Anthropological Papers

Museum of Anthropology. University of Michigan

Number 94
Engaged Anthropology
Research Essays on North American
Archaeology, Ethnobotany, and Museology
edited by
MicheIJe Hegmon
B. Sunday Eiselt
PAPERS IN HONOR OF RICHARD 1. FORD
Ann Arbor, Michigan
2005
8
The Beginnings of Plains-Pueblo Interaction
An Archaeological Perspective from
Southeastern New Mexico
John D. Speth
Museum ofAnthropology, University ofMichigan
ye-wimess aceDulrts a/Spanish expeditions give aglimpse of Ihe relmionships thar developed between
villa8e-lxlsed/armers in the Southwest and Iheir nomadic or seminomadic bison.hunling neighbors in
the SQuthern Plains, but nothing about when such interaction came in/a bei//8 and ....hy. Ongoing work
at the Henderson Sill' and Bloom Mound. two late prehislOric village sites in southeastern NewMexico,
shows the emerging imeract;on between communities in the Southern Plains and Sourhwesl. Bi.fon
was rlIpidly becoming a critical source oj high-qlfaliry protein as well as shields for the burgeoning
Pueblo towns atong the eastern margin a/the Southwest; Southern Plains communities lIlayattiml!S
have paida heavyprice/or Iheir ill these new/yemerging exchange relationships. as they
competed with each other, sometimes violemlY.for access to bisollherds and /fading ptJrlllers.
More than thirty years ago. Richard Ford (1972) published a seminal paper on the exchange
relationships that, until recently, linked Native American communities-both Pueblo and
non-Pueblo-throughout the vast region of the United States Southwest. Ford's paper was
instrumental in generating a new level of interest among Southwestern archaeologists in
prehistoric intercommunity exchange, and it encouraged archaeologists to look not just at
what items were traded and where they came from but also at why such relationships came
into being and how they functioned and were maintained. In short. Ford's paper encouraged
Southwestern archaeologists to become more anthropologically informed in their studies of
interaction and exchange. Building upon this foundation, and armed with new theoretical
models and computer simulations as wetl as a panoply methods for pinpointing
sources of clays, tempering materials. mineral paints. turquoise, obsidian. and even timber,
archaeologists since 1972 have increasingly soughl to move beyond the descriptive level
in order to bener understand the origins and dynamics of Southwestern intercommunity
exchange systems prior to the arrival of Europeans (e.g., Adams el al. 1993; Baugh 1991;
Baugh and Nelson 1987; Brosowske 2004; Cordell 1997 and references therein; Doyel 1991 ;
/29
130 Engaged Allthropology
English et aI. 200 I: Mills and Crown 1995; Minnis 1989: Minnis et al. 1993: Neitzel 1989:
Plog 1977: Speth 1991: Spielmann 1983. 1991: Toll et al. 1980; Vargas 1995).
One small but lnleresting facet of this exploding arena of exchange-oriented research
concerns the relationships thaI developed between village-based farmers in the Southwest
and their nomadic or semi-nomadic bison-hunting neighbors in the Southern Plains. Much
of what we know about Ihis so-called "Plains-Pueblo interaction" comes 10 us from the
fruslrmingly terse descriptions provided by the first Spanish expeditions to enter the region
(Hammond and Rcy 1940. 1953: see discussion in Spielmann 1999). Whatever the short-
comings of these sixleenlh- and sevenleemh-century eyewitness accounts. they show tha!
fanners and hURlers. at least at the time of contact. were tightly enmeshed in a nexus of
economic interdependence and exchange, so much so in SQme cases that Spielmann (1983,
1986, 1991) has characterized these relationships as a fonn of cultural "mutualism."
While the early Spanish accounts provide us with a glimpse of the nature and timing of
the interaction. they tell us nothing about when such interaction canle into being and, more
imponantly. why. 11le answers to these questions must come largely from archaeology. TIle
prehistoric record, unfortunately. has serious limitations. not the least of which is the fact that
many of the goods that are likely to have been involved in these exchange systems, such as
textiles. feathers, wooden items. and of course foods, were perishable, and are now largely
or entirely gone. Nontangible interactions are Likely to have figured prominently in these
exchanges as well: providing ritual services. offering protection or other benefits of coopera-
tion and alliance. obtaining or giving wives, and exchanging a wide range of knowledge.
ideas. and infonnation. What we as archaeologists can sec. therefore, is only a tiny subset
of what may originally have been involved in these transactions. Nonlocal pottery types
are almost invariably the most visible, although other "exotic" materials, such as turquoise
jewelry. fibrolite axes, obsidian, copper bells. macaws. marine shells, and Alibates, Edwards
Plateau. and olhcr distinctive cherts, are often preserved as well.
In a few instances. on the basis oflhe presence of some other more readily preserved item,
we may be able to infer that a pHrtieular perishable item was being exchanged (Spielmann
1983). An excellent example of this is provided by the exchange of dried meat or jerky.
Most meat, of course, would be stripped from the bones before being dried. and it therefore
would not be visible archaeologically. Ribs, however, are an exception. It is far more efficient
to dry the meat enveloping the ribs while it is still attached to the bones than to attempt to
remove the small amounts of tissue rib by rib beforehand. Once dried. the entire slab-meat
plus ribs-would be traded (Speth 2(04). Hence. an abundance of ribs. especially those of
larger mammals such as bison or deer, in an archaeological faunal assemblage that contains
very few other skeletal elements of these animals provides a strong. albeit indirect. signal
thai dried meat was being exchanged.
Archaeology provides other useful clues as well. For example, ceramics of unquestion-
able Puebloan origin. such as Chupadero Black-on-white and various Rio Grande glaze
wares, show up in Southern Plains sites, sometimes in surprising quantity (e.g.. T.G. Baugh
1986,1991; Collins 1971; Krieger 1946: Spielmann 1983. 1991). 1be fact that most of
these ceramics date to afler A.D. 1200, and generally after A.D. 1300 or even 1350, indicates
that Plains-Pueblo interaction. at least on any substantial" scale. is a comparatively recent
The Beginnings ofPlains-Pueblo IlIIeraCiioll-Sperh /3/
phenomenon. The picture obtained from the perspective of the eastern Pueblos is similar.
Raw materials and artifact types that are demonstrably Plains in origin (e.g.. Alibates and
Edwards Plateau cherts, thumbnail endscrapers, beveled and corncr.tangcd knives; see
Patterson 1936: Sollberger 1971) are comparably late, most in fact not appearing in any
quantity in Pueblo middens until after A.D. 1350 (e.g., Hayes 1981; Hayes et al. 1981: J.H.
