chihuahua, western New Mexico, and eastern Arizona, at least five and perhaps as many as seven copper bells, at least one scarlet macaw (Ara macao); and from the northeven a large turkey-tail biface fashioned on distinctive Tiger chert from southwestern Wyoming (Emslie et al. 1992; Kelley 1984; Speth 2004; Speth and Newlander 2012; Speth and Rautman 2004; Whittaker et al. 1988; Wiseman 2004a). While the Roswell area may appear marginal to the Southwestern archaeological community, that was certainly not the case during the 14th and 15th centuries, when the denizens of this part of the Southwest became deeply enmeshed in panregional networks of exchange, interaction, and deadly conflict (Kelley 1984; Speth and Newlander 2012; Wiseman 1997, 2004a). The Roswell area may also have been witness to an in situ pithouse-to-pueblo transition, a remarkably late one occurring between the 13th and 15th centuries, and in environmental, social, and political contexts that were probably very unlike the conditions in which the classic pithouse-to-pueblo transitions took place in the heartland (Cordell and McBrinn 2012; Reed 2000; Speth and LeDuc 2007; Young and Herr 2012). What better context to test ideas developed elsewhere in the Southwest?

ROCKY ARROYO AND ITS NEIGHBORS

In what follows, we will summarize previously unpublished information on bison hunting in southeastern New Mexico using the abundant and relatively well preserved faunal remains from a small but very interesting late prehistoric (roughly 13th-14th-century) pithouse village located approximately 10 km (6 mi) southwest of the modern city of Roswell (Chaves County). This siteRocky Arroyowas almost entirely excavated in the 1970s by local amateurs belonging to the Chaves County Archaeological Society (CCAS). The team that dug the site used many of the trappings of a scientific archaeological excavation (e.g., grid system, quarterinch screening), but there is no evidence that any serious note-taking occurred, or that the site was mapped, or that the grid-system played any role in the way the site was excavated and the recovered materials provenienced and recorded. The fate of the artifacts that surely must have been found by the excavators, items such as whole or restorable vessels, projectile points, stone and shell ornaments, bone tools, and the like, is unknown, but faunal remains, as well as human bones (mostly vertebrae and phalanges), lithics, sherds, and other debris were discarded forthwith, some dumped with the backdirt, but many in discrete piles on the surface. The excavators unceremoniously crammed most of the animal bones, everything from rabbit mandibles to bison limb bones, into unlabeled five-gallon cans, which they simply abandoned on the surface. Wiseman salvaged these materials and we treated them with a clear polyvinylVolume 50 2012 5 The Artifact

acetate preservative to prevent the bones from disintegrating. Recognizing Rocky Arroyos potential value, Wiseman made a detailed map of the site, in the process determining that it had originally consisted of at least three deep, roughly square pitrooms irregularly placed around an open midden-filled plaza that encompassed an area of about 270 m2 (Figure 2; Emslie et al. 1992). The CCAS had completely emptied two of the pitrooms and partially dug the third. They also excavated most of the midden area. In 1980 Wiseman conducted small-scale salvage excavations in the remaining structure, recovering a small but valuable sample of in situ archaeological material, including charcoal samples for radiocarbon dating and many additional animal bones.

Figure 2. Features of the Rocky Arroyo Site.

The Artifact

Volume 50 2012

Rocky Arroyo sits at an elevation of about 1,133 m (3,717 ft) out in the open alluvial flats of the Pecos Valley about 8 km (5 mi) more or less due east of Henderson and Bloom Mound. The site is roughly 100 m east of the small intermittent drainage from which it takes its name, and approximately 1 km (0.6 mi) upstream (south) from the confluence of this drainage with the old channel of the Hondo River. Fox Placeanother village to which we will make frequent reference, is located about 3 km (1.9 mi) north (downstream) of Rocky Arroyo. The biases in the faunal sample are difficult to assess. Wiseman was unable to determine with any certainty which bones came from structures and which came from extramural midden deposits, nor could he tell whether a tin contained bones from the structure nearest to it or from more distant ones. In addition, the comparatively small number of bones of small mammals and birds (e.g., rabbits, rodents, and passerines) in the CCAS collection suggests either that the deposits were not systematically screened, or that mostly larger bones were collected from the screens. Fortunately, one of the three pithouses (Structure or Locus 2) was not totally emptied. Wiseman excavated a large wedge of undisturbed deposit and processed all of these sediments by flotation and fine-screening using a 0.5 mm geological sieve. This sample contained thousands of well-preserved fish bones (including scales), as well as a wide array of other faunal remains, most notably bison (Bison sp.), pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana), domestic dog (Canis familiaris), jackrabbit and cottontail rabbit (Lepus californicus and Sylvilagus audubonii), black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), and many tortoise and bird bones. To date, only the birds have been published in detail (Emslie et al. 1992). The abundant bison remains are presented here. As already noted, there are two reasonably well-documented pithouse villages in the Roswell environs (Rocky Arroyo [LA 25277] and Fox Place [LA 68188]) and two pueblos (Henderson [LA 1549] and Bloom Mound [LA 2528]). While the focus here is on Rocky Arroyo, and particularly on its bison remains, we will make frequent comparisons along the way to the bison and other faunal remains from the other three sites, since all four of these communities, based on their ceramic assemblages, are broadly contemporary (i.e., all fall within the 13th to 15th century), and all are located within a few kilometers of each other (the maximum distance separating villagesbetween Henderson and Fox Placeis only about 11 km or 7 mi). Despite the overall similarity of the ceramic assemblages from the four sites, there are some differences that suggest the principal period of occupation at the pithouse communities was slightly earlier than at the pueblos. Noteworthy in this regard are the higher percentages of Jornada Brown and Three Rivers Red-on-terracotta at the pithouse sites and higher percentages of Corona Corrugated and Lincoln Black-on-red at the pueblos (Kelley 1984; Wiseman 2002, 2004a, and personal communication 1997;). The marked architectural differences between them, despite their geographic proximitypithouses at Fox Place and Rocky Arroyo, above-ground adobe room blocks at Henderson and Bloom Moundalso point to the same conclusion. In addition, seriation of the El Paso Polychrome jar rims using variants of the rim sherd index or RSI (Speth and LeDuc 2007; see also OLaughlin 1985; Seaman and Mills 1988a, 1988b; Volume 50 2012 7 The Artifact

Whalen 1993) adds further credence to this chronological ordering, but does not preclude the possibility of some degree of temporal overlap in their occupations and/or sporadic later reuse of sites, either as places to live or as shrines or other special purpose localities, a common practice among ethnographically documented Pueblo communities in the heartland (e.g., Fowles 2009; Speth and LeDuc 2007). The El Paso rim seriation also allows us to recognize an arbitrary but useful subdivision of Hendersons occupational history into Early and Late phases, and it puts Bloom Mounds principal occupation after Hendersons Late Phase. The seriation also places the core of the Fox Place occupation earlier than Rocky Arroyo, and it suggests that Rocky Arroyo is closer in time to Hendersons Early Phase than it is to Fox Place. In sum, seriation arranges the sites into an intriguing pithouse-to-pueblo transition, with Fox Place earliest (small oval to round pithouses); followed by Rocky Arroyo (large square pithouses); followed by Hendersons Early Phase (room blocks of abutting, square to rectangular pithouse-like bathtub rooms); followed by Hendersons Late Phase (aboveground room blocks of large rectangular adobe-walled rooms); and closing with Bloom Mound (above-ground room blocks of rectangular adobe rooms).

THE ROCKY ARROYO BISON

While our focus here is on the large sample of bison bones from Rocky Arroyo, the other three nearby sites also produced bison remains, so throughout the discussion that follows we will make frequent comparisons between all of them. The total number of bison bones (Number of Identifiable Specimens or NISP) from Rocky Arroyo is 2,627 (Table 1). This tally includes those specimens that were identifiable to both species and element, as well as fragments, mostly from limb-shafts, that almost certainly derive from bison, based on their size, cortical thickness, and radius of curvature, as well as the complete absence of any evidence of elk (Cervus canadensis), the only other animal with bones large enough to be confused with those of bison (especially bones from male elk and female bison). The nearby Henderson site produced an even larger number of bison bones (Total NISP = 4,080; Early Phase NISP = 1,398; Late Phase NISP = 2,672). The excavations at Fox Place, though they yielded a total of some 60,000 bones, produced only 239 that could be attributed confidently to bison (Nancy Akins in Wiseman 2002). The smallest number of bison remains came from Bloom Mound, with only 72 specimens. These numbers, while informative, may be misleading for two reasons. First, the volume of deposit that was excavated at each site was different; and second, the way that unidentifiable fragments, especially those from limb shafts, were tallied at Fox Place was far more conservative than at the other three sites. Looking first at excavated volume, we can only make crude guestimates. There is little doubt that Fox Place was the largest excavation, probably by several orders of magnitude. We would guess that Henderson was the next largest, since we worked there for five seasons (two eight-week seasons and three six-week seasons) with crews that averaged around 10 students per season. Nevertheless, Hendersons excavation was much smaller than Fox Places. Volumetrically, more Late Phase deposits were excavated (111.9 m3)

The Artifact

Volume 50 2012

Table 1. Bison Sample Recovered from Rocky Arroyo (All Proveniences) Total Sample Element % of NISP Total MNE NISP 14 8 29 6 3 30 79 42 2 1 46 57 437 38 6 118 69 76 2 33 17 0.53 0.30 1.10 0.23 0.11 1.14 3.01 1.6 0.08 0.04 1.75 2.17 16.63 1.45 0.23 4.49 2.63 2.89 0.08 1.26 0.65 10 7 2.43% 1.70% 5 4 17.24 13.79 3 2 1 1 1 1 25 3 9.09 4 18 24 25 0.97% 4.37% 5.83% 6.07% 1 9 12 13 3.45 31.03 41.38 44.83 12 1 1 3 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 12.5 62.5 25 1 4 4 0.85 5.8 5.26 15 3.64% 1 3.45 1 1 1 2 1 3 19 9 2 1 % of Total MNE 0.24% 0.24% 0.24% 0.49% 0.24% 0.73% 4.61% 2.18% 0.49% 0.24% Immature Only Burned Total % of % Unfused Fusing Fetal Unfused Fusing Fetal Unfused Fusing Fetal Imm. MNI NISP Total % MNI NISP NISP NISP MNE MNE MNE MNI MNI MNI NISP MNI 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 3.45 3.45 3.45 6.9 3.45 3.45 6.9 6.9 3.45 3.45 1 1 5 2.17 1.75 1.14 2 6.67

Volume 50 2012 9 The Artifact

Skull Horn Mandible Teeth Hyoid Atlas Axis Cervical Thoracic Lumbar Caudal Sacrum Vert. Frg. Rib/Vert. Rib Cos. Car. Sternum Scapula P. Hum. D. Hum. Hum. Sh. P. Rad. D. Rad.

The Artifact 10 Volume 50 2012

Table 1. Bison Sample Recovered from Rocky Arroyo (All Proveniences) (cont.). Total Samples Element NISP 19 3 4 3 1 2 4 14 5 7 117 86 1 40 53 14 15 6 20 6 12 1 % of Total NISP 0.72 0.11 0.15 0.11 0.04 0.08 0.15 0.53 0.19 0.27 4.45 3.27 0.04 1.52 2.02 0.53 0.57 0.23 0.76 0.23 0.46 0.04 5 13 3 8 1 1.21% 3.16% 0.73% 1.94% 0.24% 3 7 2 4 1 10.34 24.14 6.9 13.79 3.45 1 1 1 12.5 23 28 4 5.58% 6.80% 0.97% 12 14 2 41.38 48.28 6.9 20 3 10 1 5 1 62.5 12.5 3 2 7.5 3.77 MNE 11 3 4 3 1 2 4 5 2 2 57 15 % of Total MNE 2.67% 0.73% 0.97% 0.73% 0.24% 0.49% 0.97% 1.21% 0.49% 0.49% 13.83% 3.64% Immature Only Burned

Total % of % Unfused Fusing Fetal Unfused Fusing Fetal Unfused Fusing Fetal Imm. MNI NISP Total NISP MNE MNE MNI NISP NISP MNE MNI MNI % MNI NISP MNI 6 2 2 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 29 8 20.69 6.9 6.9 6.9 3.45 3.45 6.9 10.34 3.45 3.45 100 27.59 26 8 3 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 100 25 2 2.33 2 1 1 12.5

P. Ulna D. Ulna Rad. Car. Int. Car. Uln. Car. Acc. Car. 4 Car. 2-3 Car. P. Mc. D. Mc. Pelvis P. Fem. D. Fem. Fem. Sh. Patella P. Tib. D. Tib. Tib. Sh. Lat. Mal Astrag. Calc. Nav. Cub. 2-3 Tar.

