Life on the Periphery: Economic Change in Late Prehistoric Southeastern New Mexico 9780915703548, 9781951519896

Citation preview

Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan Memoirs, Number 37

Life on the Periphery Economic Change in Late Prehistoric Southeastern New Mexico edited by John D. Speth

Ann Arbor, Michigan

2004

©2003 by the Regents of the University of Michigan The Museum of Anthropology All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America ISBN 978-0-915703-54-8 (paper) ISBN 978-1-951519-89-6 (ebook) Cover design, by Katherine Clahassey, inspired by the painting Trading at the Pecos Pueblo, by Tom Lovell. The University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology currently publishes three monograph series: Anthropological Papers, Memoirs, and Technical Reports, as well as an electronic series in CD­ROM form. For a complete catalog, write to Museum of Anthropology Publications, 4009 Museums Building, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1079. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Life on the periphery : economic change in late prehistoric southeastern New Mexico I edited by John D. Speth. p. cm. -- (Memoirs ; no. 37) Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 0-915703-54-8 (alk. paper) 1. Henderson Site (N.M.) 2. Pueblo Indians--Antiquities. 3. Pueblo pottery--Pecos River Valley (N.M. and Tex.) 4. Plant remains (Archaeology)--Pecos River Valley (N.M. and Tex.) 5. Animal remains (Archaeology)--Pecos River Valley (N.M. and Tex.) 6. Pecos River Valley (N.M. and Tex.)--Antiquities. I. Speth, John D. II. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan; no. 37. GN2.M52no.37 L55 2003 [E99.p9] 978.9'4--dc21 2003010294 The paper used in this publication meets the requirements of the ANSI Standard 239.48-1984 (Permanence of Paper)

Contents LIST OF FIGURES, viii LIST OF TABLES, X ACKNOWLEDGMENTS, xv PART

I.

THE VILLAGE

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION, by John D. Speth, 2 References Cited, 3 CHAPTER 2. THE HENDERSON SITE, by John D. Speth, 4 Introduction, 4 Chronology, 9 Plaza vs. Room Block Trash Deposits, 15 Synopsis, 19 References Cited, 21 Appendix to Chapter 2, 23 CHAPTER 3. THE POTTERY OF THE HENDERSON SITE (LA-1549): THE 1980-1981 SEASONS, by Regge N. Wiseman, 67 Introduction, 67 The Local Pottery, 67 Imported Pottery, 69 Dating the Occupation with Pottery, 70 Description and Discussion of Specific Pottery Types, 71 Chupadero Black-on-White, 71 Corona Corrugated, 73 El Paso Polychrome, 74 Playas Incised, 76 Playas Pottery from Henderson, 78 Three Rivers Red-on-Terracotta and Lincoln Black-on-Red, 80 The Henderson Pottery Assemblage in Regional Context, 84 Long-Distance Exchange, 88 Synopsis, 92 References Cited, 93 PART II. THE ANIMAL RESOURCES

CHAPTER 4. BISON HUNTING AT THE HENDERSON SITE, by John D. Speth and Alison E. Rautman, 98 Introduction, 98 Treatment of the Bones, 98 Garnsey Bison Kill, 99 Total Henderson Bison Sample (1980-1981): Both Sexes Combined, 101 Introduction, 101 Element Frequencies, 101 Age Structure, 112 Total Henderson Bison Sample (1980-1981): By Sex, 114 Introduction, 114 Sex Structure, 115 Seasonality, 119 Henderson Bison Sample by Provenience (1980-1981): Both Sexes Combined, 121 Introduction, 121 Element Frequencies, 121 iii

Henderson Bison Sample by Provenience (1980-1981): By Sex, 125 Early Phase Bison: Great Depression vs. Main Bar East, 126 Synopsis, 128 References Cited, 132 Appendix to Chapter 4, 137 CHAPTER 5. ANTELOPE PROCUREMENT AND HUNTING STRATEGIES AT THE HENDERSON SITE, by Preston T. Miracle, 148 Introduction, 148 Geography, Climate, and Vegetation, 148 Ecology of Medium Ungulates in Southeastern New Mexico, 148 Methods, 149 Identifications, 149 Coding, 150 Measurement and Sexing of Antelope Remains, 150 Units of Quantification, 152 Description of the Medium Ungulate Assemblage, 153 Taxonomic Description, 153 Comparisons Between Different Proveniences, 154 Sexing of Antelope, 154 Aging of Antelope, 154 Carcass Units, 157 Taphonomy of Medium Ungulates at Henderson, 160 Economic Analysis of Medium Ungulates from Henderson, 162 Introduction, 162 Utility Indices, 162 Bulk Density, 168 Bone Transport vs. Destruction, 170 Cutmarks, 172 Mortality Profile of Henderson Antelope, 174 Seasonality, 175 Summary of Analyses, 176 Antelope Procurement at Henderson, 177 Introduction, 177 Antelope Herd Organization at Different Seasons, 177 Ethnographic Descriptions of Antelope Hunting, 178 Archaeological Markers of Communal Herd Hunting, 179 Communal Hunting at Henderson?, 180 Regional Comparisons, 181 Introduction, 181 Communal Hunting at Phillips and Robinson?, 182 Implications of the Results, 185 Conclusions, 186 Synopsis, 187 References Cited, 190 Appendix to Chapter 5, 193 CHAPTER 6. SCHEDULING CONFLICTS AT THE HENDERSON SITE: EVIDENCE FOR A DECLINE IN MEDIUM UNGULATE PROCUREMENT AND USE,

by Christina Waskiewicz, James J. Noone, and John D. Speth, 215

Introduction and Expectations, 215 Results, 216 Abundance of Medium Ungulates, 216 Transport Distance, 216 Medium Ungulates as Public or Communal Resources, 217 Conclusion, 218 Synopsis, 218 References Cited, 219

iv

7. THE HENDERSON SITE DOGS, by Lauren Bigelow and John D. Speth, 221 Introduction, 221 Temporal Perspective, 222 Conclusions/Synopsis, 223 References Cited, 223 CHAPTER 8. RABBIT HUNTING BY FARMERS AT THE HENDERSON SITE, by Yun Kuen Lee and John D. Speth, 225 Introduction, 225 The 1980-1981 Henderson Lagomorph Assemblage, 226 Recovery Biases, 227 Taphonomy, 231 Lagomorph Sample by Provenience, 236 Seasonal Scheduling of Lagomorph Hunting, 240 The Temporal Perspective, 243 Synopsis, 244 References Cited, 247 Appendix to Chapter 8, 253 CHAPTER 9. PRAIRIE DOGS AND GOPHERS: FOOD RESOURCES OR TAPHONOMIC "NOISE"?, by John D. Speth and Gudrun A. Scholler, 278 Introduction, 278 Cultural vs. Natural Origin, 279 Recovery Biases, 281 Taxonomic Representation, 281 Skeletal Element Representation, 282 Taphonomic Biases, 282 Seasonal Scheduling of Prairie Dog Hunting, 285 Temporal Perspective, 287 Synopsis, 287 References Cited, 289 Appendix to Chapter 9, 293 CHAPTER 10. THE HENDERSON BIRDS, by John D. Speth, Steven D. Emslie, and Sara C. Olson, 298 Introduction, 298 Northern Cardinal, 302 Turkey, 302 Seasonality of Bird Hunting, 302 Synopsis, 303 References Cited, 303 CHAPTER 11. FISH AND FISHING AT HENDERSON, by John D. Speth, Susan L. Scott, and Ralph F. Stearley, 305 Introduction, 305 Assemblage Composition, 306 Recovery Biases and Taphonomy, 307 East Plaza vs. Room Block Fish Assemblages, 308 Fishing at Henderson, 310 Temporal Perspective, 313 Synopsis, 314 References Cited, 315 Appendix to Chapter 11, 318 CHAPTER 12. SEASONALITY OF CATFISH PROCUREMENT AT THE HENDERSON SITE, by Kristen K. Arntzen and John D. Speth, 320 Introduction, 320 Seasonality of Catfish Procurement, 321 Preparing and Measuring the Thin Sections, 321 Results and Discussion, 324 Conclusions, 324 Synopsis, 325 References Cited, 326 CHAPTER

v

13. FRESHWATER MOLLUSKS: A SOURCE OF FOOD OR JUST ORNAMENTS?, by John D. Speth and Tatum M. McKay, 329 The Henderson Bivalve Assemblage (1980-1981), 329 Bivalve Assemblage by Provenience, 333 Temporal Perspective, 334 Synopsis, 334 References Cited, 335 CHAPTER 14. INTERSPECIFIC COMPARISONS: EVIDENCE FOR COOKING METHODS AND COMMUNAL FOOD SHARING, by John D. Speth,337 Introduction, 337 Body Weight, 337 Incidence of Burning vs. Body Weight, 339 Species Abundance in Non-Room Contexts vs. Body Weight, 340 Utility of Mammal Remains in Room and Non-Room Contexts, 343 Synopsis, 344 References Cited, 345 CHAPTER