Kelley 1984; Kidder 1932: Speth 2004). Finally, if bison were key to these exchange sys-
tems. which is certainly thc impression one gets from the early Spanish descriptions. then
Plains-Pueblo interaction does not become full-blown until Ihe Ihirteenth century at the
earliest because prior to the 1200s not just Puebloan ceramics but bison are surprisingly rare
in Southern Plains archaeological sites (e.g., S.T. Baugh 1986; Dillehay 1974; Jelinek 1966.
1967; Lynott 1980). Taken together. the archaeological evidence from both thc SOUlhwest
and the Southern Plains suggests that intense, mutualistic relationships of exchange between
Pueblo farmers and Plains nomads came into being only a couple of centurics before thc
Spanish entrada.
But archaeology can take us further in our search to understand the hows and whys of
Plains-Pueblo interaction. Ongoing work at thc Henderson Site and Bloom Mound, two
small late prehistoric village sites on the western cdge of thc Pecos Vallcy near Roswell
in southeastern New Mexico (Fig. 8.1). provides insight into at least one case of emerging
interaction between communities in the Southern Plains and Southwest. These dala offer
interesting clucs about why such a pattern of intcraction might have emcrged; (hcy also
show that Plains communities may at times have paid a heavy price for thcir involvcmcnt.
as they competcd with cach other. sometimes violenlly. for access to bison herds and Pueblo
trading partncrs.
Henderson Site
Work at the Hcnderson Site (LA-1549), a small E-shaped adobe village on the south
side of the Hondo River just 12 miles (20 km) southwest of Roswell, began in 1980 and
continued for four additional seasons (1981, 1994. 1995. 1997: see Speth 20(4). By South-
western standards. Hcnderson was a modest-sized community. with about 100 rooms and
a total population of 70 or 80 people. The village dcveloped in two principal phases of
occupation. The first or Early Phase. which probably began about A.D. 1275. give or take a
decadc or two. saw thc construction of the Main Bar of the "E," and perhaps also the West
Bar. forming a multi-tiered linear or L-shaped block of single-slory rooms. Most of these
rooms were roughly square. three meters on a side. with rounded comers. thcir floors set well
below ground level, upright roof-support posts near each comer. and entry through a hatch
in the (presumably flat) roof. A largc carth ovcn complcx, called the "Great Depression."
served as the principal communal and ritual focus for the village during the Early Phase.
This feature, a largc karstic depression situated just north of the Main Bar at its western end.
was fi IIcd with thousands of pieces of fire-cracked rock, as well as thousands of broken.up
animal bones. many partially burned. r.tnging from huge bison to tiny rodents and fish. Thc
presence of unburned and fully articulated turkey burials at the base of this feature indicates
that it was emptied after its last usc and ritually closed.
/32 Engaged Anthropology
TEXAS
COLORADO
CHIHUAHUA
)
'\
PUEBLO f
U-/C"' SOUll-lWEST ~ HIGH
NEW PLAINS
MEXICO
Figure 8.1. Location of Henderson Site and Bloom Mound in southeastern New Mexico.
During the Late Phase. which began in the early 13005, several structures in the Main Bar
were converted from domestic dwellings into storage facilities, and two large roomblocks,
the East Bar and Center Bar. were added on, giving the village its final E-shaped layout.
The community'5 orientation shifted from the north (and perhaps west) with a focus on the
Great Depression, to the south (and perhaps east) with an earth oven complex in the East
Plaza becoming the principal communal and ritual focus. The last portion of the village 10
be occupied appears to have been the East Bar. Henderson was finally abandoned sometime
during the mid- 10 late fourteenth century, although sporadic visits to the hilltop location
may have continued for some time thereafter.
The villagers grew maize and other crops in fields along the floodplain of the Hondo,
and collected a wide range of wild plants from the surrounding area as well as from the
uplands to the west (Powell 2(01). While maize was clearly an important crop, as burned
cobs. cob fragments, and small numbers of kernels are nearly ubiquitous in the deposits
of both phases (Dunavan 2004), its contribution to the villagers' diet was significantly less
than at quasi-contemporary Puebloan communities like Pecos, Gran Quivira, and Hawikuh.
The Beginnings of Plains-Pueblo Interaction-Speth /33
Several lines of evidence point to this conclusion. First. Henderson's manos are crude. often
massive, and utterly unstandardized, and most have only a single working surface. Second,
the mctates have very shallow, ba<;in-shaped grinding surfaces, quite unlike the trough and
slab forms so common elsewhere in the Southwest at the same time period (Hard et aJ.
1996; Speth et al. 2004). Third, carbon- and nitrogen-isotope signatures from Henderson's
human skeletal remains (all dating to the Late Phase) indicate a modest dependence on C
4
plants, maize very likely among them (Schoeninger 20(4). Finally. Henderson's human
dentitions display a low incidence of dental caries, more typical of than
fanners (Rocek and Speth 1986).
Henderson's heavy reliance on bison is onc of the community's most slriking features
(Speth and Rautman 2004). Nearly one-quarter of all mammal remains found at the site
are [rom this huge herbivore (ca. 4,100 bones). While the remains of medium ungulates,
moSt of which are antelope, are slightly more numerous (4,700 bones), the fact that an adult
pronghorn is less than 6% of the weight of a full-grown male bison indicates the tremendous
contribution the latter made to Henderson's economy. While cottontails were numerically
the most frequently huntcd animals at Henderson (ca. 6.100 bones), it would take nearly 800
of these tiny animals to equal the weight of a single bison bull. It is sobering to note that the
tremendous importance of bison would not have been evident had our excavations focused
solely on Henderson's roomblocks. Bison remains in these parts of the site were quite scarce,
particularly in the Late Phase. Only when we encountered the deposits in and around the
earth oven complexes did the real importance of these animals become apparent.
The bison bones that villagers transported back to the village were primarily of moderate
to high utility (Speth 1983,20(4), especially the upper hind limbs. The hunters apparently
discarded most of the bol).es of the lower limbs and feet, many of the upper front-limb ele-
ments, and almost all of the skulls and pelves. This hfghly selective assemblage of body
parts indicates that the hunters killed most of their bison quite far from the village, and
focused their transport efforts on those parts of the carcasses, including marrow bones. that
had high food value.