Volume 50 2012 11 The Artifact

Table 1. Bison Sample Recovered from Rocky Arroyo (All Proveniences) (cont.). Total Samples Element NISP 5 9 10 29 % of Total NISP 0.19 0.34 0.38 1.10 MNE 2 4 3 1 % of Total MNE 0.49% 0.97% 0.73% 0.24% Immature Only Burned

Total % of % Unfused Fusing Fetal Unfused Fusing Fetal Unfused Fusing Fetal Imm. MNI NISP Total NISP MNE MNE MNI NISP NISP MNE MNI MNI % MNI NISP MNI 1 2 1 1 3.45 6.9 3.45 3.45 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12.5 12.5 12.5

P. Mt. D. Mt. Mt. Sh. P. Mpdl. D. Mpdl. Mpdl. Sh. P. Sesa. D. Sesa. Sesamoid Phal. 1 Phal. 2 Phal. 3 Longbone Cancel. Indet. Total

28 32 20 789 62 93 2627

1.07 1.22 0.76 30.03 2.36 3.54 100.00

24 25 16

5.83% 6.07% 3.88%

3 4 2

10.34 13.79 6.9

37.5

1 2 3 8 1 2

3.57 6.25 15 1.01 1.61 2.15 1.71

412

100.00%

175

82

10

38

24

45

at Henderson than those attributed to the Early Phase (70.7 m3). The scale of excavation at Bloom Mound (68.6 m3) was very similar to the volume sampled in Hendersons Early Phase. Unfortunately, we have no idea how much deposit was excavated by the amateurs at Rocky Arroyo, although they seem to have dug much, perhaps most, of the site. Given that there were three comparatively deep pitrooms and a sizeable adjoining midden, we would guess that the amount of deposit excavated at Rocky Arroyo was greater than at Bloom Mound and in Hendersons Early Phase and more comparable in scale to what we sampled in Hendersons Late Phase. Thus, in descending order of excavated volume of deposit, Fox Place yielded 239 bison bones, Henderson Late Phase 2,672 bones, Rocky Arroyo 2,618 bones, Henderson Early Phase 1,398 bones, and Bloom Mound 72 bones. So, adjusting for the estimated volume of excavated deposit, we think it is reasonably safe to conclude that bison remains were very scarce at Fox Place and Bloom Mound and very abundant at Rocky Arroyo and Henderson. The other factor that needs to be considered is the way non-identifiable fragments, particularly limb-shaft fragments, were coded. One of us (JDS) supervised the coding of all of the bison remains from Rocky Arroyo, Henderson, and Bloom Mound; hence, the treatment of fragments in these cases was consistent across sites. Employing techniques broadly similar to those used in the study of the prey taken by contemporary hunter-gatherers, and in analyzing Paleolithic faunal assemblages (Bunn 1986; Bunn et al. 1988: their Table 1), elements that could not be identified to the level of species were sorted into approximate body-size classes (e.g., small-, medium-, and large-sized mammals). Since there is no evidence, dental or otherwise, that elk were brought into these communities, and there is no reason to expect the presence of domestic cattle in any of the samples, fragments sorted into the large-mammal size class are almost certainly bison. On the other hand, the Fox Place fauna, which was analyzed by Nancy Akins (in Wiseman 2002), was handled in a more conservative manner, with most non-identifiable fragments from both medium- and large-sized mammals combined into a single category. Since limb-shaft fragments in particular are usually very abundant in faunal samples, the low number of bison bones at Fox Place could be no more than an artifact of differences in the way the fragmentary remains were classified and tabulated. This is not offered by way of criticism of the Fox Place study, but simply as a point that has to be considered when trying to assess the significance of differences in the abundance of bison remains at the four sites. The easiest way to circumvent this methodological difference is to exclude the unidentifiable fragments from all of the tabulations (i.e., those that could not be coded to a specific skeletal element). Doing this yields the following results (ordered chronologically from earliest to latest): Fox 239, Rocky Arroyo 1,682, Henderson Early Phase 672, Henderson Late Phase 1,955, Bloom 43. Despite this more conservative approach, the result is pretty much the same as beforebison are rare at the beginning of the sequence (Fox Place) and again at the end (Bloom Mound), and considerably more abundant during the mid-portion of the sequence (Rocky Arroyo and Henderson). The other large game in the region, though obviously much smaller than bison, are antelope (Antilocapra americana) and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus). Deer are present in the faunal

The Artifact

12

Volume 50 2012

assemblages from all four sites, but in small numbers. Sheep (Ovis canadensis) remains are also present, but exceedingly rare (e.g., only a single sheep third phalanx was identified at Henderson). In all four sites antelope overwhelmingly dominate the medium ungulate remains. Given how rare the other taxa are, in what follows we lump all of the remains together and use a single combined category medium ungulate. Arranged chronologically, and omitting Fox Place for the moment because of the way the shaft fragments were coded there (see above), the sites yielded the following total NISP values for medium ungulates: Rocky Arroyo 1,614 (~2,100); Henderson Early Phase 2,089; Henderson Late Phase 2,809; Bloom Mound 1,082. In order to expedite the Rocky Arroyo analysis so that the bones could be returned to the Museum of New Mexico for permanent curation, we did not code the antelope-sized limb-shaft fragments, of which there were many. Thus, the real figure for medium ungulates at Rocky Arroyo is higher. Using the ratio of identifiable elements to shaft fragments that we observed at Henderson as a rough guide, we have increased the NISP for Rocky Arroyos medium ungulates by an additional 500 bones (hence the second value given above in parentheses). If, on the other hand, we want to include Fox Place in these comparisons, we must drop the unidentifiable medium ungulate fragments from all of the tallies. Arraying the sites in chronological order, we get the following results: Fox Place 1,194; Rocky Arroyo 1,614; Henderson Early Phase 1,345; Henderson Late Phase 2,279; Bloom Mound 775. To highlight any trend that might be hidden in these figures, we have expressed them in the form of a simple bison index (BI) patterned after Szuter and Bayhams (1989) original artiodactyl index, in which BI is the total number of bison bones divided by the sum of the number of bison and medium ungulate bones, and the resulting figure then multiplied by 100. Again, in order to include Fox Place, these numbers exclude fragments that could not be identified to element. Ordered chronologically, the results are: Fox Place 16.7; Rocky Arroyo 51.0; Henderson Early Phase 33.3; Henderson Late Phase 46.2; Bloom Mound 5.3. Though crude, these index values should provide a more reliable look at the changing importance of bison hunting over time than using raw counts alone because, as ratios, they are less sensitive to differences in the total volume of deposit that was excavated at each of the sites. In sum, these comparisons show that the importance of bison in the local economy changed dramatically over the approximately one-and-a-half to two centuries spanned by the occupations of the four Roswell communities: bison hunting was conducted on a limited scale at Fox Place (mid-1200s?), peaked at Rocky Arroyo and Henderson (late 1200s-1300s), and declined precipitously at Bloom Mound (late 1300s to mid-1400s). The comparisons also underscore the importance of antelope in the local economy. Though these animals are much smaller than bison, they were nevertheless brought into the villages in significant numbers. Not surprisingly, the antelope carcasses that the hunters transported back to the villages were more complete than those of bison. We can see this by comparing the average utility values for the two taxa, in this case using Binfords (1978) classic Modified General Utility Index or MGUI (Fox Place is excluded from these analyses, since we have not Volume 50 2012 13 The Artifact

yet completed the concatenation of the data from this site with the master database for the other three; Bloom Mound is also omitted because the bison sample is miniscule). The significantly higher mean utility in bison implies that these animals are represented by a far more selective subset of moderate- to high-utility body parts than is the case for the medium ungulates (Rocky Arroyo, mean MGUI, bison vs. antelope, t = 14.04, p < .0001; Henderson Early Phase, t = 13.54, p < .0001; Henderson Late Phase, t = 19.37, p < .0001). It seems reasonable to suppose that the Roswell hunters, on average, had to travel greater distances to intercept bison herds than would have been the case for antelope or deer. Mule deer are still present today in the Hondo drainage in the immediate vicinity of Henderson; and in the early 1990s, after the site had been donated by its owners to The Archaeological Conservancy and subsequently enclosed by a barbed-wire fence, we encountered a herd of 21 mule deer that had jumped the fence and were foraging on the comparatively lush vegetation growing on the protected site. Today, at least, antelope are nearly ubiquitous on the ranches throughout the area. If the Roswell villagers did in fact have to travel farther to hunt bison than they did for antelope, and given the very large size of these animals (Southern Plains males ca. 545-590 kg or 1200-1300 lb; females ca. 385-455 kg or 850-1000 lb; [Halloran 1957]), it is also likely that the hunting and transport parties would have been larger and would have been absent from the villages for longer periods of time. One question that immediately arises, then, is whether the villagers completely abandoned their settlements during these hunts, or instead left a resident but reduced population behind. In order to address this question, we made a concerted effort during the excavations at Henderson to find clandestine extramural storage facilities, subsurface features that could have been hidden from uninvited visitors, as might be expected had the village been totally abandoned for extended periods during the bison hunts (DeBoer 1988). Despite extensive testing in the plazas and in other areas both near and far from the room blocks, none were found. Instead, we encountered numerous additional roasting features. And in the structures themselves we found several rooms that had no fireplaces, suggesting that at least some of them may have functioned as store rooms, not dwellings. The implication is that Henderson may not have been totally abandoned during the season or seasons when bison were being hunted, although segments of the village population may have been gone for long periods of time. Can we say anything about the seasonality of bison hunting by the Henderson and Rocky Arroyo inhabitants? The seasonal timing of bison kills is usually determined using the eruption and wear stages of the dentitions (Frison and Reher 1970; Frison et al. 1976; Reher 1970, 1973; Todd and Hofman 1987; Todd et al. 1996). The procedure is fairly straightforward, although the results are not as precise as one might hope. One begins by estimating an individual animals age at death on the basis of the stage of eruption of the teeth and the extent to which they are worn. Since bison have a fairly well-defined calving season, which in the Southern Plains is centered on late March-early April (Halloran and Glass 1959), the age of an animal provides an approximate time of year when it was killed. For example, for an animal that is about six