PART

III. THE STONE TOOLS

15. PROJECTILE POINTS FROM THE HENDERSON SITE (1980-1981), by Michael A. Adler and John D. Speth, 350 Introduction, 350 Comparison of Washita and Fresno Point Attributes, 352 Lithic Materials Utilized at Henderson, 354 Observations on Blade Breakage, 355 Intrasite Comparisons, 356 Projectile Points and Hunting, 358 Temporal Perspective, 361 Synopsis, 363 References Cited, 366 CHAPTER 16. THE LITHIC ASSEMBLAGE FROM THE HENDERSON SITE, by Jody L. Brown, 368 Introduction, 368 Terms and Procedures, 368 Tool and Debitage Types, 370 Raw Materials, 372 Density of Artifacts, 372 Artifact Types by Raw Material Type, 372 Flake Types, 376 Amount of Cortex, 377 Dorsal Scars, 378 Platform Scars, 379 Artifact Weight and Size, 379 Conclusions, 381 Synopsis, 381 References Cited, 382 CHAPTER 17. THE GROUNDSTONE EVIDENCE, by John D. Speth, Tatum M. McKay, and Kristen K. Arntzen, 384 Introduction, 384 Metates, 385 Manos,388 Conclusions, 389 Synopsis, 389 References Cited, 390 CHAPTER

vi

PART IV. ETHNOBOTANY

18. ARCHAEOBOTANICAL MAIZE: THE SCREENED SAMPLE (1980-1981), by Sandra L. Dunavan, 394 Introduction, 394 Methods, 394 Deposition and Spatial Patterning, 395 Cob Morphology, 397 Kernel Morphology, 399 Intrasite Variation, 399 Regional Variation, 401 Synopsis, 403, References Cited, 404 CHAPTER 19. FUEL EXPLOITATION AT THE HENDERSON SITE, by Marie S. Harris and Steven Archer; 407 Introduction, 407 Modern Vegetation, 407 Methods, 408 Taxa Recovered, 408 Results, 411 Conclusions, 411 Synopsis, 411 References Cited, 412 CHAPTER

PART V. SKELETAL INDICATORS OF DIET

20. THE STABLE ISOTOPE RESULTS, by Margaret J. Schoeninger; 416 Introduction, 416 Methods, 416 Results, 417 Synopsis, 417 References Cited, 418

CHAPTER

PART CHAPTER

VI.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

21. LIFE ON THE PERIPHERY: EcONOMIC AND SOCIAL CHANGE IN SOUTHEASTERN NEW MEXICO, by John D. Speth, 420

Introduction, 420 Henderson as a Village, 420 Forces Beyond Southeastern New Mexico, 424 References Cited, 426

vii

FIGURES

2.1. 2.2. 2.3. 2.4. 2.5. 2.6. 2.7. 2.8. 2.9. 2.10. 2.11. 2.12. 2.13. 2.14. 3.1. 3.2. 3.3. 3.4. 3.5. 3.6. 4.1. 4.2. 4.3. 4.4. 4.5. 4.6. 5.1. 5.2. 5.3. 5.4. 5.5. 5.6. 5.7. 5.8. 5.9. 5.10. 5.11. 5.12. 5.13. 5.14. 5.15. 5.16. 5.17. 5.18.

Location of Henderson Site, Bloom Mound, Rocky Arroyo, and Garnsey Bison Kill in southeastern New Mexico, 5 Point where Hondo River breaks into Pecos Valley, showing location of Henderson Site and Bloom Mound, 6 Contour map of Henderson Site, showing all major excavation units, 8 Main Bar East (trenches E and J), showing excavated rooms and features, 9 East Bar (trench A), showing excavated rooms, features, and location of radiocarbon samples, 10 Center Bar (trench F), showing excavated rooms, features, and location of radiocarbon samples, 11 East Plaza (trenches Band C) earth oven complex, showing sloping bedrock floor of depression and large quantities of fire-cracked rock, 15 Close-up of East Plaza (trench C) earth oven complex, showing large quantities of fire-cracked rock and bison bone, 15 Heavy-duty limestone tools associated with bison bone in East Plaza earth oven complex, 16 Limestone flakes associated with bison and antelope bones in East Plaza earth oven complex, 17 Plan of trenches Band C in East Plaza, 17 East-west and north-south stratigraphic sections through East Plaza deposits, 18 "Great Depression" (trench K) excavation, showing sloping bedrock floor of depression and large quantities of fire-cracked rock, 19 East-west stratigraphic section through "Great Depression" deposits, 19 Date of occupation· based on the estimated temporal span of the ceramic types recovered during the 19801981 excavations, 70 Comparison of line widths in decorations on Three Rivers Red-on-terracotta and Lincoln Black-on-red bowls from the Henderson Site, 81 Interior and exterior surface colors of Three Rivers Red-on-terracotta and Lincoln Black-on-red bowls, 82 Vessel wall thickness of Three Rivers Red-on-terracotta and Lincoln Black-on-red bowls, 83 Abundance of off-white, white, and gray feldspar temper in Three Rivers Red-on-terracotta and Lincoln Black-on-red bowls, 83 Pottery assemblages from sites in southeastern New Mexico, 85 Relation between proportional frequency of elements abandoned at the Henderson Site and MGUI, 102 Relation between proportional frequency of elements abandoned at Garnsey Bison Kill and MGUI, 102 Frequency of major limb elements at the Henderson Site and ,Garnsey Bison Kill, 106 Relation between %MNI (male) and %MNT (female) and MGUI at Garnsey Bison Kill, 114 Relation between %MNT (male and female) from the Henderson Site and Garnsey Bison Kill and MGUI, 114 Frequency of burned bison skeletal elements by major anatomical unit at the Henderson Site, 121 Map of principal late prehistoric archaeological sites in southeastern New Mexico, 149 Sex differences in medium ungulate innominates and measurements made to sex innominates, 151 Correlation of sexually dimorphic features of the innominate in antelope, 151 Ventro-medial depth of the acetabulum in Henderson and modern antelope, 152 Depth of medial border of rectus femoris fossa in Henderson and modern antelope, 152 %MAU vs. %MNI for Henderson Site antelope, 153 Medium ungulate humerus destruction at Henderson, 161 Medium ungulate tibia destruction at Henderson, 161 FUI (sheep) vs. MGUI (sheep), 163 PUT (sheep) vs. bulk density, 164 PUT (sheep) vs. bulk density, trunk compared to limb elements, 164 %MAU (entire site) vs. FUI (sheep), 165 %MAU (entire site) vs. FUI (sheep), trunk compared to limb elements, 166 %MAU (East Plaza only) vs. FUI (sheep), trunk compared to limb elements, 166 %MAU (combined room blocks only, excluding Room C-5) vs. PUT (sheep), trunk compared to limb elements, 166 %MAU (entire site) vs. complete-bone FUI (sheep), 166 %MAU (entire site) vs. grease index (sheep), 167 %MAU (Room C-5) vs. marrow volume (sheep), 167 viii

5.19. 5.20. 5.21. 5.22. 5.23. 5.24. 5.25. 5.26. 5.27. 5.28. 5.29. 5.30. 5.31. 5.32. 5.33. 5.34. 5.35. 5.36. 5.37. 5.38. 5.39. 5.40. 5.41. 8.1. 9.1. 9.2. 10.1. 11.1. 12.1. 12.2. 13.1. 13.2. 13.3. 13.4. 13.5. 14.1. 14.2. 14.3. 14.4. 14.5. 15.1. 15.2. 15.3. 17.1. 17.2. 17.3. 19.1. 19.2. 19.3. 19.4. 19.5. 20.1.