1\vo-thirds of the bison brought back to the village were males, an indication that most
if not all of the bison hunting was done in the spring (Speth 1983,2(04). The scarcity or
absence of fall and winter bison hunts strongly suggests that the herds had moved beyond
the effective range of village hunters during these months of the year. Seasonality studies
of other important animal taxa at Henderson, including antelope, cottontails, jackrabbits,
prairie dogs, and catfish, suggest that most of these animals were procured during the spring.
summer, or early fall, raising the possibility that the village may have been abandoned after
the harvest (Speth 2(04). However, a number of the Early Phase dwellings in the Main Bar
were converted into store rooms in the Late Phase. If the village had totally been abandoned
for part of each year, these highly visible structures would have been easy targets for ma-
rauding strangers.
Dried bison meat was extensively traded by the villagers. This is indicated by the fact that
bison ribs and vertebrae, two elements frequently involved in the production of dried meat,
were both sharply underrepresented at Henderson, much more so than their smaller and far
more fragile counterparts in antelope and deer, ruling out a simple taphonomic explanation
/34 Engaged Anthropology
for their scarcity (Speth and Rautman 2004). Interestingly, bison bone assemblages from
quasi-contemporary villages in the uplands west of the Pecos Valley are dominated by ribs
and vertebrae. underscoring the probable importance of these anatomical units in regional
and interregional exchange systems (Driver 1990: Spielmann, pers. camm.).
One of thc most fascinating discoveries at Henderson is the striking relationship between
the body size of an animal resource and the abundance of its remains in domestic versus
public conte",ts (Speth 2004). The larger Ihe animal. the more likely it was processed.
cooked, probably consumed, and then discarded in and around the massive earth oven
complexes in Ihe plazas. Moreover, significantly greater proportions of higher-utility limb
elements of bison and jackrabbits, lhe only two animal resources that were communally
hunted by the villagers. were processed and discarded in plaza areas. The concentration of
larger animals. and of higher-utility body parts. in and around major earth oven complexes
very likely rellccts the fact lhat these areas of the village were the loci of repeated events of
interhousehold, perhaps community-wide, meat sharing and feasting. Given lhe open and
presumably very public nature of these cooking features, animals processed in them would
have been highly visible to all members of the community and hence the ones most subjcct
to the pressures and demands of sharing.
Perhaps the most important discovery at Henderson, one that only became evident once
we found that we could internally seriate the EI Paso Polychrome jar rims (Seaman and
Mills 1988: Speth 2004), was the dramatic economic change that took place within the com-
munity during its comparatively brief existence. Bison hunting became far more important
in the Late Phase, as evidenced by an increase in the overall density of both bison bones
and projectile points in the younger deposits (Speth and Rautman 2004). At the same time,
the average utility of body parts brought back to the village increased, very likely reflecting
more selective culling of carcasses prior to transport. Such a shift in transport decisions is
precisely what one would expect if the average number of animals taken per kill event, or
the distance separating kill from village, had increased. Of course, these two possibilities
need not be mutually exclusive. In either case, in the Late Phase we seem to be witnessing
an increasing investment by village hunters in organized bison hunting that could target
herds much farther from home.
The communal importance of bison also increased dramatically within the village. Dur-
ing the Early Phase only about half of the bison were processed, cooked, and consumed in
communal spaces, but during the Late Phase this figure skyrocketed to over 80%. with the
highest-utility parts becoming concentrated in and around major public facilities. At the
same time. the communal importance of antelope appears to have plummeted. as many fewer
animals were brought to the village, more of the hunting was done by individual stalking
close to home. and more of the meat was cooked by boiling in domestic contexts rather
than by baking or roasting in the public earth oven complexes (Miracle 2004: Waskiewicz
et a!. 2004).
Hand-in-hand Wilh the increasing importance of bison as a communal resource. we see
a dramatic jump in the intensity of regional and interregional exchange involving dried
bison meat and probably other products of the hunt as well. This is sl'rikingly shown by
a precipitous decline in the proportional representation of bison ribs and vertebrae in the
The Beginnings of Plains-Pueblo Interaction-Speth /35
early 1300s (Speth and Rautman 2004). Henderson's ceramic assemblage underscores the
sharply acceleraling pace of westward-focused exchange in the Late Phase. Nearly 95%
of the extraregional ceramics that have been found at the village come from Late Phase
contexts (Wiseman 2004).
The growing importance of interregional exchange can be seen in two other ways as
well. One piece of evidence is provided by our recent work at Bloom Mound (LA-2528), a
neighboring village that was occupied only a generation or two after Henderson (see below).
This small site, located on the opposite bank of the Hondo and less than a mile downstream,
is justly famous for its extraordinary assemblage of nonlocal ceramics, copper bells. obsid-
ian ft.akes and points. marine shell ornaments. and other items imported from distant areas
(Kelley 1984), a clear indication that the pace of exchange between villages in this stretch of
the Pecos Valley and communities in the heartland of the Southwest continued to accelerate
after Henderson had been abandoned.
The second bit of evidence from Henderson is less clear-cut but nonetheless interesting.
Most ornaments made of demonstrably nonlocal materials, such as turquoise beads and
pendants, OJive/la shell beads, and Glycymeris shell br'.iceler.s. were found in burials that
date to the Late Phase (Rocek and Speth 1986). A similar number of burials was found in
Early Phase contexts, but the vast majority of these burials were infants and children un-
accompanied by grave goods. While this difference could reflect a much greater influx of
nonlocal ornaments into the village during the Late Phase. it could equally well be the result
of changing mortuary practices or sampling bias. The way around this impasse is to focus
on ornaments and other unusual items that were found in nonburial contexts (I include here
items such as fluorite and quartz crystals.twin-tenninated quartz crystals known locally as
"Pecos diamonds," obsidian flakes, and selenite plaques). Some of these items may have
been lost or deliberately discarded in the trash, while others may have been inadvertently
removed from burials by later construction activities or by the destructive proclivities of
burrowing rodents. In either case, the abundance of such items found in fill from Early ver-
sus Late Phase contexts should provide at least a crude index of the total quantity that were
brought into the community in each period. Thc results are as expected: in the Early Phase.
19.3% of the ornaments and other unusual items are of clearly nonlocal origin. whereas in
the Latc Phase the proportion jumps to 28.1 %. a difference that is statistically significant
(I, = 1.93, P = 0.05; test of equality of two percentages based on arcsine transfonnation;
Sokal and Rohlf 1969:607-10).
Despite the many changes taking place at Henderson. particularly the growing importance
of communal bison hunting and vastly intensified interregional exchange, there seems to
be little detectable change in the agricultural component of the economy. Statistical analy-
ses fail to reveal any major change over time in the density of small starchy seeds such as
chenopods or amaranths, or in the density of maize cobs, cob fragments. or kemels (Powell
200 I). Thus. Henderson's increasing emphasis on long-distance bison hunting does not
appear to have been at the expense of maize cultivation.