The Artifact

14

Volume 50 2012

months old according to its teeth, death occurred roughly half a year after the calving season or sometime during the early fall. Michael Wilson (1980; see also Speth 1983) applied this technique to the bison dentitions from the mid-15th century Garnsey bison kill (LA 18399) located on the eastern edge of the Pecos River Valley about 20 km (12 mi) southeast of Roswell and approximately 32 km (20 mi) due east of Henderson. Garnsey proved to be a series of small kill events, each involving about eight to 10 individuals, all centered on the spring. Of particular interest at Garnsey was the obvious preference shown by the hunters for male animals. The hunters not only sought out bulls, killing on average about 60% males (the sex ratio of the kill is based on the two lowest-utility elements abandoned at the killthe skull and the pelvis), they also showed a strong preference for male body parts in their culling and transport decisions, abandoning many more of the female parts. For example, the hunters took away nearly 85% of the moderate- to high-utility male limb elements compared to slightly over 50% of the female parts (Speth and Rautman 2004). The metatarsal provides the most extreme example of the Garnsey hunters selectivity by sex. This element is primarily of value for its marrow contentfully 90% of the metatarsals left behind at the kill were from females. The reason for this seemingly counterintuitive behavior was that the hunters were choosing, not just the parts with the highest total bulk or meat yield, but those parts with the highest total fat content (including marrow fat). In the spring, many of the cows would have been carrying a full-term fetus or nursing a young calf, placing a high caloric demand on the mother at a time of year when forage conditions were poor (the growth season of the principal C4 grasses in the Southern Plains grasslands coincides with the onset of the summer rains, which typically begin in mid-July). As a consequence, many of these females were probably nutritionally stressed and their body-fat deposits mobilized or perhaps even depleted. The Garnsey hunters were apparently keenly aware of this and chose animals and carcass parts accordingly (Speth 1983). In late summer and fall, the situation would have been the reverse. With improved range conditions after the summer rains and the calves weaned, females attain their peak body condition. Bulls, on the other hand, stop eating as they enter the rut, losing up to 15% of their body fat reserves (Lott 2002). There are sound nutritional reasons for minimizing prolonged high intakes of lean meat (protein). The upper safe limit is about 280-300 g per day (typically on the order of 35% of total calories in active hunting populations). The actual value varies somewhat depending on the hunters body weight and the length of time he or she has been subsisting on large quantities of lean meat. The enzymes in the liver that are responsible for deaminizing the protein and excreting the resulting nitrogen are rate-limited, and when high intakes of protein persist over a period of weeks or longer the consequences can be severe. The safe protein limit for pregnant women is lower (typically around 25% of calories) and if exceeded for extended periods can lead to a decrease in the infants weight at birth, as well as increased morbidity and cognitive impairment. In a breastfeeding mother, prolonged high protein intakes can also compromise the health of the nursing infant (see Speth 2010 for a detailed discussion of these nutritional issues, Volume 50 2012 15 The Artifact

as well as a sampling of the extensive ethnohistoric evidence demonstrating that hunters and gatherers, military personnel, fur-trappers, explorers, missionaries, and others were acutely aware of the deleterious effects of high meat diets in the absence of adequate supplies of fat and/or carbohydrates). In the temperate and more northerly latitudes, late winter and spring are the seasons that pose the greatest problem, because overwintering ungulates are often very lean at that time of year, especially pregnant females, and the hunters may have very limited access to sources of carbohydrateshence the decided bias at Garnsey in favor of animals with the highest fat levels in the spring (bulls), and body parts least likely to be fat depleted at that time of year (Speth 1983). Given the tremendous weight of adult bison, hunters who have to transport the products of the kill back to their home village will have to be selective in what they transport and what they leave behind, the degree of selectivity increasing with distance from home and number of animals killed (obviously ignoring a host of other factors such as transport party size and a variety of situational contingencies). At the top of the list are the skulls (crania and mandibles). The brain and tongue may be consumed as snacks at the kill or possibly transported, but the bony skull will very likely be jettisoned. The consequence is that bison assemblages from villages are not likely to contain many ageable teeth. This is precisely the situation at both Rocky Arroyo and Henderson. This means that the seasonal timing of bison hunting at these villages has to be inferred by indirect means. The sex of the postcranial elements should provide the indirect proxy we need. Based on the evidence from the Garnsey kill, we can expect male body parts to dominate the assemblages in villages that did most of their hunting in the spring. In villages whose hunting was mostly a fall activity, female body parts should be the most common. At Henderson, two-thirds of the sexable elements turned out to be male (~67% in both phases), mostly bones of moderate to high overall utility (MGUI), and precisely the ones that are missing in largest numbers from Garnsey (the criteria used to sex Hendersons postcranial elements are described in Speth 1983, 2004). In other words, based on the sex ratio, most bison hunting at Henderson probably took place in the spring or, being a bit more conservative in our estimate, sometime between late winter and early summer, almost certainly prior to the onset of the rut. We should point out that the Garnsey kill is a century or so younger than Henderson, so it is not a place where the Henderson villagers did their hunting, but the two sites may well represent components of broadly similar economic systems. Can we say anything about the seasonality of bison hunting at Rocky Arroyo? The answer is yes, but unlike at Henderson we will have to rely on just a single indirect indicator of seasonalitythe sex ratio of the heads or balls of the femur. The robust femur ball is the only element in the Rocky Arroyo assemblage that was well enough preserved, and present in large enough numbers, to offer some possibility of success. The procedure, discussed in Speth (1983, 2004), employs two interrelated measurements on the femur ballcircumference and maximum breadth. The original approach upon which we based the femur ball measurement was developed by Franciszek Kobrynczuk (1976) working with modern European bison (B. bonasus).

The Artifact

16

Volume 50 2012

He found that one could sex the pelvis (technically the innominate) by measuring the volume of the acetabulum (hip socket). Unfortunately, the bison pelvis is a bulky, low-utility element with very little marrow and, like the skull, was not often transported from kill to village. Moreover, those few acetabuli that did reach the village and ultimately ended up in village trash were broken, making it impossible to accurately measure their volume. In contrast, the femur was frequently brought back to the village, presumably as a marrow bone, and the head of the femur, though generally broken off from the rest of the bone with only a small portion of the neck remaining attached, often survived in measurable condition. Such was the case at Rocky Arroyo. The Rocky Arroyo bison assemblage contained 56 femur balls, including fragmentary specimens. We were able to measure the circumference and diameter of the ball in 39 of these (the fusion state of the ball could also be determined in these same specimensfused 30 or 76.9%; unfused nine or 23.1%). Figure 3 shows a cross-plot of breadth against circumference for these 39 specimens. A clear break in the distribution occurs at virtually the same place that it did in a large sample of known-sex femur heads examined in modern comparative collections at the National Museum of Natural History (Washington, D.C.), Harvard University (Cambridge, MA), and the University of Michigan (Ann Arbor, MI) (Speth 1983:198, Table 25). Only one Rocky Arroyo specimen falls within the break, an immature (unfused) individual that, based on its large size, is almost certainly an older juvenile male. Several even larger unfused specimens at Rocky Arroyo are probably also subadult males. Based on the data in Figure 3, there are 21 adult bulls (70%) and nine adult cows (30%). If we also include the five probable male juveniles, there is a total of 26 males (74%) and nine females (26%; excluding the four immature specimens that fall within the female zone, since these could well be very young males). At Henderson, 72% of the adult femur heads are male (out of a total sample of 47). If we include the juveniles that, judging by size, are almost certainly males, the proportion increases slightly to 73% (out of a total sample of 59). These values are virtually identical to the ones from Rocky Arroyo. Thus, to the extent that the femurs at Rocky Arroyo provide a reasonable proxy for the sex ratio of the entire assemblage, the hunters from both villages focused much of their hunting effort on bulls, not cows. Moreover, when taking immature animals the hunters seem also to have deliberately targeted males, a pattern that is even more clearly illustrated by the large size of Hendersons unfused proximal tibias, most of which are larger than those of adult females (see Speth and Clark 2006:16, Figure 12). It therefore seems very likely that at both villages most bison hunting took place at a time of year when bulls were in good condition (i.e., during the period between late winter and early summer). Given that farming was at least moderately important as a component in the economic system at both villages, bison hunting very likely took place prior to, or following, the planting season, a labor-intensive period when it seems reasonable to suppose that the village would have been at full strength.

Volume 50 2012

17

The Artifact

Figure 3. Cross Plot of Breadth against Circumference of Femur Balls.

Was there a fall bison hunt as well, one that would have taken place after the harvest was in? The predominance of males in the bison remains from both Henderson and Rocky Arroyo makes it unlikely that fall hunting was a major economic activity of the inhabitants of these communities, although it is conceivable that it did occur, but from a different home base. However, the apparent absence, at least at Henderson, of clandestine storage facilities such as concealed subsurface pits would seem to argue against complete seasonal abandonment of the village. Thus, while a number of families may have left the village to hunt bison, some segment of the population probably remained resident in the community throughout the year. Whether this was also the case at Rocky Arroyo, a much smaller community with pithouses rather than above-ground room blocks, is unknown. Let us detour briefly again here to indulge in a bit more speculation. It is tempting to suggest that the striking change, over the course of a century or two, in house form and village layout from small round pit structures (Fox Place) to large square pitrooms (Rocky Arroyo) to aboveground pueblos (Henderson and Bloom Mound) might be linked in some manner to changing labor demands and scheduling conflicts that would likely have arisen and intensified as longdistance communal bison hunting, perhaps hand-in-hand with interregional exchange, increasingly became key economic foci of the Roswell inhabitants (see, for example, Pasternak et al. 1976).

The Artifact

18

Volume 50 2012

Returning now to the question of why the fall hunt might be less in evidence or missing altogether at both Henderson and Rocky Arroyo, it is entirely conceivable that during the fall the Southern Plains herds migrated to grazing areas that lay beyond the effective reach of Roswells pedestrian hunters. Or perhaps competition among groups for access to the herds was more intense during the fall than during the spring, making long-distance forays into the Southern Plains too risky at that time of year (Wade 2002, 2003). After establishing the pueblos of San Ildefonso and Santa Rosa de Santa Maria in the area of the Sabinas River in Coahuila, Captain Elizondo made several suggestions to guarantee the success of the enterprise. One of these recommendations concerned the interdiction of buffalo hunting by the Spaniards in that area. He explained that this was a very sensitive issue among Native groups which, among themselves, led them to defend their rights by the force of arms. (Elizondo ca. 1674, cited in Wade 2002:174) It is interesting in this regard that evidence for bison hunting is almost nonexistent at Bloom Mound, whose occupation postdates Hendersons by at most only a few generations, while evidence for significant lethal violence becomes apparent for the first time. According to a scrapbook left by amateurs belonging to the Roswell Archaeological Society who dug much of the site in the late 1930s, they found many skeletons of victims, a number of them burned, scattered helter-skelter in room fill and sprawled on house floors (anywhere from 15 to as many as 30 individuals according to Regge Wisemans 1997 and Jane Kelleys 1984 estimates). In our excavations at Bloom Mound we deliberately screened backdirt left by the amateurs and found quite a few additional human remains, almost all of which were completely burned. We also encountered the in situ burial of an older adult male (age ca. 35-45 years) with two deep, circular, depressed fractures on his skull, suggesting that he had been bludgeoned to death. We also found two projectile pointsone Perdiz-like, one Washitain close proximity to the abdominal area of two other individuals, an adult male (ca. 40-45 years, with the Perdiz-like point) and an infant (ca. 3-12 months, with the Washita point). Since neither of the points were actually embedded in bone, we cannot be certain that they were the cause of death rather than an offering of some sort, although they are suggestive of violence. Thus, the evidence from Bloom Mound raises the possibility that the near-total collapse of longdistance bison hunting (but not long-distance exchangesee below) by these Roswell-area inhabitants, presumably sometime in the early to mid-15th century, may be the end result of an extended period of intensifying competition among Southwestern and Southern Plains groups. This competition for access to the herds, and perhaps to trading partners as well, in its early stages made the fall hunt too precarious for hunters from Roswell to venture out into the grasslands, and in its later stages drove them off the Southern Plains altogether (see also Speth and Newlander 2012; Baugh 2007, 2008). Obviously, at this stage such a suggestion is little more than speculation, but we are optimistic that further archaeological work in southeastern New Mexico and adjacent parts of Texas may one day make it possible to flesh out these ideas. Volume 50 2012 19 The Artifact