%MAU (combined room blocks) vs. FUI (sheep), 167 %MAU (East Plaza) vs. FUI (sheep), 168 Fragmentation index (combined room blocks) vs. marrow volume (sheep), 169 %MAU (entire site) vs. bulk density, 169 %MAU (entire site) vs. bulk density, trunk compared to limb elements, 170 %MAU (East Plaza) vs. bulk density, 170 %MAU (combined room blocks) vs. bulk density, 171 MNI (entire site) of antelope represented by head and postcranial elements, 172 Frequency (%NISP) of burned bones in rear limb (entire site), 175 Frequency (%NISP) of burned bones in front limb (entire site), 176 Mortality profile (MNI) of antelope (entire site), 176 Seasonality of antelope procurement at the Henderson Site, 178 %MAU vs. bulk density at Eden-Farson Site, trunk compared to limb elements, 179 %MAU vs. FUI (sheep) at the Eden-Farson Site, trunk compared to limb elements, 180 Mortality profile (MNE) of antelope at the Phillips Site, 182 Seasonality of antelope procurement at the Phillips Site, 183 Frequency (MNE) of antelope vs. deer at the Phillips Site, 183 %MAU vs. bulk density at the Phillips Site, trunk compared to limb elements, 184 %MAU vs. FUI (sheep) at the Phillips Site, trunk compared to limb elements, 184 Mortality profile (MNE) of antelope at the Robinson Site, 184 Frequency (MNE) of antelope vs. deer at the Robinson Site, 185 %MAU vs. bulk density at the Robinson Site, trunk compared to limb elements, 185 %MAU vs. FUI (sheep) at the Robinson Site, trunk compared to limb elements, 186 Bivariate plot of Sylvilagus mandible measurements, 227 Frontal view of black-tailed prairie dog mandible showing location of premolar gap, 279 Black-tailed prairie dog age structure, 286 Sealed cylindrical pit in the Main Bar East capped by "closure offering" of red-winged blackbird, 299 Frequency distribution of fish lengths by phase, 312 Modern channel catfish pectoral spine showing location of thin section, 322 Plot of Morey's regression of transformed pectoral spine growth index by date of death for modern channel catfish from the southeastern U.S. showing transformed growth index values, 324 Examples of complete and fragmentary ornaments manufactured from the shells of freshwater bivalves, 330 Probable freshwater shell cut into the shape of a mountain sheep, 331 Examples of freshwater bivalve shells probably used as cutting or scraping tools, 331 Examples of standardized breakage pattern of freshwater bivalve shells, 332 Cyrtonaias tampicoensis valve fragment with parallel grooves and punctures made by the incisors of a small-bodied carnivore, 333 Incidence of burning plotted against log of body weight, 339 Abundance of species in non-room contexts plotted against log of body weight, 341 Abundance of fish remains in non-room contexts plotted against size classes, 342 Abundance of taxa in non-room contexts by temporal phase plotted against log of body weight, 342 Abundance of fish remains in non-room contexts by temporal phase plotted against size-classes, 343 Washita points from the Henderson Site, 351 Fresno points from the Henderson Site, 353 Miscellaneous projectile point types from the Henderson Site, 354 Complete metate from Room C-2, 385 Complete metate found on surface of Center Bar, 386 In situ limestone metate on primary floor of East Bar Room E-4, 387 Abundance of taxa (percentages) in Early and Late phase charcoal samples, 410 Abundance of taxa (counts per liter) in Early and Late phase charcoal samples, 410 Abundance of taxa (grams per liter) in Early and Late phase charcoal samples, 410 Abundance of taxa (counts per liter) in charcoal samples from Early and Late phase earth oven complexes, 410 Abundance of taxa (grams per liter) in charcoal samples from Early and Late phase earth oven complexes, 411 Henderson Site human (and bison) stable isotope values compared with other Southwestern human groups, 416

Lx

TABLES

2.1. 2.2.

2.3. 2.4. 2.5. A2.1. 3.1.

3.2. 3.3. 3.4. 3.5. 3.6. 3.7. 3.8. 3.9. 3.10. 3.11. 3.12. 3.13. 3.14. 3.15. 3.16. 3.17. 4.1. 4.2. 4.3. 4.4. 4.5. 4.6. 4.7. 4.8. 4.9. 4.10. 4.11. 4.12. 4.13. 4.14. 4.15. A4.1. A4.2. A4.3. A4.4. A4.5. 5.1. 5.2a. 5.2b. 5.3. 5.4. 5.5. 5.6.

Area and volume of principal excavation units, 7 New accelerator dates: provenience and sample description, 12 Conventional and accelerator dates, un calibrated and calibrated, 13 Conventional and accelerator dates, calibrated average dates, 14 Revised phase nomenclature, 14 Lot number system used between 1980 and 1997,23 Summary of pottery from the 1980-1981 seasons, 68 Dated intrusive pottery types found in southeastern New Mexico, 69 Summary of Chupadero Black-on-white temper types, 72 Corona· Corrugated temper types, 73 Rim sherd index values for Henderson Site and other nearby late prehistoric villages, 75 Matrix of I-test results for comparisons of mean RSI values from Fox Place, Henderson, Rocky Arroyo, and Bloom Mound, 75 Maximum and minimum thickness values for EI Paso Polychrome rim sherds from Fox Place, Henderson, Rocky Arroyo, and Bloom Mound, 76 Matrix of t-test results for minimum thickness values for El Paso Polychrome rim sherds, 76 Playas decorative variations at Henderson by temper type, 78 Playas paste colors at Henderson by temper type, 79 Playas vessel wall thickness at Henderson by temper type, 79 Comparison of vessel wall-thickness ranges for Henderson Three Rivers and Lincoln bowls, 82 Sites in southeastern New Mexico used for pottery assemblage comparisons, 86 Dates of phases in Table 3.13, 87 Summary of primary pottery types for selected southeastern New Mexico sites, 89 Summary of trade pottery recovered at selected southeastern New Mexico sites (Part 1), 90 Summary of trade pottery recovered at selected southeastern New Mexico sites (Part 2),91 Frequency of bison bones by major carcass unit at Henderson Site and Garnsey Bison Kill, 105 Frequency of major limb elements at Henderson Site and Garnsey Bison Kill, 105 Frequency of burned bison bones by major carcass unit, 108 Fragmentation of bison bones by major carcass unit at Henderson Site and Garnsey Bison Kill, 110 Age of bison mandibles from Henderson Site, based on tooth eruption and wear, 111 Age of immature bison bones based on stage of fusion of limb-element epiphyses, 111 Frequency of male and female bison limb elements from Henderson Site and Garnsey Bison Kill, 113 Frequency of male and female bison carcass units at Henderson Site and Garnsey Bison Kill, 113 Frequency of male and female bison limb elements from Henderson Site and Garnsey Bison Kill, 115 Frequency of bison carcass units by provenience, 122 Frequency of burned bison carcass units by provenience, 122 Fragmentation of bison carcass units by provenience, 124 Frequency of immature bison carcass units by provenience, 124 Frequency of male and female bison carcass units by provenience, 125 Similarities between Early and Late phase bison and medium ungulate assemblages, 126 Bison sample recovered, all proveniences combined, 138 Bison sample recovered, trench A, East Bar, 140 Bison sample recovered, trench C, East Plaza, 142 Bison sample recovered, trench D, East Plaza, 144 Bison sample recovered, trench F, Center Bar, 146 Degree of burning of medium ungulate remains at Henderson Site, 150 Species composition of medium ungulates by provenience (room blocks), 153 Species composition of medium ungulates by provenience (East Plaza and entire site), 153 Distribution of burned bones by provenience, 155 Density of medium ungulate remains by provenience, 155 Distribution of male and female antelope by provenience, 155 Age at death of Henderson antelope based on mandibular tooth eruption and wear, 155 x

5.7. 5.8. 5.9. 5.10. 5.11. 5.12. S.l3. S.14. 5.15. S.16. 5.17. S.18. S.19. 5.20. S.21. 5.22. S.23. A5.I. A5.2a. A5.2b. A5.3a. AS.3b. A5.4. AS.S. AS.6. AS.7. AS.8. AS.9. AS.lO. AS.1I.