That said, there are several subtle. hints that point to emerging or intensifying scheduling
conflicts among key subsistence pursuits, almost certainly including agricultural activities.
Perhaps the most obvious locus of conftict centered on bison itself. While wc are unable to
/36 Engaged Anthropology
pinpoint the specific months when long-distance hunting forays were launched from Hender-
son. we do know that most of these activities look place during the spring. probably centered
on the calving season (as evidenced by analyses of the nearby Garnsey bison kill [Speth 1983,
2004]). As a consequence, village bison hunting almost certainly came into direct conniet
with critical farming activities such as field preparation. planting. and early weeding.
Antelope hunting al Henderson very likely reflects another locus of increasing spring-
season scheduling connicl during the Late Phase, as evidenced by their decline in sheer
quantity and in communal or public importance. as well as the faci that most Late Phase
antelope hunts were conducted much closer to home Ihan during the preceding period
(Miracle 2004; Waskiewicz et al. 2004).
An additional. lhough tentative, piece of evidence for increasing scheduling conflicts
in Late Phase subsistence pursuits is the decline in the proportion of immature cOllontails
(Lee and Spelh 2004). This decline could imply that Late Phase procurement of many of
these animals took place somewhat earlier in the year than during the preceding phase. a
shift that also may have been motivated by the competing time and labor demands of both
bison hunting and fanning.
Henderson may also have undergone some fascinating but still very poorly understood
changes in community organization (Speth 2(04). The clearest hint of this is provided by
the faunal remains themselves. As already noted. the quantity of an animal's bones that
ended up in and around the public earth oven complexes is closely predicted by its body
size-the larger the animal, lhe more likely it was processed, cooked, probably consumed,
and then discarded in nonroom contexts. This patlem of discrimination on the basis of body
size was already clearly evident in the Early Phase but was greatly accentuated in the Late
Phase. most especially for bison, where the proportion of remains, particularly high-utility
ones. jumped in public areas from roughly 50% to over 80%. If the Great Depression and
East Plaza earth oven complexes were the loci of repeated events of interhousehold, perhaps
community wide, food sharing and feasting, it is clear that such activities became far morc
important after about A.D. 1300 (see Hayden 1995 and 1997 for interesting discussions of
the role of communal feasting in egalitarian and emerging transegalitarian societies; see also
POller 1997a and I 997b for a faunal perspective on feasting in a Puebloan context).
Bloom Mound
As the work at Henderson progressed, and a picture of dramatic economic change began
to take shape. I became increasingly curious about how Bloom Mound (LA-2528)-easily
visible from Henderson and with a very similar ceramic assemblage- might tit inlo the
picture. Unfortunalely. there seemed 10 be nothing left of Bloom. Local amateurs had dug
there for many years, beginning in the 1930s. and already by the mid-1950s archaeologists
and amateurs alike agreed that no ill situ deposits remained. What the amateurs had found.
recorded in an on-again-offagain dig diary kept by members of the Roswell Archaeological
Society. was a small village of only ten rooms: nine contiguous adobe surface slructures
and an adjacent semi-subterranean pitroom or "ceremonial chamber." The amateurs dug
into all of them. emptying most, and crisscrossed the site with additional exploratory holes
and trenches. They even stripped off part of the "mound" using a blade pulled by a pickup
The Beginllings ofPlains-Pueblo Imeracrion-Sperh 137
[ruck, VCI, despitc the sile's small size. the amateurs unearthed a remarkable weallh of
exotic ceramics. obsidian. marine shell ornaments. and perhaps as many as seven copper
bells. leading Jane Holden Kelley (1984:455) to characterize Bloom as a "trading center of
unusual afnuence," According 10 the amateurs, the entire village may have becn lorched,
perhaps violently destroyed in a single devastating raid. to judge by the many burned victims
found in room fill and sprawled on house floors (see Kelley 1984; Wiseman
1997). The wealth of nonlocal items. much more than we found at Henderson. suggested
that Bloom might be somewhat later and might therefore tell us what happened to the local
economy in the decades following Henderson's abandonment.
Although occasionally new data from Bloom Mound would surface from an unexpected
quarter. everyone. myself included. had understood that Bloom had been completely gutted.
and most of the artifacts that had been recovered by amateurs had disappeared into private
collections, Some, particularly those recovered by the Roswell Archaeological Society,
had been stored. uncatalogucd, in thc basemcnt of the Roswell Art Muscum. but most of
these were losl in a flood that swept through the museum in the 1950s. or subsequently dis-
carded because they lacked provenience. As part of her dissertation research. Jane Kelley
interviewed some of the most active amateurs about their finds. and inventoried the collec-
tions stashed in the museum basement shortly before their unfortunate demise. Also. at the
invitation of the Roswell Archaeological Society, she excavated one of Ihe original nine
surface rooms and finished clearing the floor of the subterranean "ceremonial chamber."
These materials, both artifacts and fauna. are now safely curated at Texas Tech Universily
in Lubbock. Kelley (1984) also mapped the site, something the amateurs had never done,
even though they had gone through the motions of setting up an elaborate 10)( 10 foot grid
system demarcated by large. numbered nails. That seemed to be it. Bloom was gone and
would remain an enigma forever.
Though my better judgment told me there was nothing left, in 2000 I nonetheless began
excavating at Bloom with the vague hope of being able to salvage some economic data
from the pothunters' backdirt. I also hoped to get enough EI Paso Polychrome jar rims to
be able to date Bloom's occupation relative to the two occupational phases at Henderson.
To my amazement and delight. testing showed that parts of Bloom. particularly at the north
end of the "mound," actually remained intact. and Ihat the community was not only bigger
than all of us had thought, but had quite a different layout as well. Instead of being a single
linear roomblock wilhjusl 9 rooms and an adjacent pil structure. it was a partially. perhaps
completely. enclosed rectangular structure surrounding the deep chamber with al least 20
to 25 rooms, if not more.
In 2000. we relocated the original comers of the semi-subterranean structure, allowing
us to connect Kelley's map to ours. And. as anticipated. seriation of Ihe EI Paso Polychrome
rims placed Bloom afler Henderson. though perhaps by only a generation or so. indicating
that Bloom's heavy involvemcnI in long-distanec exchange continued and amplified the
process that had begun during Henderson's Late Phase.