ROSWELL, BISON, AND PLAINS-PUEBLO INTERACTION

Not only are there a lot of bison bones at Rocky Arroyo and Henderson, there are also lots of non-local ceramicssherds from bowls and jars of many well-known and easily recognized types that came to the Roswell area from great distances, including the Rio Grande, northern Mexico, southwestern and west-central New Mexico, and southeastern Arizona. In addition to the pottery, numerous other items from distant sources have also been found, including marine shell ornaments (both Olivella and Glycymeris), obsidian, turquoise, at least one scarlet macaw (Rocky Arroyo), a non-native northern cardinal (Henderson), at least five and perhaps as many as seven copper bells (Bloom Mound), and even a large turkey-tail biface manufactured on distinctive chocolate brown Tiger chert from Wyoming (Henderson). These highly visible markers of once extensive trade networks are clear testimony to Roswells far-flung networks of interaction and exchange (Emslie et al. 1992; Kelley 1984; Rocek and Speth 1986; Speth et al. 2004; Vargas 1995; Whittaker et al. 1988; Wiseman 2002, 2004a). All of these non-local items came from sources to the west of Roswellsome from the southwest, some from due west, others from the northwest. In striking contrast, there is surprisingly little material evidence pointing to interaction with peoples to the east. The only clear indicators are the thousands of bison bones at Rocky Arroyo and Henderson, and a fair number of projectile points (mostly small, triangular, side-notched Washita points) made on cherts that often fluoresce either green or bright yellow-orange, suggesting they are made on Alibates (agatized dolomite) or Tecovas (jasper) from the Texas Panhandle (green UV response) and Edwards Plateau chert from central Texas (yellow-orange UV response) (Frederick et al. 1994; Hofman et al. 1991; Speth and Newlander 2012; Wiseman 2002, 2003). While ceramics made in the Southwest, especially Rio Grande glaze-painted wares, are fairly common throughout the Southern Plains (Boyd 2001; Brosowske 2005; Collins 1971; Krieger 1947; Snow 1997; Spielmann 1983), pottery emanating from the Plains, such as Borger Cordmarked and other related late prehistoric types, are virtually absent (Brosowske 2005; Meier 2007; Wiseman 2002). Given the presence, sometimes quite abundantly, of Puebloan ceramics in the grasslands, but the absence of their Plains counterparts in the Southwest, it is quite likely that many, perhaps most, of the material items brought into the Pueblo world from the east were perishables such as bison meat, fat, robes, hide-covered shields, moccasins, feathers, bow staves carved from Osage Orange (Maclura pomifera; also called bois darc), and perhaps human captives (e.g., LeBlanc 1999; Schambach 2003; Spielmann 1983, 1991). A handful of Perdiz-like points from Bloom Mound, several showing the characteristic yellow-orange UV response of central Texas cherts, could be trade items, but they may instead be directly linked to the violence evident at Bloom Mound and elsewhere in the region (see, for example, Baugh 2007, 2008; Collins 1966). So what actual evidence do we have in the Roswell sites that their inhabitants were actively engaged in Plains-Pueblo interaction? The presence of significant quantities of non-local ceramics, marine shell, obsidian, and turquoise, of course, provides the strongest piece of evidence. But were meat and other products of the bison hunt moving in the opposite direction? While we can easily tell from the abundance of bison bones at Rocky Arroyo and Henderson

The Artifact

20

Volume 50 2012

that these animals were hunted, likely in fairly substantial numbers, it is much harder to show that any of their meat was exchanged with distant communities, since for the most part it would have been stripped from the bones and dried prior to transport. However, there is one carcass unit that might provide the window we needthe rib cage. The ribs, when broken or chopped off at the vertebral column, form a large flat slab with a high surface area to volume ratio. Hence, these units can be dried with the meat still on the bone much more quickly and with less effort than the muscle masses associated with the upper foreand hind limbs, which must first be cut into thin strips (biltong) before the meat can be dried (e.g., Binford 1978; Friesen 2001). Ribs are conspicuously underrepresented at the Garnsey kill. However, these elements, because of their soft, spongy interiors, are quite vulnerable to destruction by carnivores, and for this reason their scarcity in archaeological sites is often attributed to taphonomic factors, not selective removal by hunters (e.g., Marean et al. 1992). Fortunately, there is very little evidence of carnivore damage on the Garnsey bones. Very few have been gnawed, pitted, or punctured by wolves, coyotes, or other predators. It seems very likely, therefore, that the scarcity of ribs is due, not to their destruction by carnivores, but to their deliberate removal from the kill by human hunters. At Henderson, bison ribs are also noteworthy for their scarcity. And if Garnsey does in fact provide a reasonable analog for kill sites made by the Henderson villagers, which certainly seems plausible given the overall complementarity of their bone assemblages, then it is very likely that the villagers routinely brought back dried rib units, but subsequently traded them to other communities. Of course, there is the ever-present issue of taphonomy at Henderson as well, the possibility in this case that we are seeing the outcome of the bone-chewing proclivities of village dogs (the presence of butchered domestic canid remains in plaza roasting features is clear testimony to the fact that the villagers possessed, and on occasion ate, dogs). In order to evaluate whether taphonomic factorsvillage dogs in particularplayed a significant role in eliminating bison ribs from the Henderson assemblage, we used an approach first introduced by Jonathan Driver (1990) in his analysis of faunal remains from the Sierra Blanca (New Mexico) area. We began by determining the total number of bison ribs that one should expect at the village, given the minimum number of animals (MNI) that had to be killed in order to account for Hendersons assemblage. Then, the most effective way to estimate the actual (observed) number of ribs in the archaeological assemblage would be to count up the proximal articulations, the parts that attach to the thoracic vertebrae. However, judging by historically documented butchery practices, rib slabs were often chopped or broken off at the vertebral column, leaving many of the proximal ends behind at the kill (Binford 1978). So, instead, we measured the total length (in cm) of the ribs in a modern bison and multiplied that value by the minimum number of animals represented in the archaeological assemblage. That provided the total length of rib that would be expected in the assemblage if all of the ribs were still present and against which the observed Volume 50 2012 21 The Artifact

value can then be compared. We experimented with different correction factors to account for the fact that the archaeological ribs are not only broken transversely into small pieces or segments, but the segments in turn are often spalled or split longitudinally as well. In all, three different length values were generated: (1) using the total length as is; (2) dividing the total length by two, assuming that the rib segments had spalled into two tabletsone dorsal, one ventral; and (3) dividing the total length by four, assuming that each rib tablet had also split longitudinally into sub-tablets. Using these different corrections, we obtained probable lower and upper total length values and then compared these against the figures derived from the modern animal. As anticipated, bison ribs are in fact quite scarce at Hendersononly about nine percent (9%) of the expected numbers are present. We then repeated the same procedure with the medium ungulate ribs, first determining an expected total length using a modern antelope skeleton, and then estimating the number of ribs actually present in the archaeological assemblage based on the total length of the fragments (again adjusted by the same three correction factors). Since the ribs of antelope and deer are much smaller and more delicate than those of bison, they should be notably less well represented if destruction by village dogs was a significant taphonomic factor. What we found was the reverseover 17% of the expected number of medium ungulate ribs are present in the assemblage, a figure nearly double the bison value. Thus, while village dogs and other attritional processes may well have removed or destroyed substantial numbers of ribs of both taxa, the markedly greater scarcity of bison ribs lends credence to the idea that many had been removed from the village, quite likely in the context of exchange. Unfortunately, we cant do this same sort of analysis for Rocky Arroyo because we had returned the faunal remains to the Museum of New Mexico before the idea of measuring the length of the rib fragments came to the fore. Fortunately, this is a project that can easily be done in the future. The idea of using ribs as a proxy for inter-village exchange in bison products is not as farfetched or speculative as it might seem. While the trash deposits at Henderson and Rocky Arroyo contain large numbers of bison postcranial elements, but few ribs, more or less contemporary villages in the Sierra Blanca-Sacramento and Salinas (Gran Quivira) areas to the west are dominated by ribs and contain few postcranial elements (Driver 1990; Katherine A. Spielmann, personal communication 2003). These could well have been obtained from the Pecos lowlands through exchange with villages like those in Roswell. Incidentally, if a predominance of bison ribs in an archaeological assemblage serves as a proxy for communities at the receiving end of the exchange system, their scarcity at Henderson implies that the villagers at this community were actually doing the hunting themselves, not receiving bison meat (accompanied by a fair number of associated higher-utility bones) through exchange with hunting peoples residing farther out in the Plains.

The Artifact

22

Volume 50 2012

HUNTERS, MIDDLEMEN, AND COLLAPSE

Up to this point, we have tried to build a case showing that the Roswell communities were active participants in Plains-Pueblo exchange, hunting bison, primarily during the spring, presumably to the east in the Southern Plains, and then exchanging products of the hunt (using ribs as a proxy), along with other goods and services, for products, both material and nonmaterial, originating in the Pueblo world to the west (using non-local pottery as a proxy). Can we now see anything in the Roswell sites that might inform us about changes in this exchange system over time? One way to go about this is to compare the proportion of ribs (using raw counts) in the bison assemblages from Rocky Arroyo and Henderson, separating Henderson into its two temporal phases. The results are quite interestingarranged from earliest to latest, the proportion of ribs steadily declines from 26.0% at Rocky Arroyo to 17.7% in Hendersons Early Phase to only 10.4% in Hendersons Late Phase. The bison samples from Fox Place and Bloom Mound are too small to be included in this comparison, although the fact that there are very few bison remains from these sites is informative in and of itself. Thus, to the extent that the proportion of bison ribs in these villages serves as a proxy for the intensity of meat exchange, these data suggest that the importance of interregional interaction involving products of the bison hunt intensified sharply over the century or so between the mid-to-late 1200s and the mid-to-late 1300s and then declined precipitously starting sometime in the late 1300s or early 1400s (all of these dates are rough approximations, since neither the ceramics nor the calibrated radiocarbon dates provide very satisfactory chronological resolution). The sheer numbers of projectile points from the four villages provide another glimpse of changing hunting patterns by the inhabitants of these communities. Most of the arrowheads that preserve enough of their base to be identified to type are commonly classified in the Southern Plains as Washita points (Adler and Speth 2004; Wiseman 2002). These are small, triangular points with two side notches placed about a third of the way from the base to the tip and a slightly to deeply concave base. As we use the term here, Harrell points are similar in size and shape to Washitas, but have a third notch placed in the center of the base. In our view the Harrell point is a late-comer in the Southwest and western portions of the Southern Plains, not making its appearance until about A.D. 1450 (Adler and Speth 2004). Their scarcity at the four Roswell villages implies that all of these communities were largely if not entirely abandoned by A.D. 1450 or thereabouts. There are also a fair number of unnotched triangles, which are called Fresno points in the Southern Plains. Some of these are undoubtedly blanks or preforms for Washitas, while others very likely were hafted as is and used as projectile tips (see discussion in Adler and Speth 2004). Fox Place, despite the large scale of the excavations, yielded a paltry 74 points, most of which were Washitas (Wiseman 2002:48-50). To put this figure in perspective, the much smaller exposures at Henderson yielded a total of 883 points! That contrast alone underscores the much greater involvement of the Henderson villagers in hunting larger mammals. To many this might seem counterintuitivehunter-gatherers are supposed to be the ones who devote the lions Volume 50 2012 23 The Artifact

share of their efforts to hunting bigger game, not the farmers with their greater reliance on garden hunting (Linares 1976)so one might expect there to be more points at Fox Place than at Henderson. And yet a cross-cultural comparative look at hunting by both foragers and farmers shows the latter often to be the ones who are more narrowly focused on the larger animals, the importance of garden-hunting notwithstanding (see Speth and Scott 1989). The reason is fairly straightforward. As communities become more sedentary and more committed to farming, large-game resources close to home dwindle, in part because they are overhunted, and in part because they are driven away by human activity near the settlement and by village dogs. Farming, especially planting and harvesting, also tends to augment time and labor constraints, increasingly confining hunting to periods that dont conflict with the agricultural cycle. As a consequence, hunting becomes more seasonally constrained and at greater distances from home (i.e., logistically based) and, on such long-distance hunting forays or treks, the participants cant afford to bring back rabbits and other small game. There could be another explanation for the small number of points at Fox Placethe inhabitants may actually have done a fair amount of larger-mammal hunting, but tipped their projectiles with perishable materials such as wood, not stone. Cross-culturally, the use of wooden projectile tips is widespread, and a range of sourceshistoric, ethnographic, and experimentalamply demonstrate that such tips can be extremely effective, even when hunting an animal the size of bison (see discussion in Speth et al. 2012). However, the small number of bison bones and the modest numbers of antelope at Fox Place suggest that, regardless of how these pithouse dwellers might have tipped their arrows, they were far less committed to hunting big game than their pueblo-based successors at Henderson. Looking now at the numbers of points in chronological order by site, Fox Place, as already noted, yielded only 74, while Hendersons Early Phase produced 252, and Hendersons Late Phase had an astonishing 631. We have temporarily left Rocky Arroyo out of the discussion here, because we only have the points that Regge Wiseman recovered from the small amount of fill he salvaged in the pitroom that hadnt been completely emptied by the amateurs. That small excavation, nonetheless, yielded 20 points, again mostly Washitas. The implication is that, originally, there must have been a lot of arrowheads at Rocky Arroyo, consistent with the prominence of bison and antelope in the faunal remains. We also deliberately skipped Bloom Mound, in this case because the projectile point tally from this little village is not at all what we had anticipated on the basis of the faunaa whopping 204 pointsdespite the almost complete absence of bison and a noticeable falloff in the number of antelope. The question of course is why? Needless to say, humans are the other large game that one can hunt, and the inflated number of projectile tips at Bloom Mound could be an indication that its inhabitants were engaged in, or at least anticipating, a substantially heightened level of conflict. Since most of the points appear to have been manufactured on local cherts, not Southern Plains materials like Alibates, Tecovas, and Edwards Plateauan inference drawn from the ultraviolet fluorescence responses (or lack thereof) of the material (see Speth and Newlander 2012)it seems likely that the projectiles were being made by the