Estimated epiphyseal fusion times of long bones in mule deer, 156 Epiphyseal fusion data for antelope and deer/antelope, 156 Epiphyseal fusion data for deer, 157 Frequency of medium ungulate skeletal elements by major carcass unit (entire site), 158 Frequency of medium ungulate skeletal elements by major carcass unit (combined room blocks), 158 Frequency of medium ungulate skeletal elements by major carcass unit (East Plaza), 159 Expected frequencies of elements by major carcass unit in a complete antelope/deer skeleton, 160 Number of fetal bones by provenience, 160 MGUI and FUI for domestic sheep, 163 Frequency of cutmarks by skeletal element and provenience, 173 Description of cutmarks by skeletal element and provenience, 174 Distribution of cutmarks by provenience, 174 Age classes by provenience of Henderson Site antelope, 175 Antelope fawning dates at selected locations in western U.S., 175 Age at death and season of death of Henderson Site antelope, 177 Seasonality indicators by provenience, 177 Antelope/deer ratio in some late prehistoric archaeological sites in southeastern New Mexico, 181 Definition of measurements taken on Henderson Site medium ungulate elements, 194 Measurements of antelope postcranial skeletal elements, 194 Measurements of antelope teeth, 195 Measurements of deer postcranial skeletal elements, 196 Measurements of deer teeth, 196 Antelope sample recovered from Henderson Site (all proveniences combined), 197 Antelope/deer sample recovered from Henderson Site (all proveniences combined), 199 Deer sample recovered from Henderson Site (all proveniences combined), 200 Medium ungulate sample recovered from Henderson Site (all proveniences combined), 201 Antelope and medium ungulate sample recovered from Henderson Site (East Bar), 202 Deer sample recovered from Henderson Site (East Bar), 203 Antelope/deer sample recovered from Henderson Site (East Bar), 204 Antelope and medium ungulate sample recovered from Henderson Site (Center Bar, Rooms C-1 to C-6, excluding C-S), 205 AS.12. Deer sample recovered from Henderson Site (Center Bar, Rooms C-I to C-6, excluding C-S), 206 AS.l3. Antelope/deer sample recovered from Henderson Site (Center Bar, Rooms C-I to C-6, excluding C-S), 207 A5.14. Antelope and medium ungulate sample recovered from Henderson Site (Center Bar, Room C-5), 208 AS.1S. Deer sample recovered from Henderson Site (Center Bar, Room C-S), 209 A5.16. Antelope/deer sample recovered from Henderson Site (Center Bar, Room C-S), 210 A5.l7. Antelope and medium ungulate sample recovered from Henderson Site (East Plaza), 211 A5.I8. Deer sample recovered from Henderson Site (East Plaza), 212 A5.19. Antelope/deer sample recovered from Henderson Site (East Plaza), 213 AS.20. Fetal medium ungulate sample by provenience, 214 7.1. Estimated body size of dogs from the Henderson Site, 222 8.1. Frequency of Lepus and Sylvilagus remains by provenience in screened samples and flotation samples, 228 8.2. Proportion of major skeletal elements of Lepus and Sylvilagus in site-wide lagomorph assemblage at Henderson, 229 8.3. Density of lagomorph bones by major provenience, 230 8.4. Density of Sylvilagus skeletal elements in flotation samples, East Plaza, and Room C-S, 231 8.S. Degree of bone breakage in Lepus and Sylvilagus, 233 8.6. Proportion of Lepus and Sylvilagus skeletal elements and bulk (volume) density of lagomorph bones, 234 8.7. Proportion of Lepus and Sylvilagus skeletal elements, marrow index, and grease index, 235 8.8. Frequency of complete vs. fragmentary Lepus and Sylvilagus bones by provenience, 236 8.9. Frequency of burned Lepus, Sylvilagus, and totallagomorph bones by provenience, 237 8.l0. Frequency of Lepus and Sylvilagus upper and lower limb bones by provenience, 238 8.11. Proportion of immature Lepus and Sylvilagus remains by provenience, 239 8.12. Proportion of immature Lepus, Syivilagus, and totallagomorph remains by provenience, 240 xi

S.13. Similarities between Early and Late phase lagomorphs, 243 AS.1. Lepus californicus sample recovered from Henderson Site, 254 AS.2. Sylvilagus sample recovered from Henderson Site, 256 AS.3. Lepus californicus sample recovered from Henderson Site (trench A, East Bar), 258 AS.4. Sylvilagus sample recovered from Henderson Site (trench A, East Bar), 260 AS.5. Lepus californicus sample recovered from Henderson Site (trench B/C, East Plaza), 262 AS.6. Sylvilagus sample recovered from Henderson Site (trench B/C, East Plaza), 264 AS.7. Lepus californicus sample recovered from Henderson Site (trench D, East Plaza), 266 AS.S. Sylvilagus sample recovered from Henderson Site (trench D, East Plaza), 268 AS.9. Lepus californicus sample recovered from Henderson Site (trench E, Main Bar), 270 AS. 10. Sylvilagus sample recovered from Henderson Site (trench E, Main Bar), 272 AS.II. Lepus californicus sample recovered from Henderson Site (trench F, Center Bar), 274 AS.12. Sylvilagus sample recovered from Henderson Site (trench F, Center Bar), 276 9.1. Density of rodent bones in flotation samples and by major provenience, 280 9.2. Frequency of bones of each rodent taxon recovered in quarter-inch screens and in flotation samples, 281 9.3. Frequency of lagomorph and rodent dentitions, 281 9.4. Proportion of black-tailed prairie dog and pocket gopher skeletal elements, bulk (volume) density of marmot bones, marrow index, and grease index, 283 9.5. Proportions of proximal and distal humeri and tibias of lagomorphs and rodents, 285 A9.1. Black-tailed prairie dog sample recovered from Henderson Site, 294 A9.2. Yellow-cheeked pocket gopher sample recovered from Henderson Site, 296 10.1. Avifauna from the Henderson Site, 300 10.2. Frequency of Early and Late phase avian remains by order at the Henderson Site, 301 10.3. Frequency of Early and Late phase Accipitriforrnes and Passeriformes in room and non-room contexts, 302 10.4. Frequency of Early and Late phase wing and non-wing bones by major habitat group, 302 11.1. Proportion of Ictalurid vs. non-Ictalurid remains in East Plaza and combined room blocks, 308 11.2. Proportion of fish by 20-cm size classes in combined room blocks and East Plaza, 309 11.3. Proportion of fish by 5- to lO-cm size classes in combined room blocks and East Plaza, 309 11.4. Proportion of cranial to postcranial elements of fish in East Plaza and combined room blocks, 309 11.5. Proportion of cranial and postcranial fish elements by 20-cm size classes, 310 11.6. Proportion of cranial and postcranial fish elements by 20-cm size classes by provenience, 310 11.7. Proportion of catfish pectoral spines in East Plaza and combined room blocks, 310 II.S. Proportion of catfish pectoral spines by 20-cm size classes in the combined room blocks and East Plaza, 311 11.9. Proportion of fish by 20-cm size classes in flotation samples, 311 11.10. Distance and approximate direction to major rivers in Roswell area, 312 A 11.1. Fish remains (NISP and MNI) from Henderson Site, 318 A 11.2. Fish remains (NISP and MNI) from Henderson Site (East Plaza), 318 Al1.3. Fish remains (NISP and MNI) from Henderson Site (combined room blocks), 319 12.1. Transformed "growth indices" derived from measurements of thin sections of catfish pectoral spines from the Henderson Site, 323 13.1. Freshwater mollusk shell remains by provenience, 330 14.1. Proportion (NISP) of bones by species and body size in room and non-room contexts at Henderson Site, 338 14.2. Average utility (MGUI) of major limb elements by taxon in room and non-room contexts, 343 15.1. Frequency of projectile point types by provenience at the Henderson Site, 352 15.2. Summary descriptive data for Washita and Fresno points from the Henderson Site,.355 15.3. Frequency of lithic raw material types used for projectile points at the Henderson Site, 356 15.4. Frequency of lithic raw material types by projectile point type at the Henderson Site, 357 15.5. Summary measurement data for Washita and Fresno points from the Center Bar and East Bar, 357 15.6. Summary measurement data for Washita and Fresno points from the combined room blocks and East Plaza, 359 15.7. Frequency of projectile points from major Pueblo excavation and survey projects in the American Southwest, 360 15.S. Density of projectile points by provenience and chronological phase, 361 15.9. Frequency of projectile point types by provenience, 362 15.10. Metric attributes of Henderson Site Washita points by chronological phase, 363 xii

16.1. 16.2. 16.3. 16.4. 16.5. 16.6. 16.7. 16.8. 16.9. 16.10. 16.11. 16.12; 16.13. 16.14. 16.15. 16.16. 16.17. 16.18. 16.19. 16.20. 17.1. 18.1. 18.2. 18.3. 18.4. 18.5. 18.6. 18.7. 18.8. 20.1.