Like the amateurs, we too found a number of human skeletons whose remains give silent
testimony to the violence that befell this small New Mexico community sometime during
the mid- to late fourteenth or early (lftccnth century. BUI what we found differed from the
burned and clearly unburicd skeletons encountered by the amateurs. Our human remains
/38 Engaged Antllropology
were all bolla fide burials. all imerred according to what seems 10 be the standard pattern
for the area-bodies lightly ftexed. probably wrapped in some sort of shroud. and placed
beneath house floors. close to. and parallel 10. the walls of Ihe structures (see Rocek and
Speth 1986). None were burned. None of the rooms we opened were burned either. Thus.
the burials we encountered had been treated as kin. as people who belonged. not as enemies.
To our surprise. however, all of these individuals had nonetheless met a violent end. Their
faces were smashed in. and their skulls showed debilitating or lethal impacts from clubs and
holes from arrows or spears. Two of the burials also had projectile points in their abdomens.
1be ages of the individuals are also revealing. Most were infants. juveniles. young adult
women, and older males; none would have been prime-age warriors. Finally, the skeletons
had been gnawed by dogs or coyotes. The damage was minor, not enough 10 destroy entire
bones or even disarticulate the affected skeletal elements. bUI tbe damage is unmistakable
nonetheless. The bodies clearly had been left exposed and unprotected. albeit briefly, before
they were taken into the rooms and buried.
The picture that is taking shape at Bloom dovetails quite well with our reconstructions
at Henderson (Speth 2(04). Like Henderson. Bloom was probably a semi-sedentary com-
munity. with many of the able-bodied adults away from the village each year in the autumn
after the harvest was in. probably huming bison. trading with the Pueblos, and perhaps raid-
ing other communities (the absence of clandestine, below-ground storage pits positioned
well away from the moms argues against either community having been totally vacated for
part of each year). However. unlike Henderson. where we found no obvious evidence of
violence, Bloom was 8nacked, probably repeatedly, and probably precisely at those times
of year when the community was undennanoed. After the auack or attacks, survivors who
somehow managed to escape returned to the viUage and buried their dead.
The two arrow points found in the bodies of Bloom victims are panicularly interesting.
Both appear to be made on Edwards Plateau cbert. and one of these is a Perdiz point. a
distinctive and wellknown type whose homeland lies hundreds of miles to the southeast
in central Texas (Black 1989: Hester 1995: Johnson 1994; Ricklis 1992: Suhm and Jelks
1962). While Perdiz points are not abundant at Bloom (only 4 were found out of a total of
123 identifiable specimens). al Henderson this unmistakable form is absent altogether. even
though we recovered more than 570 points complete enough to classify to type (Adler and
Speth 20(4). Moreover. while only a few of Henderson's hundreds of Washita and Fresno
points were made of materials that fluoresce under ultraviolet light, a telltale sign of Ed-
wards Plnteau chert. a preliminary check of the Bloom points indicates that at least 10%of
these specimens clearly do. a strong indication that they too may derive from the Edwards
Plateau area (Hofman et a!. 1991).
Tbe Perdiz lXlint is generally thought to appear by about A.D. 1300 and persist until
A.D. 1600 or thereabouts. It is one of the hallmarks of the so-called "Toyah Phase," an ar-
chaeologically dcfincd cultural cntity found throughout central Texas (Black 1989: Hester
1995: Johnson 1994: J.e. Kellcy 1986: Prewin 1981, 1985). Perdiz points, however, are
by no means restricted to the Toyah Phase or to central Texas: they are also found in other
late prehistoric cultural entities, their distribution extending nearly across the width and
breadth of Texas and into northern Mexico as well. A number of authors have anempted to
link the classic Toyah Phase with the historically documented Jumanos (see discussions in
The Beginnings oj Plains-Pueblo /39
Hickerson 1994; J.e. Kelley 1986; Wade 2(03). While this auribution may be correct, or
at least partly so, it seems very likely that many other ethnic groups in Texas and northem
Mexico also made use of similar points. Thus, we may never know for sure which specific
group or groups were fighting with the residents of Bloom. What we can say on the ba-
sis of the emerging evidence, however, is that by the mid- to late fourteenth century this
small community. and perhaps others like it in the Roswell area. had become embroiled in
violent, often lethal, conflict with groups coming into southeastern New Mexico from the
southeast, probably from central Texas. We, of course. are seeing only the Roswell end of
the system; the folks from Bloom may well have been making their own forays into central
Texas. wreaking similar havoc on communities there. The million dollar question is why?
Why would raiding parties travel hundreds of miles to "beat up" on an insignificant lillie
mud-walled hamlet like Bloom on the margins of the Southwest?
The evidence from Bloom and Henderson provides clues to the nature of the violence and
what might have been motivating it. in a recent cross-cultural study of warfare in middle range
societies. Julie Solometo (2004) found that deliberate killing of noncombatants occurred
primarily among enemies that were socially distant, and often geographically distant as well.
Wholesale destruction of structures was also more typical of warfare among socially distant
enemies. The victims at Bloom-young adult women. infants. children. and older men-as
well as the extensive burning of both victims and buildings documented by the ammeurs.
clearly point in this direction. Moreover, our excavations in 2000 exposed a segment of a
thkk. peculiarly curved wall at the north end of the site. An aerial photo of Bloom taken in
the 1950s reveals a curious Hne that arcs around the north end of the site almost precisely
where we found the wall, and may indicate that the site had been at least partially fonified
(this suggestion is very tentative and needs to be examined more closely in future excava-
tions). The nearly or completely enclosed layout of the original community likewise poims
to a concern for protection. Again in cross-cultural studies Solometo found thai communities
seldom fortify themselves unless actual conflict. not just the threat of conflict. occurs at a
minimum on an annual basis. If she is right. Bloom must have been locked in a protracted
and deadly struggle with other peoples on the margins of the Southwest.
Though the nature of the conflict seems reasonably clear. its cause is less so. The an-
swer, however. may be staring us in the face. Henderson's economy underwent a dramatic
transformation in the late thineenrh and early founeenth century. Bison hunting. much of
it taking place far from the village, increasingly took center stage in Henderson's rapidly
evolving economy. and trade with the Pueblos skyrocketed at the same time. a trend that
becomes even more evident a generation or so later at Bloom. Panicularly striking aboul
the trade items coming into both villages-at least those items that have been preserved-is
that almost all come from the Puebloan world to the west (i.e.. ceramics, turquoise. marine
shell. obsidian, copper bells. and a macaw found in the backdin of another pothumed local
village known as Rocky Arroyo; see Emslie et al. 1992). Aside from bison. the fluorescing
points at Bloom, and a cache of mostly archaic dart points with a male burial at Henderson.
we found almost nothing that we can confidently say came from the Plains. What we seem
to be witnessing at Henderson and Bloom is the beginnings of intense interaction with the
Pueblos, and bison clearly figured prominently in these relationships (Speth 1991,20(4).