The Artifact

24

Volume 50 2012

villagers themselves for use in combat, rather than the dislodged tips from arrows shot at them by attackers. Obviously, all of this is quite speculative, but something that is at least worth having in mind as a possible alternative explanation for Bloom Mounds curiously high yield of arrowheads. Given that Rocky Arroyo and Henderson were both heavily engaged in hunting bison, it seems reasonable to suppose that in the course of these activities they also acquired a fair number of skins, and these would need to be prepared, both in order to preserve them and to turn them into usable leather or robes. One of the most diagnostic and ubiquitous hide-working tools in the late prehistoric Southern Plains, and in many other areas within and adjacent to the Plains, is the end scraper (e.g., Boszhardt and McCarthy 1999; Creel 1991; Scheiber 2005), so we might expect them to be fairly common at the Roswell sites as well, their numbers perhaps changing more or less in lock-step with the economic importance of bison. Strangely, however, end scrapers, in fact formal scrapers of any sort, end- or side-, are almost non-existent in the four villages. The inevitable conclusion would seem to be that dressing bison hides and robes, whether fresh or dried, was not a significant part of the Roswell economyunless, of course, the villagers employed a different type of tool to do the heavy work. While there are bone tools at these sites, those that might be reasonably well suited for the task of hide scraping, such as antelope or deer scapulas (e.g., Hofman 1980), are few and far between. There is one class of tool, however, that might fit the billvalves of the river mussel Cyrtonaias tampicoensis, a species that once may have been quite common in the Pecos River near Roswell but is gone now, its distribution shrinking southward to the lower reaches of the Pecos and Rio Grande (Metcalf 1982; Speth and McKay 2004). When these mussels disappeared from the Roswell area is unknown, but it very likely happened in the late 19th- and early 20th-century Period, one of many casualties of the wanton destruction of southeastern New Mexicos once bountiful water resources (see Speth et al. 2004). The shells of these mussels, most of them broken, were fairly numerous at Fox Place and especially so at Henderson, and many of the valves and valve fragments display heavy userelated damage or wear along the outer (ventral) margin of the shell (Speth and McKay 2004; Wiseman 2002:56-59). These shells might have been Roswells stand-in for the end scraper, an idea originally put forward by Regge Wiseman (2002:56-59) during his work at Fox Place. A detailed microscopic use-wear study of the edges of these tools might prove to be quite informative. Incidentally, these valves were probably not brought into the villages as raw material for making ornaments. Although we found many pieces of shell that were either finished ornaments, or blanks en route to becoming ornaments, all of these were made on very thin pieces of shell that almost certainly were not derived from the much thicker valves of C. tampicoensis. These mussels may not have been brought in as food either. While admittedly rather skimpy evidence, one of the valves at Henderson had two straight, parallel incisions across its exterior Volume 50 2012 25 The Artifact

surface that ended in small but distinctive semicircular punctures at the point where the shell broke. These would appear to be from a small carnivore which forcibly opened the mussel in order to eat its contents (Speth and McKay 2004:333). In other words, in at least this one case, when Hendersons inhabitants collected the shell the animal itself was already dead. So, is there evidence of change in the numbers of these shell tools that in any way tracks the changing importance of bison in the local economy? The answer is a qualified yes. The largescale excavations at Fox Place produced 81 specimens. Henderson, despite the much more modest scale of excavation, produced many more. Although we so far have analyzed only the 1980-1981 shells, these two seasons alone produced 1,403 pieces, mostly small fragments of fairly thick valves that are probably C. tampicoensis. Of the larger specimens, 93 were complete enough to be attributed securely to Cyrtonaias, and 264 were umbo/hinge fragments which are probably also from the same species. Unfortunately, until all of the shell material is analyzed we cannot generate meaningful numbers by phase. Suffice it to say, however, that shell tools and tool fragments are far more abundant at Henderson than at Fox Place. Regrettably, we have no data from Rocky Arroyo, but we can say with confidence that shell tools were exceedingly rare at Bloom Mound. So, yes, in a general sense, shell tool abundance does appear to track the abundance of bison. This, of course, does not prove that these tools were used in lieu of chipped-stone end scrapers to dress hides or robes, but it is at least suggestive. Of course, even if the shells were used in hide-working, this in no way precludes their use for other purposes as well, such as shelling corn (e.g., Gradwohl 1982). We can also monitor change in the intensity of long-distance interaction using the non-local or exotic ceramics. We should first digress briefly, however, to comment on how we decided which ceramics were local wares and which had come to the Roswell area through longdistance exchange, since this distinction is important in our discussion. The truth of the matter is that we dont really know with any certainty where the local ceramics were made. Until such knowledge becomes available, we simply assume that if a ceramic type is abundant in the assemblage it was locally made and if it is comparatively rare it was non-locally made. Fortunately, at least the distinction between abundant and rare is pretty obvious. At Henderson, for example, out of some 35,000 sherds that have been analyzed thus far (the first two seasons worth1980-1981; see Wiseman 2004a), just four types make up 95% of the total El Paso Polychrome (53%), Chupadero Black-on-white (17%), Lincoln Black-on-Red (15%), and Corona Corrugated (10%). These are the types we assume are local. Another three percent (3%) of the analyzed assemblage, just under a thousand sherds, is unidentifiable. The remainder (about two percent [2%] of the total), an eclectic hodgepodge of sherds representing more than 20 different types, is the category that we consider non-local. Prominent among these are Salado wares (Pinto, Tonto, and especially Gila), Chihuahua Polychromes (especially Babicora but also a few Carretas and Ramos), White Mountain Red wares (St. Johns, Springerville, Cedar Creek, and especially Heshotauthla), and Rio Grande Glazes (mostly Agua Fria but also Los Padillas and Arenal).

The Artifact

26

Volume 50 2012

While acknowledging that all four of the local ceramic types could have been made many kilometers from Roswell (e.g., Chupadero Black-on-white may have been brought in from the Sierra Blanca region, well over 100 km west of Roswell [Clark 2006; Creel et al. 2002]), the most problematic among them is El Paso Polychrome. Consisting mostly of jars, this distinctive though not particularly elegant ceramic type was in common use over a huge area of the Southwest, from Roswell in the northeast all the way to Casas Grandes in the southwest, a distance of over 480 km (~300 mi) as the crow flies. In fact, they were so common at Casas Grandes that Di Peso et al. (1974:141) referred to them as tin cans, an appellation that might just as easily be applied to these vessels at Henderson and Bloom Mound, where they (or at least their sherds) are more abundant than all of the other ceramic types combined. If these jars, many of which were large, fragile, and probably quite heavy (Burgett 2007; Speth and LeDuc 2007), were hauled to Roswell from as far away as the El Paso area or beyond, we would have to conclude that Henderson and Bloom Mound were engaged in trade on a much grander scale than we have envisioned. Clearly, the source areas for these cumbersome tin cans need to be identified if we are to gain a better understanding of the nature and spatial extent of the exchange system in which the Roswell communities participated. Now let us return to our look at the non-local ceramics, the ones that come from sources hundreds of kilometers away. Unfortunately, as with the bones, we immediately encounter problems in comparing raw numbers between the four sites, because the volume of deposit that was excavated at each of them differs. Moreover, while at Fox Place and Rocky Arroyo all of the body sherds for all types, both local and non-local, have been tabulated, this is not the case at Henderson and Bloom Mound. At Henderson only the 1980-1981 samples have been fully analyzed (Wiseman 2004a), and at Bloom Mound only the non-local body sherds. For the 1994-1997 seasons at Henderson and all three seasons at Bloom Mound only the local rims have been tabulated so far. And, of course, at Rocky Arroyo we cant be certain that the sherds left in piles across the site by the CCAS amateurs are a random or at least reasonably representative sample of the overall assemblage that was excavated. Let us begin with the non-local wares at Henderson and Bloom Mound. At Henderson the total number of rim sherds (all seasons) for all ceramic types (local and non-local) is 2,678. Of these, 5.1% are from vessels of non-local origin. When the Henderson rim data are looked at by phase, non-local rims constitute only 1.4% of the total rims in the Early Phase, rising to 6.1% in the Late Phase. This upward trend continues at Bloom Mound, where 11.0% of the rims are non-local. In other words, long-distance ties to the Pueblo world, at least insofar as they are reflected in ceramics, increase sharply during the latter part of the occupation at Henderson and continue to increase at Bloom Mound. How common are non-local ceramics from the two earlier sitesFox Place and Rocky Arroyo? Unfortunately, we dont have the counts for just rims from these sites, so we cant directly compare their data with the values from Henderson and Bloom Mound. For Fox Place the lack of rim data is actually not a problem. Although the excavation at this site was much larger than at the other villages, it produced only 289 non-local sherds. By comparison, we Volume 50 2012 27 The Artifact

recovered 1,560 non-local sherds from Henderson (only 95 or 6.1% from Early Phase contexts and 1,465 or 93.9% from Late Phase contexts). Bloom Mound produced 1,051 non-local sherds. It seems reasonably clear, therefore, that Fox Places involvement in interregional exchange, at least as seen through the ceramics, was fairly minimal; and the same would appear to be true of Hendersons Early Phase. How about Rocky Arroyo? Unfortunately, the ceramic data from this site are especially difficult to evaluate. The sherds salvaged by Wiseman came from his excavations in the one remaining pit structure that had not been completely emptied by the CCAS amateurs, and from a number of discrete piles of sherds that they had abandoned here and there on the surface of the site. In total, the surviving collection consists of only 1,497 sherds (Regge Wiseman, personal communication 1997). Judging by the apparent scale of the CCAS excavations, this must be only a fraction of the ceramics that they actually removed from the ground. Regrettably, the fate of the bulk of the collection is unknown. If we can assume that these 1,497 sherds are a reasonably representative subsample of the original collection, admittedly a very big if given the aesthetically pleasing qualities of many of the exotic polychromes, the relatively small number of non-local ceramics (29) most closely parallels the values seen in the other Roswell sites to which it is closest in ageFox Place (289 sherds) and Early Phase Henderson (95 sherds). Hendersons Late Phase and Bloom Mound are very different. The former yielded 1,465 non-local sherds, the latter 1,051. What do all these numbers suggest about PlainsPueblo interaction? We think they indicate that interregional interaction on an intensive scale, or at least Roswells involvement in it, did not really kick in until Late Phase Henderson, presumably sometime during the mid to late 1300s.

SOME THOUGHTS AND CONCLUDING REMARKS

The four nearly contemporaneous Roswell villagestwo with pithouses, two with aboveground room blocksraise some fascinating issues that are likely to be of interest to archaeologists well beyond the bounds of southeastern New Mexico. Here are a few of the more obvious of these: 1. Our discussion has focused on four late prehistoric villagesFox Place, Rocky Arroyo, Henderson, and Bloom Mound. All four possess the same basic ceramic assemblage, dominated by El Paso Polychrome, but also with substantial quantities of Chupadero Black-on-white, Lincoln Black-on-red/Three Rivers Red-on-terracotta, and Corona Corrugated. Thus, all four sites are broadly contemporary, and fall within the twohundred-year period between about A.D. 1250 and 1450 (Wiseman 2002, 2004a). 2. Despite their broadly similar ages, the architecture in these sites differs; Fox Place consists of small round pithouses, Rocky Arroyo has large square pithouses, Henderson has room blocks of adjoining square subsurface bathtub rooms in its Early Phase and large above-ground adobe room blocks in its Late Phase, and Bloom Mound has mostly above-ground adobe room blocks (Speth and LeDuc 2007).