Artifact counts and percentages by provenience, 369 Expedient nature of the Henderson Site lithic assemblage, 370 Raw material counts and percentages by provenience, 371 Density of artifacts at the Henderson Site, 371 Counts of artifact types by raw material type, 373 Percentage frequencies of artifact types by raw material type, 374 Percentage frequencies of artifact types for coarse- vs. fine-grained raw material types, 375 Flake types by raw material type, 375 Amount of cortex (counts) by raw material type, 376 Amount of cortex (percentage frequencies) by raw material type, 376 Amount of cortex (counts) for coarse- vs. fine-grained raw material types, 377 Amount of cortex (percentage frequencies) for coarse- vs. fine-grained raw material types, 377 Amount of cortex by raw material type on non-retouched and retouched artifacts (Center Bar), 377 Amount of cortex by raw material type on non-retouched and retouched artifacts (East Plaza), 378 Dorsal scars (counts and percentage frequencies) by provenience, 379 Platform scars (counts and percentage frequencies) by provenience, 379 Average weight of artifacts made of coarse- vs. fine-grained raw materials (Center Bar), 380 Average weight of artifacts made of coarse- vs. fine-grained raw materials (East Plaza), 380 Average weight of artifacts made of coarse- vs. fiile-grained raw materials (total sample), 381 Average maximum dimensions of artifact types for coarse- vs. fine-grained raw materials (total sample), 382 Metric data for the Henderson Site manos, 389 Density of maize fragments from the Henderson Site, 396 Frequency of cob sections by provenience at the Henderson Site, 396 Henderson Site cob summary statistics (including nubbin cobs), 397 Henderson Site cob summary statistics (excluding nubbin cobs), 398 Henderson Site nubbin cob summary statistics, 399 Henderson Site cupule summary statistics, 400 Henderson Site cob qualitative characteristics, 401 Henderson Site kernel summary statistics, 402 Stable isotope ratios in Henderson Site human and bison bone samples, 417

xiii

To Matthew and Karen Henderson, Calder and Candy Ezzell, Jay and Carrie Hollifield and The Archaeological Conservancy for their efforts in preserving the fragile archaeological record of southeastern New Mexico to Elmer (Skip) and Jane Garnsey who helped launch our work with prehistoric bison hunters in southeastern New Mexico

and to the memory of Robert H. (Bus) Leslie in recognition of his pioneering contributions to our knowledge of the region's prehistory

Acknowledgments The work at the Henderson Site was made possible through the generous permission of Matthew and Karen Henderson, who owned the ranch where the site is located. Although they have since sold the ranch, their deep concern and interest in the archaeology of southeastern New Mexico led them to donate both the Henderson Site (LA-1549) and nearby Bloom Mound (LA-2528) to The Archaeological Conservancy for long-term protection and management. It was a pleasure to name the Henderson Site in Matt and Karen's honor, since it and Bloom Mound survived largely as a result of their efforts to preserve the fragile archaeological record of the area. Their interest, enthusiasm, and friendship always made the fieldwork a true pleasure and added in countless ways to the success of the project. We are forever grateful. Calder and Candy Ezzell, who now own the ranch, have continued the same tradition of warm, open hospitality, interest, and friendship, and it is through their vigilance that both Henderson and Bloom Mound continue to survive undisturbed by the vandalism and pot hunting that has become so prevalent throughout southeastern New Mexico. Working on the 2C\ Ranch, as it is now called, has been a wonderful experience, and stands as a high point in the lives of all those who have participated in the fieldwork. We would also like to express our gratitude to The Archaeological Conservancy, and in particular to Mark Michel, President, and James B. Walker, Southwest Regional Director, for their continuing efforts and enthusiasm in securing the protection of both Henderson and Bloom. We are grateful as well for their patience and understanding over these past many years waiting for the appearance of this long-overdue volume. Throughout the project, we benefited immeasurably from Robert H. (Bus) Leslie's firsthand knowledge of the prehistory of southeastern New Mexico. He generously gave us open access to his extensive site files, helped us identify the sources of our lithic raw materials and type some of the unusual projectile points found with the Feature 36 burial, and spotted the deposits in the East Plaza that proved upon excavation to be the site's most impressive bisonroasting feature. The discovery of this feature totally altered our view of the subsistence practices of the Henderson villagers, since we had encountered very few bison remains elsewhere in the site. Most of all, Bus shared with us his knowledge and insights about southeastern New Mexico prehistory, for which we are extremely indebted. With his untimely death in 1992, southeastern New Mexico lost one of its most dedicated prehistorians. He is greatly missed. Thanks also go to Jane Holden Kelley of the University of Calgary. It was her enthusiasm, expertise, and guidance, many years ago, that launched us in the direction that ultimately led to our work at both Henderson and Bloom Mound. Many people have been involved in the project at various stages, and their help is gratefully acknowledged. The field crews worked long and hard hours, in the day excavating the site and in the evening washing and labeling the masses of material that we recovered during the five seasons. In the 1980-1981 field seasons, which lasted three months each, these included Michelle Hegmon, Andrea Hempel, Lee Home, Dave Killick, Dana Lepofsky, Bryce Little, Claire McHale, Gretchen Neve, Lisa Oneal, Christine Peschel, Juan Ramirez, Tom Rocek, Cathy Rudelich, Priscilla Schuster, Andrea Sinclair, Gil Stein, Molly Sutphen, Carlos Tabares, Wirt Wills, and Lisa Young. Many others visited us for shorter periods during the course of the project and joined in the excavations. These included Elsa Burrowes, Dick Ford, Jane Kelley, Bus Leslie, Jeff, Mary, and Apphia Parsons, Dave Snow, Regge Wiseman, and Henry Wright.

xv

Once the field school got started in 1994, many other students participated in the excavations and helped to make the project a success, including Ben Adams, Steve Archer, Kristi Arntzen, Dana Beehr, Gwen Bell, Anna Bloch, Jennifer Bragg, Sue Carroll (Roberts), Margaret Chavez, Rebecca Dean, Erica Gooding (Cameron), Marie Harris, Ellen Haskell, Carrie Heitman, Lisa Kelley, Marc Levine, Dana Limberg, Carl Matthews, Ken McGraw, Tatum McKay, Heather Miljour, Diane Miller, Cara Monroe, Amelia Natoli, Diane Nethaway, Sara Olson, Stephanie Pinsky, Richard Raffaelli, Julie Raybon, Angela Schmorrow, Laura Staro, Christina Waskiewicz, Chris Watt, Kim Wyllie, and Laurie Zimmerman. Special thanks go to my field assistants-Sev Fowles, Gina Powell, Julie Solometo, Tineke van Zandt, and Chip Wills. They put up with some difficult field conditions, including not only the obvious-temperatures frequently in excess of 100 0 F and not a stitch of shade on the site-but also crowded living quarters, less than ideal "cuisine," long working hours, tiring weekend field trips, vermin of all sorts, and many other hardships. They also added greatly to the fun of doing fieldwork in southeastern New Mexico, for which we are all grateful. Many of the field school students, and others, both undergraduates and graduates alike, got involved in the lab analyzing various classes of material from the site, and several wrote reports on their work or more extensive undergraduate Honors theses or predoctoral papers. Among these are Steve Archer, Kristi Arntzen, Gwen Bell, Sarah Bennett, Julia Blough, Jennifer Bragg, Sue Carroll (Roberts), Rebecca Dean, Frank De Mita, Jessica De Young, Cynthia Dillard, Kendall Eccleston, Sev Fowles, Julie Fr,emuth, Linda Gebric, Erica Gooding (Cameron), Marie Harris, Ellen Haskell, Michelle Hegmon, Lauren Herckis, Debra Holmes, Amy Lawson, Jennifer Lo, Mindy Martin, Carl Matthews, Tatum McKay, Diane Miller, Paula Murphy, Amelia Natoli, Gretchen Neve, Jim Noone, Laurie Ochsner, Sara Olson, Esther Osgood, Stephanie Pinsky, David Pohl, Ramona Quesada, Richard Raffaelli, Julie Raybon, Dennis Renaud, Tom Rocek, Angela Schmorrow, Brent Shaffer, Sudha Shah, Valerie Smulders, Julie Solometo, Miriam Stark, Laura Staro, Allison Stupka, Tom Suchyta, Matthew Syrett, Chris Watt, Chip Wills, Kim Wyllie, and Laurie Zimmerman. Special thanks go to the many people who helped over the years in processing the hundreds of flotation samples from Henderson. These include Pui Ying Ching, Tom Cornelius, Yun-Kuen Lee, Claire McHale, John O'Shea, Gina Powell, Ken Sasaki, Tom Rocek, David Yoon, and Cal Will. We also thank Lisa Huckell for her analysis of the 1980-1981 paleoethnobotanical remains, andJor the detailed synthetic study of Henderson's plant remains recently completed as a PhD dissertation at Washington University by Gina Powell. This document greatly enhances our understanding of Henderson's economy in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. We thank Steve Archer and Marie Harris for their detailed studies of Henderson's charcoal remains, and Mollie Toll, Sandy Dunavan, Heather Trigg, and Dick Ford for their valuable advice and assistance on botanical matters at various stages along the way. Housing in Roswell has always posed a problem. It's not easy to find someone who is willing to rent to a "foreigner" from up north, a bearded foreigner no less, looking for a twomonth lease for 10-15 students, all living under one roof. We are grateful therefore to Roy McKay, President of McKay Oil Corporation, for taking a gamble on us and renting the field school two adjacent houses year after year. We are also very grateful to the administration of Eastern New Mexico University's Roswell campus for allowing us to shower and eat there. We would particularly like to acknowledge the generosity of Frank Gonzalez, manager of the gym where we showered, and Frances Dubiel, facilities coordinator, who made it possible for us to eat in ENMU's cafeteria. The first version of this tome was composed at Michigan using a mainframe computer and an obscure word-processing program known as "TextEdit," a cumbersome program that was used by only a handful of institutions in North America. When the University of Michigan pulled the plug on its mainframe, we found ourselves with hundreds of pages of text and complex tables, and no way to translate them into a form that could be used by a desktop computer. Renato Kipnis saved us from the nightmarish prospect of having to retype the