Dried meat. as a source of high-quality protein. may of course have become increasingly
140 Engaged AflIlrropology
important to the eastern Pueblos as they aggregated into large. sometimes huge. sedentary
communities heavily dependent on fanning and as they depleted their locally available larger
mammal resources (Speth 1991; Speth and Scott 1989: Speth and Spielmann 1983). Hides
may also have become increasingly important, in pan for robes. but also as raw material
for shields. a need triggered by the destabilizing introduction of a new and far more lethal
shock weapon. the backed or recurved '1\uidsh" bow that rendered ttaditional cane annor
obsolete (see Lc: Blanc 1997. 1999).
'The socioeconomic changes we see in Roswell in the fourteenth century very likely
were fclt farther afield as well. One of the most striking features of the Toyah Phase is thai
many of these peoples also began to exploit bison intensively (e.g.. Huebner 1991; RickJis
1992). And.judging by the early Spanish chronicles that relate to central and south Texas.
fights between groups over access to the herds, and perhaps to trading partners as well, both
Caddoans to the east and Puebloans to the west. may have become commonplace (Wade
2003:21.22).
Clearly. much remains to be learned about southeastern New Mexico's late prehistoric
inhabitants. The work done thus far at Henderson and Bloom Mound has clarified many
aspects of the lives and economy of these ancient New Mexicans. but it is also eminently
clear that many new questions have surfaced. interesting and important ones that we are
not yet able to address. Many of these can probably be answered by new or more detailed
studies of existing collections. Others. however. can only be answered through renewed
excavations at Henderson and elsewhere. Tragically, however. the archaeological record of
southeastern New Mexico is disappearing before our eyes at an unbelievable rale. through
urban expansion. mineral exploitation. widespread misuse and abuse of the landscape. and
sheer vandalism. We can only hope that sites like Henderson. Gamsey. Bloom Mound.
Rocky Arroyo. Fox Place, and a handful of others demonstrate just how valuable the area's
archaeological record really is. and that Southwestern archaeologists will take full advan
tage of that potenlial before the record is irretrievably lost (Spern 1983. 2004; Kelley 1984:
Wiseman 2(02).
While there is much that remains to be learned about PlainsPueblo exchange. and many
intricate details and subtle complexities to be teased out of the data or acquired through
additional modeling and theorizing. the fundamentally anthropological route that we must
follow in order to reach these answers and understandings is already clearly laid out and
marked. and has been for more than thirty years. ever since the appearance of Richard Ford's
seminal look at "'Barter. Gift. or Violence."
Acknowledgme.nts
I W<lnt to thank. Dick Ford for his friendship, which goes back over (orty years to <I
Florence Hawlcy Ellis dig at San Gabriel del Yungue near the banks of the Rio Grande in
nonhero New Mexico. Since then he has helped me in so many ways thm it would require
another paper just to enumerate them all: a few of the most important must suffice. It was
largely Dick who brought me 10 Michigan in 1965 as a graduate student; at the time I was
headed for Tulane or perhaps Wisconsin. Dick. probably more rnan anyone else. brought
Tht! B ~ g i n n i " g . f of Plains-Pueblo Interaction-Speth /4/
me back to Michigan in 1976 tojoin thc faculty as a North American archaeologisl. He was
Director of the Museum of Anthropology when I came up for tenure at Michigan. and I'm
sure his hand was very much involved in the successful outcome of the process. II was Dick
who nominated me for a Thurnau Professorship: and he was my staunchest supponer when
I decided to launch a Univcrsity of Michigan archaeology field school. the first from that
institution since the 1950s. He faithfuUy visited me in the field in Roswell every summer I
was there, braving my mania for heat even when it more than once pushed him to the limits.
We share the same passion for undergraduate teaching and frequently jointly supervised
the same students in lab projects. independenl reading courses. museum techniques, and
honors theses. The same has been troe with graduate students: we have been on countless
prelim and dissertation committees together, helped the same studems find money for their
fieldwork, and visited them in the field. Perhaps more than anything (aside from the faci
that we both hail from New Jersey and our junior high schools competcd in baskclball!).
we both share the same love for the Southwest, for its beauty, for its vaSlneS5. and for its
archaeological and cthnographic diversity and richness. Thank you for 50 many things over
all these many years, Dick.
I would also like to acknowledge the help of the many other people who, over the years,
have participated in one way or another in the excavations and myriad analyses ofGamsey.
Henderson. and Bloom. Among these lowe a large debt of gratitude to Dave Snow and
Dedie Thomas Snow. Regge Wiseman, and the late Robert H. (Bus) Leslie. I would also
like to offer my sincerest manks to the rnnchers-Elmer(Skip} and Jane Garnsey. Malt and
Karen Henderson, Calder and Candy Ezzell. and Jay and Carrie Hollifield-for the many
kindnesses and wann hospitality they offered 10 the "foreigners from up north," and for their
invaluable efforts in protecting and preserving these wonderful archaeological treasures.
Finally. my thanks go 10 the Archaeological Conservancy. present owners ofboth Henderson
and Bloom. for their important role in safeguarding southeastern New Mexico's rapidly
vanishing archaeological heritage.
References Cited
Adams. E.C.. M.T. Stark. and D.S. Dosh
1993 Ceramic distribution and e"change; Jeddito yellow ware and implications for social com-
plexity. }ourn(11 of Fidd Archaeoloy 20( 1):3-21.
Adler. M.A.. wld 1.D. Speth
2004 Projectile points from the Henderson Site (1980-1981). In Ufe Oil the J>ujphery: &OllO",it:
Clulflge in Late Prehistoric Southeastern Nell' Mexico. edited by J.D. Speth. pp. 350-67.
Memoirs. 00. 37. Museum of Anthropology. University of Michigan. Ann Arbor.
Baugh. S.T.
1986 Lale prehistoric bison disttibutions in Oklahoma. In Currt!/Il Trends in Somhtrn Plains
Archaeology. wiled by T.G. Baugh. pp. 83-96. Memoir 21. Lincoln, NE: Plains Anthrop.r
logical Society.
/42 Engaged Anthropology
Baugh, T.G.
1986 CullUre history and protohistoric societies in the Southern Plains. In Currtml Tunds in
Southern Ploins Archaeology, edited by T.G. Baugh. pp. 167-87. Memoir 21. Lincoln, NE:
Anthropological Society.
1991 Ecology and eJL:change: the dynamics of Plains-Pueblo interaction. In FQf7Mrs, HIU!fUS,
cmd Colonists: Interaction the Southwest and the Southun Pfairu, edited by K.A.
Spielmann. pp. 107-27. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.