The Artifact

28

Volume 50 2012

3. Seriation of El Paso Polychrome jar rims places these four sites in a chronological sequence, with Fox Place at the beginning, followed by Rocky Arroyo, followed by Early and Late Phase Henderson, and ending with Bloom Mound. Judging by the seriation results, Rocky Arroyos age is closer to that of Hendersons Early Phase than to Fox Place (Speth and LeDuc 2007). 4. Materially, the four villages are far more Pueblo-like than Plains-like. Most striking in this regard is the fact that the pottery is almost 100% Puebloan. Out of tens of thousands of sherds that have been recovered from these villages, almost none can be confidently assigned to any known Plains type (Wiseman 2002, 2004a). Other characteristic Southern Plains artifacts like bison tibia digging sticks, scapula hoes, beveled and corner-tanged knives, and thumbnail end scrapers are rare or absent altogether (e.g., Boyd 2008; Drass and Flynn 1990; Lintz 1978, 1986). 5. The most noteworthy Plains-like feature of the Roswell sites is the thousands of bison bones at Rocky Arroyo and Henderson. Another such feature, suggested most clearly by evidence from Henderson, is the eating of dogs, apparently not as an emergency or starvation food, but in public (plaza) contexts, especially roasting features, presumably in association with ceremonial feasting or other community-wide functions (Bigelow and Speth 2004). 6. Despite their obvious focus on hunting, the Roswell villages are unique, or nearly so, in containing thousands of fish bones, a resource that elsewhere in the Southwest and Southern Plains was used but seldom in large amounts (Snow 2002; Speth et al. 2004; Wiseman 1985, 2002). Most of the remains are from channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), although many other species are represented in smaller numbers. The quantities are unparalleled: Fox Place (NISP = 1,518); Rocky Arroyo (NISP = 4,300+), Henderson (NISP = 1,847+; 1980-1981 seasons only; later seasons not yet analyzed); Bloom Mound (present, but not yet analyzed). 7. Although all four sites had remains of bison, only Rocky Arroyo and Henderson contained bison bones numbering in the thousands. This very uneven distribution of bison among the four villages raises an interesting question: How do we interpret major fluctuations in the abundance of bison in archaeological sites such as those in Roswell? This issue was first put on the table by Tom Dillehay in his classic 1974 paper Late Quaternary Bison Population Changes on the Southern Plains. Dillehay noted several periods during which bison were both widespread and abundant, alternating with periods when they were exceedingly rare. Archaeologists usually interpret these fluctuations as reflections of actual bison numbers on the Plains, numbers which rose or fell in response to ameliorating or deteriorating climatic conditions (see also Jelinek 1967). The last major presence period occurred between A.D. 1200/1300 and 1550. The abundance of bison at both Rocky Arroyo and Henderson dovetail nicely with Dillehays expectations, but Bloom Mound and perhaps Fox Place do not. Bison, in fact, Volume 50 2012 29 The Artifact

are conspicuous by their scarcity at these two sites, even though all four villages that we have been discussing are situated within a few kilometers of each other and all would appear to fall within Dillehays youngest presence period. In fairness to Dillehay, his beginning date for this period is a range, a full century (A.D. 1200-1300), and it is entirely possible that the occupation at Fox Place took place just before the predicted upswing in Southern Plains bison populations had occurred. One of the shortcomings of Dillehays approach (and for that matter of many other explanations of culture change in the Southwest and beyond) is that it ignores the role of culture in the equation, the social and political factors that may, and often do, enter into human decision-making. Instead, Dillehays model relies almost solely on external climatic and environmental forces to account for the fluctuations. As Richard Bradley (1984:11) so eloquently put it many years ago, in the literature as a whole, successful farmers have social relations with one another, while hunter-gatherers have ecological relations with hazelnuts. This is not to deny the importance of climate as an explanatory factor, at times the dominant one, but humans dont live in a social and political vacuum and these forces must be contended with as well. Thus, drawing on observations made by early Spanish expeditions into the Southern Plains (Wade 2002, 2003), we suggest that the sudden decline in bison hunting at Bloom Mound, and the lethal violence that may have led to the villages demise, were precipitated, not by climatic changes that negatively impacted the bison herds, but by intensifying competition with myriad other hunting groups all vying for access to the bison herds and perhaps to trading partners living in communities along the margins of the grasslands, both to the east and to the west (see Baugh 2007, 2008; Speth and Newlander 2012). 8. The El Paso Polychrome seriation, by placing the four sites in a chronological sequence, reveals a local pithouse-to-pueblo transition that begins with small round subsurface structures at Fox Place, followed by square pitrooms at Rocky Arroyo, followed by above-ground room blocks at Henderson and Bloom Mound (Speth and LeDuc 2007). The million dollar question, of course, is why this transition occurred. We obviously dont have any simple answer; this transition has been grist for the archaeological mills for generations in the Southwest and we certainly arent able to solve it here (Cordell and McBrinn 2012). What we can do, however, is lay out some of the most interesting parallelisms and correlations that emerge from the Roswell data, emphasizing that these are not offered as necessarily causal but as potential targets for further research and theorizing. a. The architectural shift from round pithouses at Fox Place to square pitrooms at Rocky Arroyo to above-ground room blocks at Henderson happens hand-in-hand with a major economic changea dramatic upswing in the importance of springseason long-distance bison hunting. The architectural changes are also accompanied by a change in mortuary practicesburials are very rare at Fox Place and included

The Artifact

30

Volume 50 2012

only five infants and small children (Wiseman 2002), but are relatively common at both Henderson and Bloom Mound, and included many adults of both sexes in flexed positions beneath house floors (Rocek and Speth 1986; Speth 2008). Regrettably, the CCAS amateurs left us no concrete information about the presence, nature, or number of burials they encountered at Rocky Arroyo, but scattered human remains, including adults, left by them on the surface suggests that they did in fact encounter at least a few. The notable shift in mortuary practices between Fox Place and Henderson-Bloom Mound may denote a decline in residential mobility, perhaps beginning already at Rocky Arroyo, that occurred hand-in-hand with the increasing importance of the younger settlements as seasonal, if not year-round, home bases. b. The sudden increase in bison hunting at Rocky Arroyo and Early Phase Henderson seems to occur before, not hand-in-hand with, the sharp Late Phase increase in nonlocal ceramics. In other words, to the extent that these ceramics provide a proxy for the intensity and scope of interaction, the expansion of the bison hunting economy precedes the expansion of the exchange network and may have been a precondition for its development. c. Bison remains in Early Phase Henderson are more or less equally divided in their occurrence between domestic contexts (room trash) and plaza roasting features (Speth 2004). In Late Phase Henderson the vast majority of bison remains (>80%) occur in public contexts, not in domestic trash. Moreover, the abundance of bison ribs on-site declines at this time, implying a significant increase in the export of dried bison meat, presumably for exchange. It is also at this time that the frequency of non-local ceramics jumps significantly. In other words, it appears that during Hendersons Late Phase, the networks of interaction expand, bison meat and presumably other products of the hunt become significant items of exchange in these networks, and bison also becomes a far more public resource. d. During Bloom Mounds occupation, which probably falls largely within the first half of the 15th century, the intensity of exchange continues to increase, again judging by the abundance of non-local ceramics. But at the same time bison all but disappear from the economy, despite the fact that bison hunting elsewhere in the Southern Plains increases dramatically over the same period (see, for example, Baugh 2007, 2008; Creel 1991; Drass 1999; Drass and Baugh 1997; Drass et al. 1987; Drass and Flynn 1990; Habicht-Mauche 1987). The Bloom Mound villagers no longer appear to be hunting bison, nor, judging by the scarcity of bison ribs, are they receiving dried bison meat in any significant quantity from elsewhere. Nevertheless, the fact that the abundance of non-local ceramics is substantially greater at Bloom Mound than at Henderson implies that this community is still enmeshed in widespread networks of exchange and interaction. What their role becomes in these networks, however, is not clear. Very likely they move into a position as middlemen in these exchanges, Volume 50 2012 31 The Artifact

but exactly what they contribute to the system remains a mystery. In any case, their involvement in the larger system seems to bring them increasingly into competition with the activities of other Southern Plains groups, competition that leads to the eruption of deadly violence, the death of many of the villages inhabitants, and ultimately the complete abandonment of the Roswell area by sedentary or semisedentary communities pursuing this sort of economic strategy. The Roswell villages, and southeastern New Mexico more generally, have fascinating archaeological stories to tell, stories that we have only begun to appreciate and tease apart. Like the heartland of the Southwest, which turned out to be anything but the sucked orange Kidder was once told it was, southeastern New Mexico is not the archaeological wasteland that so many in todays archaeological establishment seem to think it is. Regge Wiseman knew that a long time ago, and has been one of the major forces documenting and interpreting southeastern New Mexicos precious but rapidly vanishing record.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We should point out right at the start that the senior author (JDS) is responsible for these acknowledgments. Quite a few years ago my junior author, then a University of Michigan undergraduate, took on the daunting task of analyzing and writing up the Rocky Arroyo bison as an Honors thesis in Anthropology, which she completed in 1996. Between then and now, much of my effort, and that of my students, has been devoted to Henderson and Bloom Moundfirst analyzing the material, then publishing itand a number of important steps in that seemingly endless process are finally done. Along the way, we also completed the identification and coding of the Rocky Arroyo fauna, Laura taking on the lions share of that endeavor with her study of the bison. But none of the fauna from Rocky Arroyo saw the light of day in published form, with the exception of the birds (Emslie et al. 1992). The present paper finally adds the bison to the ranks of the published, a task which would have been far more difficult and might have taken many more years had it not been for Lauras marvelous Honors research. Now let me turn to the person whose career this paper is celebratingRegge N. Wiseman. I owe Regge far more than I can express here. He has been a friend for some four decades, and over those many years his passion for the archaeology of southeastern New Mexico has been contagious, and the published record to which he has contributed so much has been an inspiration. I am deeply grateful. Perhaps the only thing over which we might part company is the temperature in southeastern New Mexico. Each year with the long-awaited approach of summer, as the daily high on the thermometer steadily climbed, I would begin to crawl out of my cocoon in Ann Arbor and turn my sights from Michigans omnipresent gray drizzle to the Southern Plains. At the same time Regge would likely be bringing his fieldwork in the Pecos Valley to a close so he could escape back to the cooler climes of northern New Mexico. The reverse was likely to occur toward the close of summer. As the end of summer approached I would reluctantly steel myself for the

The Artifact

32

Volume 50 2012

nine or 10 dreary months of hibernation that lay ahead of me in the frozen northland, while Regge might be gearing up for another round of fieldwork out in the grasslands. Despite his discomfort with Roswells relentless summer heat, which went out of control in 1994 with 18 days in June hitting or surpassing 100F in the shade (and there wasnt any), Regge would brave the searing temperatures and migrate southward to visit my excavations at Henderson and Bloom Mound, and to help me and my students learn the ins and outs of Southwestern ceramics. Those visits were worth their weight in gold to me. Not only did I always learn new and interesting things, but I thoroughly enjoyed talking with him about the archaeology of a part of the Southwest that was special to us both and that so few others had the slightest interest in. Now that I have given up fieldwork in the Southwest in the proverbial struggle of the newly retired to finally get things down on paper, I will truly miss those visits and those conversations. Thank you, Regge, for your friendship and for your wonderful and lasting contributions to a very special part of the Southwest.

REFERENCES CITED
Adler, Michael A., and John D. Speth 2004 Projectile Points from the Henderson Site (1980-1981). In Life on the Periphery: Economic Change in Late Prehistoric Southeastern New Mexico, edited by John D. Speth, pp. 350-367. Memoir 37. University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology, Ann Arbor. Baugh, Timothy G. 2007 Warfare Among the Kirikiris: Archeology, Ethnography, and Ethnohistory. Kansas Anthropologist 28:1-22. 2008 The Anthropologies of Trade and Exchange: An Essay on Kirikiris and Southern Plains Political Economy. Plains Anthropologist 53(208):415-430. Bigelow, Lauren, and John D. Speth 2004 The Henderson Site Dogs. In Life on the Periphery: Economic Change in Late Prehistoric Southeastern New Mexico, edited by John D. Speth, pp. 221-224. Memoir 37. University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology, Ann Arbor. Binford, Lewis R. 1978 Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. Academic Press, New York. Boszhardt, Robert F., and Joelle McCarthy 1999 Oneota End Scrapers and Experiments in Hide Dressing: An Analysis from the La Crosse Locality. Midcontinental Journal of Archeology 24(2):177-199. Boyd, Douglas K. 2001 Querechos and Teyas: Protohistoric Hunters and Gatherers in the Texas Panhandle-Plains, A.D. 1540-1700. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society 72:522. Volume 50 2012 33 The Artifact

2008

Prehistoric Agriculture on the Canadian River of the Texas Panhandle: New Insights from West Pasture Sites on the M-Cross Ranch. Plains Anthropologist 53(205):33-57.