xvi

entire manuscript, by writing a complex series of macros to translate the original document into a version that could be read by a Mac. Without Renato's help, this monograph might never have seen the light of day. The final editing and layout of the manuscript were accomplished with the invaluable assistance of Sally Mitani, the Museum's editor. Kay Clahassey, the Museum's artist and photographer, did most of the figures. The two together designed the cover. The final product owes a great deal to their efforts and professionalism. Funding for the earlier stages of the Henderson research was provided by a grant from the National Science Foundation (BNS-7924768). Supplemental funds were generously provided by the Museum of Anthropology, the Department of Anthropology, the Michigan MemorialPhoenix Project (No. 616), and the Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studies (No. 387965), all of the University of Michigan. With the creation of the field scl.1Ool in 1994, much of the work was funded by student tuition payments and room-and-board fees, and by generous support provided by John G. Cross, Associate Dean for Budget and Administration, in the University of Michigan's College of Literature, Science and Arts. Portions of the manuscript were completed while I was a Weatherhead Resident Scholar at the School of American Research in Santa Fe, New Mexico. The scholarly environment provided by the SAR was an ideal context in which to bring a substantial part of this work to completion. John D. Speth University of Michigan November, 2003

xvii

PART I

THE VILLAGE

1

Introduction John D. Speth University of Michigan

This volume is the second report on the Henderson Site, a late prehistoric (ca. A.D. 1250-1400) pueblo-like community on the western margin of the Pecos Valley near Roswell in southeastern New Mexico. The first volume (Rocek and Speth 1986), while presenting a general overview of the site and theUniversity of Michigan's excavations there in 1980 and 1981, focused primarily on the human burials and associated grave offerings found beneath the floors of several of the rooms. This second volume presents further documentation on this intriguing site, focusing this time more explicitly on the subsistence practices, and related technologies, of the village's inhabitants. Much of the data presented here specifically concerns the large and exceptionally well-preserved faunal assemblage that we recovered from Henderson. It must be pointed out, however, that this volume cannot be considered a final report on the site or even on its fauna. Not surprisingly, detailed analyses of the type presented here have proved to be so time-consuming that were we to wait until all of the faunal and other artifactual material had been analyzed in a comparable fashion, no report would be forthcoming in the foreseeable future. Moreover, as our analyses on the 1980-1981 material progressed, we became increasingly aware of major gaps in our knowledge about the site, and in 1994 we returned to Henderson for three more seasons of excavation (1994,1995,1997). Needless to say, analysis of these additional materials, while vastly improving our understanding of the site, also further delayed completion of this report. Most of the faunal remains identifiable to species or body part (including birds as well as fish bones larger than one-quarter inch) have been analyzed and are reported on here (nearly 24,000 specimens). The major exceptions are the bones of rodents other than gophers and prairie dogs, reptiles other than tortoises, and amphibians (and fish bones less than one-quarter inch), although somewhat surprisingly we encountered relatively few microfaunal remains (including rodents) at Henderson, even

though several hundred flotation samples were processed. The largest class of faunal remains that are not dealt with here are several thousand mostly small shaft fragments that are not identifiable to either species or body part. While analyses of these remains, sorted into approximate body-size classes, would undoubtedly produce useful insights into site taphonomy, butchering and processing techniques, and so forth, the task of coding all of this material would delay publication for many more years. Rather than run the risk of Henderson joining the burgeoning ranks of unpublished archaeological projects, we have decided to publish the faunal studies that are now at hand, even if not all aspects are as yet complete. In 1996 we began experimenting with the seriation of Henderson's EI Paso Polychrome jar rims, and found that we could construct an internal chronology for the site that was not possible with the radiocarbon and archaeomagnetic dates (see Chapter 3). To our surprise and delight, the chronology made possible by the seriation demonstrated that the site had grown in two major phases, starting out as a linear or possibly "L"shaped room block in the "Early phase" and then evolving in the "Late phase" into a larger "E"-shaped structure, a form it maintained until the time of its abandonment. Prior to the seriation, we had been largely unable to examine processes of change, because we simply did not find stratified deposits of sufficient depth to make this possible. Our principal hope had been the discovery of several deep earth oven complexes, each containing over a meter of fire-cracked rock and trash. However, the discovery of unburned turkey and redwing blackbird burials placed as closure offerings at the bottom of some of these features demonstrated that vertical stratigraphy was of little significance. The earth ovens very likely had been entirely emptied out following their last firing, closure offerings placed at the bottom, and then backfilled. Thus, we lacked traditional vertical stratigraphy, but the se-

2

3

Introduction-Speth riation gave us horizontal, or spatial, stratigraphy. And by comparing the artifacts and fauna from different parts of the site, we suddenly found ourselves confronted with a veritable gold mine of information about change-change in subsistence and economy, change in exchange patterns, and even local resource degradation. But our new-found wealth of temporal information also created somewhat of a dilemma from the publication end of things, because several of the core chapters had already been completed when we began to work with the seriation. Our solution to this problem has varied somewhat, depending on the specific nature of each chapter. For example, in several cases we simply added a section at the end of the chapter headed something like "Temporal Perspective." This allowed us to discuss the principal findings that were made possible by the seriation, without having to substantially rewrite the entire chapter. In one case-the chapter dealing with the medium ungulates-we have written an entirely new chapter to supplement the one that had already been completed many years ago. And of course some of the chapters were written much more recently and these have largely or fully incorporated the insights made possible by the seriation. We did make one decision, however, that is less than ideal but was an expedient necessitated by time. When we first began writing up the 1980-1981 materials, we made a monumental effort to include long appendices at the end of each chapter with complete tabulations of the basic data, including not only a table with site-wide totals but also separate tables for each major provenience (e.g., East Bar, Center Bar, East Plaza, etc.). These tables are still included in this volume, but we have made no similar attempt with the materials excavated in 1994, 1995, and 1997. Were we to present complete data tables now, broken down not only by provenience but also by phase, this study would never see the light of day. Yet another important reason for getting this volume published now, despite the fact that a number of its components are not entirely complete, is because the "newness" would be further compromised with each additional year of delay. Some of the chapters have already been in my hands for more than a decade, so it is clearly time to get them into print without further delay. We recognize that some of our interpretations and conclusions will have to be modified, and some perhaps rejected entirely, as other phases of the analysis are brought to completion.