Baugh, T.G.. and F.W. Nelson. Jr.
1981 New Me"iro obsidian sources and exchange on the Southern Pllins.. Journal ofFidd M-
ehoratoRY 14(3):313-29.
Black. S.L.
1989 Central Texas plateau prairie. In From the Gulf to the Rio Grande: Human Adaptation in
Cefltraf, South, and Lower Pecos TUQs, edited by T.R. Hester. SL Black. D.G. Steele,
B,W. Olive. A.A. Fox. K.J. Reinhard. and L.e. Bement, pp. 17-38. Arkansas Archeological
Survey Research Series 33. Fayelleville. AR: Arkansas Archeological Survey.
BOle11. lR.
1993 Culture. environment, and bison populations oJllhe Late Prehistoric and Early Historic
Centrnl Plains. Plains AnthropofoRist 40(152); 145-63.
Brosowske. S.D.
2004 Obsidian procurement and distribution during the Middle Ceramic Period of lhe SoUlhcm
High Plains: evidence for Ihe emergence of regional trade centers. COlUlcil ofTaas Arche-
ologists 28(2): 16-28.
Collins. M.B.
1971 A reviewof Uano Estacado archaeology and ethnohistory. Plains Anthropologist 16:85-104.
Cordell, LS.
1997 ArcllaNllog, of SQllth.. 2nd ed. San Diego. CA: Academic Press.
DeBoer. W.R.
1988 Subtel11lnean Slomge and the organization of surplus; the view from eastern North America.
Sol4lheastern Archarology 7(1): 120.
Dillehay, T.D.
1974 LaiC quaternary bison population changes on the Southern Plains. Plains Anthropologist
19:180-96.
Doyel. D.E.
1991 Hohokam exchange and inlt:ractioJl. In Chaco and Hohokam: Prehistoric Regional Systems
il/ the Americall SOllthwe.ft. edited by P.L. Crown and W.J. Judge. pp. 22552. Santa Fe. NM:
School of American Research Press.
Driver. J.C.
1990 Bison a!>scmblages frum the Sierra Blanca Regioo, southeastern New Mexico. Kiva
55(3):245-64.
The Beginnings oj Plains-Pueblo Interaction-Speth /43
Dunavan, SL
2004 Archaeobotllnical maize: the screened sample (1980-1981). In Life on the Periphery:
Economic Change in Late Prehistoric Southeastern New Mexico. edited by J.D. Speth, pp.
394-406. Memoirs, no. 37. Museum of Anthropology. University of Michigan. Ann Arbor.
Emslie, S.D" J.D. Speth. and R.N. Wiseman
1992 Two prehistoric Puebloan avifaunas from the Pecos V'.illey, southeastern New Mexico. Jour-
nal oj Ethnobiology 12( 1):83.115.
English. N.B., J.L. Betancourt, JoS. Dean, and J. Quade
2001 SlfOntium isotopes reveal distant sources of architectul'llltimber in Chaco Canyon. New
Mexico. Proceedings ojthe National Academy ojSciences 98(21); I 1891 -96.
Ford, R.I.
1972 Barter, gift, or violence; an analysis ofTewa intertribal exchange. In Social rchallge alld
Interaction, edited by E.N. Wilmsen, pp. 21-45. Anthropological Papers. no. 46. Museum of
Anthropology. University of Michigan. Ann Arbor.
Hammond, G.P., and A. Rey
1940 Narrative.f ojthe Coronado Expedition, 1540-1542. Coronado Historical Series 2. Albuquer-
que, NM: University of New Mexico Press.
1953 Don Juan de Onate: Colonizer ojNew Mexico, 1595-1628. Coronado Cuarto Centennial
Publications 5-6. Albuquerque. NM: University of New Mexico Press.
Hard, R.I., R.P. Mauldin, and G.R. Raymond
1996 Mano size, stable carbon isotope I'lltios, and rnacrobotanical remains as multiple lines of cvi-
dence of maize dependence in the American Southwest. Journal ojArchaeological Method
and Theory 3(4):253-318.
Hayden, B.
1995 Pathways to power: principles for creating socioeconomic inequalities. In Foundations ofSocial
Inequality. edited by T.D. Price and a.M. Feinman, pp. 1586. New York. NY: Plenum Press.
1997 Observations on the prehistoric social and eConomic structure of the North American Pla-
teau. World Archaeology 29(2):242-61.
Hayes, A.C. (editor)
1981 ComributWlls to Groll Quivira Archae%gy. Publications in Archaeology 17. Washington.
IX: U.S. Department of the [nterior, National Park SelVice.
Hayes, A.c.. J.N. Young, and A.H. Warren
1981 Excavation Of MOl/lid 7, Grall Quivira Natiollal MOllllmellt, New Mexico. Publications in
Archaeology 16. WashinglOn, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior. National Park Service.
Hester, T.R.
1995 The prehistory of south Texas. Bulletin ojthe Texas Archeological Society 66:427-59.
Hickerson. N.P.
1994 The Jumallos: Hul1ters alld Traders ojthe SOll1h Plains. Austin, TX: University of Texas
""',.
/44 Engaged Anlhropology
Hofman. J.L. L.C. Todd. and M.B. Collins
1991 Identification of cenmd Texas Edwards chert at the Folsom and Lindcnmeicr sites. Plui1\.J
AnthropologiS! 36( 131):297-308.
Huebner, l.A.
J991 Latc prehistoric bison populations in cenlralllnd southern Texas. Plaitu All/llrof1f)losist
36( 137):343-58.
Jelinek. AJ.
1966 COlTelation of archaeological and palynological data Scirn 152: 1507-9.
1967 A Prrhistoric in Ihe Middlt' Puos Valley, New Merico. Anthropological Papers.
no. 31. Museum of Anthropology. University of Michigan. Ann Arbor.
Johnson. L.
1994 Tir/' Life ant/TImes o/Toyah,Cu/lllre Folk lIS Sc(mjrom Ihe 811ckhollow Encampme11l, Site
4/KM/6. of Kimhle COlln/y. Te.fU$. Report 38. Austin. TX: Texas Dcpanmcnt of Transporta-
lion and Texas Historical Commission. Office of the Slate Archeologist.
Kelley. J.e.
1986 iI/mono and Puturubut!Jc: Relation.r at UJ Junta de los Rios. Anthropological Papers, no.
n. Museum or Anthropology. University or Michigan. AnD AIbor.
Kelley, J.H.
1984 The Archaeology oj'he Sierra BlatlCa Region ofSQutheastern New Mexico. Anthropological
Papers. no. 74. Museum or Anthropology. University or Michigan. Ann Arbor.