Bradley, Richard 1984 The Social Foundations of Prehistoric Britain: Themes and Variations in the Archaeology of Power. Longman, London. Brosowske, Scott D. 2005 The Evolution of Exchange in Small-Scale Societies of the Southern High Plains. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Oklahoma, Norman. Bunn, Henry T. 1986 Patterns of Skeletal Representation and Hominid Subsistence Activities at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania, and Koobi Fora, Kenya. Journal of Human Evolution 15(8):673-690. Bunn, Henry T., Laurence E. Bartram, and Ellen M. Kroll 1988 Variability in Bone Assemblage Formation from Hadza Hunting, Scavenging, and Carcass Processing. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 7(4):412-457. Burgett, Jessica P. 2007 Just Like That, But Different: El Paso Polychrome in the Casas Grandes Region, Chihuahua, Mexico. In Viva la Jornada: Papers from the 14th Biennial Jornada Mogollon Conference, edited by Jason Jurgena, Lora Jackson, and Marc Thompson, pp. 53-57. El Paso Museum of Archaeology, El Paso. Clark, Tiffany C. 2006 Production, Exchange, and Social Identity: A Study of Chupadero Black-onWhite Pottery. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University, Tempe. Collins, Michael B. 1966 The Andrews Lake Sites: Evidence of Semi-Sedentary Prehistoric Occupations in Andrews County, Texas. In Transactions of the Second Regional Archaeological Symposium for Southeastern New Mexico and Western Texas, pp. 27-43. Special Bulletin 1. Midland Archaeological Society, Midland. 1971 A Review of Llano Estacado Archaeology and Ethnohistory. Plains Anthropologist 16(52):85-104. Cordell, Linda S., and Maxine E. McBrinn 2012 Archaeology of the Southwest. 3rd ed. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek.

The Artifact

34

Volume 50 2012

Corley, John A. 1965 Proposed Eastern Extension of the Jornada Branch of the Mogollon Culture. Transactions of the First Regional Archeological Symposium for Southeastern New Mexico and Western Texas:30-36. Creel, Darrell G. 1991 Bison Hides in Late Prehistoric Exchange in the Southern Plains. American Antiquity 56(1):40-49. Creel, Darrell G., Tiffany C. Clark, and Hector Neff 2002 Production and Long-Distance Movement of Chupadero Black-on-White Pottery in New Mexico and Texas. In Geochemical Evidence for Long-Distance Exchange, edited by Michael D. Glascock, pp. 109-132. Scientific Archaeology for the Third Millennium. Bergin and Garvey, Westport. DeBoer, Warren R. 1988 Subterranean Storage and the Organization of Surplus: The View from Eastern North America. Southeastern Archaeology 7(1):1-20. Dillehay, Tom D. 1974 Late Quaternary Bison Population Changes on the Southern Plains. Plains Anthropologist 19(65):180-196. Di Peso, Charles C., John B. Rinaldo, and Gloria J. Fenner 1974 Casas Grandes: A Fallen Trading Center of the Gran Chichimeca, Vol. 8. Bone, Perishables, Commerce, Subsistence, and Burials. Amerind Foundation Series 9. Northland Press, Flagstaff. Drass, Richard R. 1999 Redefining Plains Village Complexes in Oklahoma: The Paoli Phase and the Redbed Plains Variant. Plains Anthropologist 44(168):121-140. Drass, Richard R. and Timothy G. Baugh 1997 The Wheeler Phase and Cultural Continuity in the Southern Plains. Plains Anthropologist 42(160):183-204. Drass, Richard R., Timothy G. Baugh, and Peggy Flynn 1987 The Heerwald Site and Early Plains Village Adaptations in the Southern Plains. North American Archaeologist 8(2):151-190. Drass, Richard R. and Peggy Flynn 1990 Temporal and Geographic Variations in Subsistence Practices for Plains Villagers in the Southern Plains. Plains Anthropologist 35(128):175-190.

Volume 50 2012

35

The Artifact

Driver, Jonathan C. 1990 Bison Assemblages from the Sierra Blanca Region, Southeastern New Mexico. Kiva 55(3):245-264. Elizondo, Capita F. 1674 Autos en que se da cuenta de lad entrada. Box 121, Legado 94, No. 3a. Catholic Archives of Texas, Austin Emslie, Steven D., John D. Speth, and Regge N. Wiseman 1992 Two Prehistoric Puebloan Avifaunas from the Pecos Valley, Southeastern New Mexico. Journal of Ethnobiology 12(1):83-115. Fowles, Severin M. 2009 The Enshrined Pueblo: Villagescape and Cosmos in the Northern Rio Grande. American Antiquity 74(3):448-466. Frederick, Charles D., Michael D. Glascock, Hector Neff, and Christopher M. Stevenson 1994 Evaluation of Chert Patination as a Dating Technique: A Case Study from Fort Hood, Texas. United States Army Fort Hood Archeological Resource Management Series, Research Report 32. Mariah Associates, Austin. Friesen, T. Max 2001 A Zooarchaeological Signature for Meat Storage: Re-thinking the Drying Utility Index. American Antiquity 66(2):315-331. Frison, George C., and Charles A. Reher 1970 Appendix I: Age Determination of Buffalo by Teeth Eruption and Wear. In The Glenrock Buffalo Jump, 48CO304: Late Prehistoric Period Buffalo Procurement and Butchering on the Northwestern Plains, edited by George C. Frison, pp. 46-50. Plains Anthropologist Memoir 7. Plains Anthropological Association. Frison, George C., Michael C. Wilson, and Diane J. Wilson 1976 Fossil Bison and Artifacts from an Early Altithermal Period Arroyo Trap in Wyoming. American Antiquity 41(1):28-57. Gradwohl, David M. 1982 Shelling Corn in the Prairie-Plains: Archaeological Evidence and Ethnographic Parallels Beyond the Pun. In Plains Indian Studies: A Collection of Essays in Honor of John C. Ewers and Waldo Wedel, edited by Douglas H. Ubelaker and Herman J. Viola, pp. 135-156. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology 30. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.

The Artifact

36

Volume 50 2012

Habicht-Mauche, Judith A. 1987 Southwestern-Style Culinary Ceramics on the Southern Plains: A Case Study of Technological Innovation and Cross-Cultural Interaction. Plains Anthropologist 32(116):175-190. Halloran, Arthur F. 1957 Live and Dressed Weights of American Bison. Journal of Mammalogy 38(1):139. Halloran, Arthur F., and Bryan P. Glass 1959 The Carnivores and Ungulates of the Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge, Oklahoma. Journal of Mammalogy 40(3):360-370. Hofman, Jack L. 1980 Scapula Skin-Dressing and Fiber-Processing Tools. Plains Anthropologist 25(88, Part 1):135-141. Hofman, Jack L., Lawrence C. Todd, and Michael B. Collins 1991 Identification of Central Texas Edwards Chert at the Folsom and Lindenmeier Sites. Plains Anthropologist 36(137):297-308. Hogan, Patrick 2006 Southeastern New Mexico Regional Research Design and Cultural Resource Management Strategy. Contract NAC000002, Task Order NAD04NM25, UNM Report No. 185-849. University of New Mexico, Office of Contract Archeology, Albuquerque. Jelinek, Arthur J. 1967 A Prehistoric Sequence in the Middle Pecos Valley, New Mexico. Anthropological Paper 31. University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology, Ann Arbor. Kelley, Jane H. 1984 The Archaeology of the Sierra Blanca Region of Southeastern New Mexico. Anthropological Paper 74. University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology, Ann Arbor. Kidder, Alfred V. 1958 Pecos, New Mexico: Archaeological Notes. Papers of the Robert S. Peabody Foundation for Archaeology 5. Phillips Academy, Andover. Kobrynczuk, Franciszek 1976 Joints and Ligaments of Hind-Limbs of the European Bison in its Postnatal Development. Acta Theriologica 21(4):37-100.

Volume 50 2012

37

The Artifact

Krieger, Alex D. 1947 The Eastward Extension of Puebloan Datings Toward Cultures of the Mississippi Valley. American Antiquity 12(3):141-148. LeBlanc, Steven A. 1999 Prehistoric Warfare in the American Southwest. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Lehmer, Donald J. 1948 The Jornada Branch of the Mogollon. Social Science Bulletin 17. University of Arizona, Tucson. Leslie, Robert H. 1979 The Eastern Jornada Mogollon: Extreme Southeastern New Mexico (A Summary). In Jornada Mogollon Archaeology. Proceedings of the First Jornada Conference, edited by Patrick H. Beckett and Regge N. Wiseman, pp. 179-199. New Mexico State University, Cultural Resources Management Division, and State of New Mexico, Office of Cultural Affairs, Historic Preservation Division, Las Cruces and Santa Fe. Linares, Olga F. 1976 Garden Hunting in the American Tropics. Human Ecology 4(4):331-349. Lintz, Christopher R. 1978 The Panhandle Aspect and its Early Relationship with Upper Republican. In The Central Plains Tradition, edited by Donald J. Blakeslee. University of Iowa, Office of the State Archaeologist, Iowa City. 1986 Architecture and Community Variability Within the Antelope Creek Phase of the Texas Panhandle. Studies in Oklahomas Past 14. Oklahoma Archeological Survey, Norman. Lott, Dale F. 2002 American Bison: A Natural History. Organisms and Environments. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Marean, Curtis W., Lillian M. Spencer, Robert J. Blumenschine, and Salvatore D. Capaldo 1992 Captive Hyaena Bone Choice and Destruction, the Schlepp Effect and Olduvai Archaeofaunas. Journal of Archaeological Science 19:101-121. Meier, Holly A. 2007 An Evaluation of Antelope Creek Phase Interaction Using INAA. Unpublished Masters thesis, Department of Anthropology, Texas State University-San Marcos, San Marcos.

The Artifact

38

Volume 50 2012

Metcalf, Artie L. 1982 Fossil Unionacean Bivalves from Three Tributaries of the Rio Grande. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Recent Benthological Investigations in Texas and Adjacent States, edited by J. R. Davis, pp. 43-58. Texas Academy of Science, Aquatic Sciences Section, Austin. Miller, Myles R., and Nancy A. Kenmotsu 2004 Prehistory of the Jornada Mogollon and Eastern Trans-Pecos Regions of West Texas. In The Prehistory of Texas, edited by Timothy K. Perttula, pp. 205-265. Anthropology Series 9. Texas A & M University Press, College Station. OLaughlin, Thomas C. 1985 Intrasite and Intersite Variability in Architecture: The Pueblo Model. The Artifact 23(3):19-39. Pasternak, Burton, Carol R. Ember, and Melvin Ember 1976 On the Conditions Favoring Extended Family Households. Journal of Anthropological Research 32(2):109-123. Plog, Fred T. 1983 Political and Economic Alliances on the Colorado Plateaus, A.D. 400-1450. Advances in World Archaeology 2:289-330. Porter, Claire C., and Frank W. Marlowe 2007 How Marginal Are Forager Habitats? Journal of Archaeological Science 34(1):59-68. Reed, Paul F. (editor) 2000 Foundations of Anasazi Culture: The Basketmaker-Pueblo Transition. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Reher, Charles A. 1970 Appendix II: Population Dynamics of the Glenrock Bison bison Population. In The Glenrock Buffalo Jump, 48CO304: Late Prehistoric Period Buffalo Procurement and Butchering on the Northwestern Plains, edited by George C. Frison, pp. 51-55. Plains Anthropologist Memoir 7. Plains Anthropological Association, Lincoln. 1973 Appendix II: The Wardell Bison bison Sample: Population Dynamics and Archaeological Interpretation. In The Wardell Buffalo Trap 48SU301: Communal Procurement in the Upper Green River Basin, Wyoming, edited by George C. Frison, pp. 89-105. Anthropological Paper 48. University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology, Ann Arbor.