This unfortunately is inevitable. But the data we already have on hand is fascinating and informative in its own right, shedding light on the prehistory of an area of the Southwest that is still largely terra incognito. So we present here those studies that are now done, and we hope that in a few more years we will be able to present a third volume, and bring the Henderson work another step nearer to closure. A few comments on the structure of the present volume are needed to help the reader wade through the often extremely dense data presentations. Our philosophy in a report of this type is to present as much data as we possibly can, tabulated and cross-tabulated in a variety of different ways. The goal is to provide a database, in essence a kind of archive, that other scholars, now and in the future, can rework according to their own interests and research questions. Obviously, it is impossible to anticipate all the different sorts of data that scholars will one day want. Nevertheless, there are certain fundamental kinds of information that are almost certain to be important. These include basic counts, measurements, and descriptive summaries, broken down by major categories and classes as well as by major spatial and temporal units. Such detailed data tabulations, however, are primarily of importance to local specialists. Archaeologists in other parts of the Southwest and Southern Plains are likely to be interested in a report on the Henderson Site not for its details per se but for the-comparative insights the report provides that may help illuminate developments elsewhere. Thus, to make it easier for the nonspecialist to extract these kinds of insights from the report without first having to wade through page after page of data tabulation and analysis, each chapter provides a synopsis at the end that pulls together the chapter's most interesting and important observations and conclusions. The final chapter of the volume attempts to draw all of these synopses together into a single coherent synthesis.

References Cited

Rocek, T. R., and J. D. Speth 1986 The Henderson Site Burials; Glimpses of a Late Prehistoric Population in the Pecos Valley. Technical Report 18. Ann

Arbor, MI: Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan.

2

The Henderson Site John D. Speth University of Michigan

Introduction

other non-room areas. Excavations were conducted using a onemeter grid system. A permanent (cement) base datum (datum A) was arbitrarily placed just off the site near its southwest comer. The grid system was laid out with one axis roughly parallel to the long bar of the "E" (Main Bar), and the other parallel to the short bars (West Bar, Center Bar, and East Bar). Datum A was assigned coordinates 500N500E (Le., 500 m north of, and 500 m east of, an arbitrary, and imaginary, reference point far to the southwest of the site). This was done to simplify recording procedures by keeping all of our excavation units within the same quadrant (to the northeast of the·imaginary zero-zero reference point). Each one-meter grid unit received its designation from the coordinates of its northeast corner (e.g., grid square 500N500E is the one-meter unit immediately southwest of datum A). Datum A was also arbitrarily assigned an elevation of +100.00 m. All elevations (including artifact proveniences) were shot in with a transit and recorded in meters above or below datum A.2 Early in the 1980 season, every item was individually labeled with complete provenience information. This quickly proved to be far too cumbersome and time-consuming, and a new procedure was adopted in which every discrete provenience, such as a bag of material from a single level in a single one-meter grid square, was assigned a unique, sequential lot number. For example, lot number 274 was assigned to grid square 515N534E, level 10 1.00-1 00.90 m). Only these lot numbers were then written on each object. By the end of the 1981 field season, we had used a total of 2,333 lot numbers. We continued to use this system in subsequent field seasons, beginning arbitrarily at 3,000 in 1994, continuing without a break to 4,112 by the end of the 1995 season, beginning again at 5,000

The Henderson Site (LA-1549) is a moderate-sized E-shaped pueblo-like community located about 10.5 mi (17 km) southwest of the modern city of Roswell in Chaves County, southeastern New Mexico (Fig. 2.1). I The site, which dates to the late thirteenth and fourteenth century, is situated at an elevation of 3,890 ft (1,186 m) on the easternmost of a series of low, northeast-trending limestone ridges that form the western border of the broad Pecos Valley lowlands. The Hondo River, a major western tributary of the Pecos, breaks through this last limestone ridge just north of the site and then flows northeast through Roswell before turning southeast and joining the Pecos (Fig. 2.2). Since a previous report on the Henderson Site burials (Rocek and Speth 1986) has already described the nature and layout of the site in some detail, and has also provided basic information on excavation and recording techniques, only a brief review of these issues will be provided here, with emphasis given to those aspects that are new or that have been revised since the appearance of the first report. Some repetition is necessary, however, in order to put the new material in context. Excavations were conducted at Henderson by the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology during two threemonth field seasons in the summers of 1980 and 1981. Renewed excavations at the site, in six-week seasons, were undertaken again in 1994, 1995, and 1997. An area of 314 m2 was opened in the five seasons, amounting to less than 14% of the total site area (including the room blocks and the two plazas enclosed between the arms of the "E"). Of this total, 236 m2 were excavated in the room blocks themselves, and 78 m2 in plaza and

4

The Henderson Site-Speth

NEW MEXICO

,

Figure 2.1. Location of Henderson Site (LA-1549), Bloom Mound (LA2528), Rocky Arroyo (LA-25277), and Garnsey Bison Kill (LA-18399) in southeastern New Mexico.

in 1997 and terminating the Henderson lot numbers at 5,669 at the end of the 1997 season. In 2000 we commenced work at the nearby quasi-contemporary site of Bloom Mound, and arbitrarily began the lot number system there at 6,000. The lot number system greatly streamlined the labeling of artifacts, but has the obvious limitation that should the lot number records be lost or destroyed, most of the basic provenience information would also be lost. To prevent this from happening, we decided to create a permanent record of the lot numbers by publishing the complete file. The first 2,027 lot numbers were originally published as an appendix in Rocek and Speth (1986). Since the appearance of that publication, a number of errors have been noted. In addition, we decided that it would be useful to publish the full provenience information for each lot number, including our spatial designations, such as East Bar, Main Bar, etc. In Appendix 2 at the end of the chapter (Table A2.1) we present all 5,669 lot number records for Henderson, including the corrected and updated entries for the first 2,027 numbers. The lot numbers for Bloom Mound will be published elsewhere. Henderson is an E-shaped, adobe village containing perhaps as many as 100 to 130 rooms (Fig. 2.3, the problems with estimating the number of rooms at Henderson is addressed in Chapter 21). The Main Bar is oriented approximately 60 0 west of true north, with the short bars (West, Center, East) extending out to the southwest or away from the Hondo. The open spaces

5

enclosed between the Main Bar and the short bars form two roughly square plazas, the West Plaza between the West and Center Bars, and the East Plaza between the Center and East Bars. The pueblo, including plazas, covers a maximum area of approximately 2,640 m2 (0.26 ha or 0.65 acres). The area occupied just by the room blocks is about 1,830 m2 (0.18 ha or 0.45 acres). Since room outlines were often very difficult to determine from the surface, even with extensive shovel-stripping, the area occupied by rooms was estimated from the contour map of the site, arbitrarily selecting as the structure's perimeter the point where the ground surface first rises appreciably above the surrounding terrain. Since portions of rooms may have collapsed or eroded outward, the actual area of the structure is probably less than 1,830 m2 • Reducing this figure by 20% produces a more conservative and probably more realistic areal estimate of about 1,460 m 2 (0.15 ha or 0.38 acres) for the architectural portion of the site. The plazas occupy an additional 810m2 (West Plaza 390 m2 ; East Plaza 420 m2). The discovery in 1994 that much of the Main Bar may consist of small, square, semi-subterranean structures rather than large, rectangular, above-ground dwellings, and the discovery of several such "pit structures" in areas we thought were plaza, may suggest that the architectural portion of the site is somewhat larger than 1,460 m2 • Reducing the 1,830 m2 figure by 20% may be excessive. The area and volume of sediment excavated in the five seasons of work at the site, broken down by major proveniences, are summarized in Table 2.1. These data provide an important baseline for standardizing count data in terms of items per cubic meter of sediment, and are relied upon extensively in later sections of this report. Most of the rooms in the Main Bar of the "E" appear to be nearly square, with slightly rounded comers, and average about 3 m to 4 m on a side (see Fig. 2.4). The floors of these rooms were set well below the original ground surface (generally more than 25 cm), giving them the appearance of shallow pitrooms. Four upright posts set near the comers supported the roof. Upright limestone slabs were set at ground level and served as the base for the adobe superstructure. Sometimes these footings consisted of double rows of upright slabs oriented parallel to the wall, but at other times the stones were placed in a single line, either oriented perpendicular to the wall or lying flat. Fragments of deliberately broken metates (invariably made of limestone) were sometimes incorporated into these footings. The roofs appear to have been flat and entry was through a hatch. We encountered no unambiguous traces of doorways. Most rooms had multiple floors, each separated from the floor beneath by 5 cm to 10+ cm of deliberately introduced ashy fill. At least two of the excavated structures in the Main Bar started out as domestic dwellings (as suggested by the presence of a hearth in each) and were then converted into storage structures that lacked fireplaces. Interestingly, what constituted the "original ground surface" at Henderson, both in the Main Bar and elsewhere in the vil-

6

Life on the Periphery: Economic Change in Late Prehistoric Southeastern New Mexico

.==-~-.-.-.-.