Volume 50 2012

39

The Artifact

Rocek, Thomas R., and John D. Speth 1986 The Henderson Site Burials: Glimpses of a Late Prehistoric Population in the Pecos Valley. Technical Report 18. University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology, Ann Arbor. Schambach, Frank F. 2003 Osage Orange Bows, Indian Horses, and the Blackland Prairie of Northeastern Texas. In Blackland Prairies of the Gulf Coastal Plain: Nature, Culture, and Sustainability, edited by Evan Peacock and Timothy Schauwecker, pp. 212-238. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Scheiber, Laura L. 2005 Late Prehistoric Bison Hide Production and Hunter-Gatherer Identities on the North American Plains. In Gender and Hide Production, edited by Lisa Frink and Kathryn Weedman, pp. 57-75. Gender and Archaeology Series. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek. Seaman, Timothy J., and Barbara J. Mills 1988a El Paso Brownware Rim Analysis. In The Border Star 85 Survey: Toward an Archeology of Landscapes, edited by Timothy J. Seaman, William H. Doleman and Richard C. Chapman, pp. 169-182. University of New Mexico, Office of Contract Archeology, Albuquerque. 1988b What Are We Measuring? Rim Thickness Indices and Their Implications for Changes in Vessel Use. In Fourth Jornada Mogollon Conference. Collected Papers, edited by Meliha S. Duran and Karl W. Laumbach, pp. 163-194. Human Systems Research, Inc., Tularosa. Snow, Cordelia T. 2002 Fish Tales: The Use of Freshwater Fish in New Mexico from A.D. 1000 to 1900. In Forward into the Past. Papers in Honor of Teddy Lou and Francis Stickney, edited by Regge N. Wiseman, Thomas C. OLaughlin, and Cordelia T. Snow, pp. 119-132. Paper 28. Archaeological Society of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Snow, David H. 1997 Por Alli No Ay Losa Ni Se Hace: Gilded Men and Glazed Pottery on the Southern Plains. In The Coronado Expedition to Tierra Nueva: The 1540-1542 Route Across the Southwest, edited by Richard Flint and Shirley Cushing Flint, pp. 344364. University Press of Colorado, Niwot. Speth, John D. 1983 Bison Kills and Bone Counts: Decision Making by Ancient Hunters. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

The Artifact

40

Volume 50 2012

1991

2004

2008

2010

Some Unexplored Aspects of Mutualistic Plains-Pueblo Food Exchange. In Farmers, Hunters, and Colonists: Interaction Between the Southwest and the Southern Plains, edited by Katherine A. Spielmann, pp. 18-35. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Life on the Periphery: Economic Change in Late Prehistoric Southeastern New Mexico. edited by John D. Speth. Memoir 37. University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology, Ann Arbor. Following in Jane Kelleys Footsteps: Bloom Mound Revisited. In Celebrating Jane Holden Kelley and Her Work, edited by Meade F. Kemrer, pp. 35-47. Special Publication 5. New Mexico Archeological Council, Albuquerque. The Paleoanthropology and Archaeology of Big-Game Hunting: Protein, Fat or Politics? Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology. Springer, New York.

Speth, John D., and Jamie L. Clark 2006 Hunting and Overhunting in the Levantine Late Middle Palaeolithic. Before Farming 3(1):1-42. Speth, John D., Steven D. Emslie, and Sara C. Olson 2004 The Henderson Birds. In Life on the Periphery: Economic Change in Late Prehistoric Southeastern New Mexico, edited by John D. Speth, pp. 298-304. Memoir 37. University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology, Ann Arbor. Speth, John D., and Matthew LeDuc 2007 El Paso Polychrome Jars: New Insights from Complete Vessels. In Viva la Jornada: Papers from the 14th Biennial Jornada Mogollon Conference, edited by Jason Jurgena, Lora Jackson, and Marc Thompson, pp. 33-52. El Paso Museum of Archaeology, El Paso. Speth, John D., and Tatum M. McKay 2004 Freshwater Mollusks: A Source of Food or Just Ornaments? In Life on the Periphery: Economic Change in Late Prehistoric Southeastern New Mexico, edited by John D. Speth, pp. 329-336. Memoir 37. University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology, Ann Arbor. Speth, John D., and Khori Newlander 2012 Plains-Pueblo Interaction: A View from the Middle. In The Toyah Phase of Central Texas: Late Prehistoric Economic and Social Processes, edited by Nancy A. Kenmotsu and Douglas K. Boyd, pp. 152-180. Texas A&M University Press, College Station. Speth, John D., Khori Newlander, Andrew A. White, Ashley K. Lemke, and Lars E. Anderson 2012 Early Paleoindian Big-Game Hunting in North America: Provisioning or Politics? Quaternary International (in press). Volume 50 2012 41 The Artifact

Speth, John D., and Alison Rautman 2004 Bison Hunting at the Henderson Site. In Life on the Periphery: Economic Change in Late Prehistoric Southeastern New Mexico, edited by John D. Speth, pp. 98-147. Memoir 37. University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology, Ann Arbor. Speth, John D., and Susan L. Scott 1989 Horticulture and Large-Mammal Hunting: The Role of Resource Depletion and the Constraints of Time and Labor. In Farmers as Hunters, edited by Susan Kent, pp. 71-79. Cambridge University Press, New York. Speth, John D., Susan L. Scott, and Ralph F. Stearley 2004 Fish and Fishing at Henderson: The 1980-1981 Assemblage. In Life on the Periphery: Economic Change in Late Prehistoric Southeastern New Mexico, edited by John D. Speth, pp. 305-319. Memoir 37. University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology, Ann Arbor. Spielmann, Katherine A. 1983 Late Prehistoric Exchange Between the Southwest and Southern Plains. Plains Anthropologist 28(102, Part 1):257-272. 1991 Farmers, Hunters, and Colonists: Interaction Between the Southwest and the Southern Plains. edited by Katherine A. Spielmann. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Szuter, Christine R., and Frank E. Bayham 1989 Sedentism and Animal Procurement Among Desert Horticulturalists of the North American Southwest. In Farmers as Hunters: The Implications of Sedentism, edited by Susan Kent, pp. 80-95. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Todd, Lawrence C., and Jack L. Hofman 1987 Appendix 8. Bison Mandibles from the Horner and Finley Sites. In The Horner Site: The Type Site of the Cody Cultural Complex, edited by George C. Frison and Lawrence C. Todd, pp. 493-540. Academic Press, New York. Todd, Lawrence C., David J. Rapson, and Jack L. Hofman 1996 Dentition Studies of the Mill Iron and Other Early Paleoindian Bison Bonebed Sites. In The Mill Iron Site, edited by George C. Frison, pp. 145-175. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Vargas, Victoria D. 1995 Copper Bell Trade Patterns in the Prehispanic U.S. Southwest and Northwest Mexico. Archaeological Series 187. University of Arizona, Arizona State Museum, Tucson.

The Artifact

42

Volume 50 2012

Wade, Mariah F. 2002 Appendix C: Patterns of Buffalo Seasonality During the Protohistoric and Historic Periods in Texas. In The Smith Creek Bridge Site, 41DW270: A Terrace Site in De Witt County, Texas, edited by Dale Hudler, Keith Prilliman, and Thomas Gustavson, pp. 171-186. Studies in Archeology 35, Archeology Studies Program Report 17. University of Texas at Austin, Texas Archeological Research Laboratory and Texas Department of Transportation, Environmental Affairs Division, Austin. 2003 The Native Americans of the Texas Edwards Plateau, 1582-1799. Texas Archaeology and Ethnohistory Series. University of Texas Press, Austin. Whalen, Michael E. 1993 El Paso Plain Brown Rims As Chronological Markers? New Data on an Old Question. Kiva 58(4):475-486. Whittaker, John C., Alan Ferg, and John D. Speth 1988 Arizona Bifaces of Wyoming Chert. Kiva 53(4):321-334. Wilson, Michael C. 1980 Population Dynamics of the Garnsey Site Bison. In Late Prehistoric Bison Procurement in Southeastern New Mexico: The 1978 Season at the Garnsey Site (LA18399), edited by John D. Speth and William J. Parry, pp. 88-129. Technical Report 12. University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology, Ann Arbor. Wiseman, Regge N. 1975 Test Excavations at Three Lincoln Phase Sites in the Capitan Mountains Region, Southeastern New Mexico. Awanyu 3(1):6-36. 1981 Further Investigations at the King Ranch Site, Chaves County, New Mexico. In Archaeological Essays in Honor of Mark Wimberly, edited by Michael S. Foster, pp. 169-198. The Artifact 19(3-4). El Paso Archaeological Society, El Paso. 1985 Bison, Fish and Sedentary Occupations: Startling Data from Rocky Arroyo (LA 25277), Chaves County, New Mexico. In Views of the Jornada Mogollon. Proceedings of the Second Jornada Mogollon Conference, edited by Colleen M. Beck, pp. 30-32. Contributions in Anthropology 12. Eastern New Mexico University Press, Portales. 1988 The Continuing Saga of the King Ranch Site (LA 26764): Update and Summary of Findings. In Fourth Jornada Mogollon Conference (Oct. 1985): Collected Papers, edited by Meliha S. Duran and Karl W. Laumbach, pp. 223-254. Human Systems Research, Inc., Tularosa. 1991 DiscussionCapitan North Project. In Mogollon V, edited by Patrick H. Beckett, pp. 229-234. COAS Publishing and Research, Las Cruces.

Volume 50 2012

43

The Artifact

1996a Socioreligious Architecture in the Sierra Blanca/Roswell Regions of Southeastern New Mexico. In La Jornada: Papers in Honor of William F. Turney, edited by Meliha S. Duran and David T. Kirkpatrick, pp. 205-224. Paper 22. Archaeological Society of New Mexico, Albuquerque. 1996b The Land in Between: Archaic and Formative Occupations Along the Upper Rio Hondo of Southeastern New Mexico. Archaeology Notes 125. Museum of New Mexico, Office of Archaeological Studies, Santa Fe. 1997 A Preliminary Look at Evidence for Late Prehistoric Conflict in Southeastern New Mexico. In Layers of Time: Essays in Honor of Robert H. Weber, edited by Meliha S. Duran and David T. Kirkpatrick, pp. 135-146. Paper 23. Archaeological Society of New Mexico, Albuquerque. 2000 Bob Crosby Draw and River Camp: Contemplating Prehistoric Social Boundaries in Southeastern New Mexico. Archaeology Note 235. Museum of New Mexico, Office of Archaeological Studies, Santa Fe. 2002 The Fox Place: A Late Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherer Pithouse Village Near Roswell, New Mexico. Archaeology Note 234. Museum of New Mexico, Office of Archaeological Studies, Santa Fe. 2003 The Roswell South Project: Excavations in the Sacramento Plain and the Northern Chihuahuan Desert of Southeastern New Mexico. Archaeology Note 237. Museum of New Mexico, Office of Archaeological Studies, Santa Fe. 2004a The Pottery of the Henderson Site (LA 1549): The 1980-1981 Seasons. In Life on the Periphery: Economic Change in Late Prehistoric Southeastern New Mexico, edited by John D. Speth, pp. 67-95. Memoir 37. University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology, Ann Arbor. 2004b Prehistory of the Berrendo River System in the Southern Plains of New Mexico. Archaeology Note 236. Museum of New Mexico, Office of Archaeological Studies, Santa Fe. 2010 Land of the Relentless Sun: An Examination of Prehistoric Site Structure Along the Lower South Seven Rivers Drainage, Eddy County, New Mexico. Archaeology Note 284. Museum of New Mexico, Office of Archaeological Studies, Santa Fe. Wiseman, Regge N., Mahmoud Y. El-Najjar, J. Simon Bruder, Maurice Heller, and Richard I. Ford 1976 Multi-Disciplinary Investigations at the Smokey Bear Ruin (LA 2112), Lincoln County, New Mexico. Monograph 4. COAS Publishing and Research, Las Cruces. Young, Lisa C., and Sarah A. Herr (editors) 2012 Southwestern Pithouse Communities, AD 200-900. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

The Artifact

44

Volume 50 2012