~~

~

'~ l&E'

807 ~

11 11 11 II 11 1\ 1\

Figure 2.2. Point where Hondo River breaks into Pecos Valley, showing location of Henderson Site (LA-1549) and Bloom Mound (LA-2528) (adapted from USGS Hondo reservoir 7.5 Minute Quadrangle, Topographic Series, 1949 edition).

lage, was often artifact-rich midden dumped on to what had once been plaza surface. Thus, the upright limestone slabs were often set on earlier cultural fill, not on sterile pre-occupation deposits. As a consequence, the basal portion of many of the walls was unconsolidated midden faced with a thin veneer of plaster. Unfortunately, this veneer was seldom preserved, except along a narrow strip right at the base of the wall where the wall bonded with the floor plaster. This meant that, even when the upright slabs of a room were clearly visible on the modern surface, as they sometimes were, it was nevertheless exceedingly difficult to trace the walls down to the floor. We eventually abandoned the idea of exposing walls from the surface downward, and instead targeted the floor first and then identified the position of the walls by locating the point where the floor plaster curved up to bond with the wall. The rooms in the smaller, southward-extending bars of the "E" were rectangular rather than square, with square rather than rounded corners. These rooms often are much larger than those

in the Main Bar, averaging 3 m to 3.5 m in width by 5 m to 6 m in length (see Figs. 2.5, 2.6). Their floors were set at or only slightly below the original ground surface. As in the Main Bar structures, upright limestone slabs were placed at ground level to serve as a base for the adobe walls. Again, entry was through a hatch in the roof. Except in the Center Bar, many of the rooms had been eroded down to the limestone footings. Fortunately, the primary floors in these rooms, most of which were at least 5 em thick and quite well plastered, were reasonably well preserved, and pothunters generally abandoned their digging when they hit the uprights, leaving primary floors, and subfloor features such as burials, largely intact. Most, if not all, of the structures at Henderson appear to have been one story, although the relatively high relief in the central and northern portions of the Center Bar makes it possible, though unlikely, that a few of the rooms in this part of the site may have had a second story. Seriation of the rims of EI Paso Polychrome jars, which is discussed further in Chapter 3, reveals that the Main Bar and

The Henderson Site-Speth Table 2.1. Area and volume of principal excavation units at Henderson Site.' Excavation Unit

Area (m 2 ) 314.0 12.0 35.0 4.0 23.0 8.0 14.0 2.0 8.0 7.0 58.0 10.1 9.2 5.4 8.0 12.0 41.0 5.0 11.2 7.0 8.3 9.1 0.5 117.0 16.0 14.9 13.2 18.3 18.2 5.5 7.2 9.5 -

Volume (m') TOTAL EXCAVATION 182.6 9.1 Great Deoression (trench K) East Plaza (trenches BCD) 16.2 trench B 0.8 trench C 11.9 trench D 3.5 East Plaza (East) 11.3 East Plaza (South) 0.6 West Plaza (trench G) 1.9 North Plaza (trench N test A) 4.3 Main Bar East (trenches E J) 37.0 Room M-l 10.9 Room M-2 6.2 Room M-3 3.4 Main Bar West (trench 0) 3.9 West Bar (trench M) 6.8 Center Bar (trench F)b 25.8 Room C-l 2.1 Room C-2 4.9 RoomC-3 3.1 RoomC-4 6.7 Room C-5 8.8 Room C_6 b 0.2 East Bar (trench A) 65.7 Room E-l 5.1 Room E-2 5.1 Room E-3 5.1 Room E-4 10.0 Room E-5 8.1 Room E-6 1.6 Room E-7 6.2 Room E-8 5.3 Flotation (1980-1981)' 1.2 Flotation (all seasons)d 2.5 'Areas given for rooms refer to portion excavated, not to total floor area of original room; room volumes exclude subfloor features. bExcludes large "pothunter's" pit (centered on Room C-6) at north end of trench F (Room C-6 values given are for grid square 520N533E only). 'A total of 303 flotation samples were taken in 1980-1981 (l,174.5liters; average 3.88 liters per sample; range 0.2-19.0 liters). Proveniences sampled included most excavation levels, floor contacts, and all features. d A total of 782 flotation samples were taken in all five seasons of excavation (2,511.4 liters; average 3.21 liters per sample; range 0.2-19.0 liters). Proveniences sampled included most excavation levels, floor contacts, and all features.

-

"Great Depression," and possibly also the West Bar, predate the Center Bar and East Bar, as well as the fill in the East Plaza. Over time the village shifted from a linear, or L-shaped, room block (Main Bar and perhaps West Bar) consisting of small, square, pitroom-like dwellings, to an E-shaped community, and several (most?) Main Bar structures were converted to store rooms. The large, rectangular Center Bar and East Bar rooms were then used as dwellings. The seriation also suggests that the East Bar is the youngest room block at the site, probably remaining in use after occupation declined sharply, or ceased altogether, in other parts of the site.

7

Four, and sometimes six, upright posts, each roughly 10 cm in diameter, supported the roof of each structure. According to Archer (1994), most structural beams were ash (Fraxinus sp.), although a few were Acer (either box elder, A. negundo, or bigtooth maple, A. grandidentatum). Hearths tended to be located along the midline of the rooms, though often not at their geometric center. At least one hearth was found in each of the rooms we tested. Ash pits or heating pits were also found along the midline axis, again offset from the center. Several of the hearths in the East Bar had distinct adobe collars, while elsewhere in the site hearths were either semi-spherical, with no trace of a collar, or less formal, shallow, basin-shaped pits. The occurrence of collared hearths in the East Bar, the last portion of the site to be occupied, and at Bloom Mound, which appears to postdate Henderson slightly, suggest that this form of fireplace may have chronological significance in the Roswell area. None of the hearths in the rooms was lined by stones and no ventilator shafts or deflectors (adobe or stone) were found. Most of the rooms had evidence of multiple floors separated by up to several centimeters of trash or sterile fill. Primary floors typically were well made, whereas younger floors tended to be thin and poorly plastered. Many of these younger floors, in fact, were so ephemeral that we often had to establish their reality in profile before attempting to trace them horizontally. In many instances, walls showed evidence of replastering and rebuilding, with additions not uncommonly using adobe that differed in color and composition from the original wall segments. No traces of paint or colored plaster were found on walls or floors. Only one of the sampled rooms, a badly eroded structure at the south end of the Center Bar (Room C-2), showed clear evidence of burning. The evidence consisted of charred roofing beams and reeds lying more or less directly on the floor. The sampled rooms had not been abandoned hastily; none had useable items left in situ on the floor. Even metates were seldom left in place. In fact, most metates, despite their mas. sive size and limited wear, had been deliberately broken and either discarded or incorporated as uprights in the walls (see Chapter 17). Floors were generally clean, "floor-contact" artifacts were usually materials that had been dumped into the structures soon after their abandonment. Stubs of unburned upright support beams in Room E-4 in the East Bar remained in place; in most of the other rooms that we sampled, the beams had apparently been salvaged prehistorically as no trace of decayed wood was found in the postholes. Most of the sampled rooms had one or more burials beneath the floors in ovoid, steep-sided pits. Some of the burial pits had been deliberately sealed beneath the primary floor, while others showed no trace of a plaster seal and may have been intrusive from a younger floor in the room. Subfloor pits, other than those used for burials, were not very common. Moreover, most of the nonburial pits were small, cylindrical features that would have been unsuitable for large-scale storage of foods. Some of these in fact may have been postholes that were abandoned and sealed under a new floor when a room was remodeled. A few of

Life on the Periphery: Economic Change in Late Prehistoric Southeastern New Mexico

8