Kidder. A. V.
1932 The Arri/uta ofPecos. Robert S. Peabody Foundation, Papers or the Phillips Academy
Soolhwcstem Expedition 5. New Hayen. CT: Yale University Press.
Krieger. A.D.
[946 Culture Complexes and Chrotlology i11 Nonhern TexJlS with ExteftSio11 ofPuebloon oatings
to the Missis.dppi Valley. Publication 4640. Austin. TX: University or Texas.
leBlanc. SA
1997 Modeling warf"are in Southwestern prehistory. Norrh American ArchatiJlogisl 18(3):235-76.
1999 Puhisroric in the American Southwesl. Salt Lake City, UT: University or Utah
-,.
Lee. Y.K.. and J.D. Speth
2004 Rabbit hunting by rarmers at the Henderson site. New Mexico. In Up on the Periphery:
&Oflom;c Change in Lote Prehistoric Solltheas/ern New Mexico. edited by J.D. Speth. pp.
225-77. Memoirs, no. 37. Museum or Anthropology, Uniycrsity or Michigan. Ann Arbor.
Lynol:l. M.J.
1980 Prehistoric bison populations or northcentBl Texas. Bu/{etin oflhe Texas Archaeological
Sociel)' 50:89-101.
Mills. BJ. and P.L Crown (editors)
1995 CutJmic Production in Ihe American Southwest. 'f\lCSOll, AZ: University or Arizona Press.
The Beginnings of Plains-Pueblo Interaction-Speth /45
Minnis. P.E.
1989 TIle Casas Grandes polilY in the intemational Fout Comers. In Sodopo/ilicaf StrUClure
ofPrrhiSloric Sodnies. ediled by S. Upham. K.G. Lighifoo. and R.A. Jewell.
pp. 269-305. Boulder. CO: Westview Pn$s.
Minnis. P.. M.E. Whalen. J.H. Kelley. and J.D. Stewart
1993 Prehisloric macaw breeding in the North American Somhwul. Anliquiry 58(2):
270-76.
Miracle. P.T.
2004 Antek>pe procurement and hunting strategies allbe Henderson site. In Life on tM Periphuy:
Economic ChlJnge in Late Prehistoric Sou/hens/ern .... Merica. edited by J.D. Speth. pp.
148-214. Memoirs, no. 37. Museum of Anthropology. University of Michigan. Ann Arbor.
Neitzel. J.E.
1989 Regional exchange networks in lheAmerican Southwest: a comparative analysis of long.
distance trade. In The Sociopo/ilical Srrtlcmre ofPrehis/Oric SOllthll'eSlem Societies. edited
by S. Upham. K.G. Lightfoot. and R.A. Jewell. pp. 149-95. Boulder. CO: Westview Press.
Patterson. J.T.
1936 The Corner-Tang FUm Artifacts of Texas. University of Texas Bulletin 3618:1-54. Bureau of
Research in the Social Sciences Study 18. Anthropological P:lpcr I(4). Austin. TX: Univer-
sity of Texas.
Plog, F.T.
1977 Modeling economic exchange. In E:rchange SyslenlS in Prehislory. edited by T.K. Earle and
J.E. Erikson. pp. 127-40. New Yori;o NY: Academic Press.
Potter. J.M.
1997a CommlUlOl Riluol Feasling, WId SocioJ Differentiation in Lote Prehistoric Zuni Commllni
tirs. PhDdissertation. Arizona Stale University. Tempe. AZ.
I99Th Communal ritual and faunal remains: an enmple from the Dolores Anasazi. JOllrnal of
Fjeld Archawlogy 24(3):353-64.
Powell. C.S.
2001 Htlnting lind Farming the Plains and tlu! SOllth.....est: Analysis ofArcharobotanicol
Remains from tht Henderson Silt. Ros.....ell, New Mexico. Unpublished PhDdissenation.
Depanment of Anthropology. Washington University, SI. Louis. MO.
Prewill. E.R.
1981 Cultural chronology in central Texas. Bllllelin of Ihe Texas Archeological Sociny 52:65-89.
1985 From Circleville to Toyah: comments on ccntnll chronology. Bllllelill of lite Trxas
ArcheofogicClI Society 54:201-38.
Ricklis. R.A.
1992 The spread of a late prehisloric bison hunting complex: evidence from lhe soolh-eenlral
coastal prairie of Texas. Plains Anlhropologisl 37( 140):261-73.
,
/46 Engagt!d Anthropology
Rocck. T.R., and J.D. Speth
1986 The HttuhrSQfl Site Burials: Glimpus ofa LAle Pnhistoric Poplllat;OfI in lhe Pos \Wlq.
Technical Reports, no. 18. Museum of Anthropology. University of Michigan. Ann Arbor.
Schoeningcr. M.1.
2004 The stable isotope results. In Uft all the Puipht!ry: Economic Challge ill lAte Prehistoric
Southeastern New Mexico. edited by J.D. Speth. pp. 416-19. Memoirs, no. 37. Museum of
Anthropology, University of Michigan. Ann Arbor.
Seaman. TJ.. and B.I. Mills
1988 What are 1II.'e measuring? Rim thickness indw and lhc:ir implications for changes in ves5e1
use. In Fourth Jornodo Mogollon COn/trena (Oct. /985): Coflted edited by M.S.
Duran and K.W. Laumbach. pp. 163-94. Thlarosa. NM: Human Systems Research. IDC.
Sakal. R.R.. II.nd FJ. Rohlf
1969 Biometry: The Principles and PrDctice ofStlllistics in Biological Research. San Francisco.
CA: W.H. Freeman.
Sollbelgcr. J.8.
1971 AItthno4og}cal study ofbeveled knivel. Plains An1hropolo,ist 16(53):209-18.
Solomelo. J.P.
2004 The Conduci and COTlsequences o/War: Dimensions o/COfT/ficl East-Cemral A.rizona. PhD
dissertation. University of Michigan. Ann Arbor. MI.
Speth. J.D.
1983 Bi.ron Kills and Bone Counts: Decision Making by A.lICieTlI Chicago, IL:
of Chkago Press.
1991 Some unexplored aspects of mutualistic Plains-Pueblo food exchange. in FanMrs, HWllers
and Colonists: Interodioo 1M SouJhv,orst and the Southern Plains. edited by K.A.
Spielmann. pp. 1835. Tucson. AZ: University ofArizona Press.
Speth. J.D. (editor)
2004 Li/e on the Periphery: Economic Change inIAte Prehistoric Southeastern New Mexico.
Memoirs. no. 37. Museum of Anthropology. University of Michigan. Ann Arbor.
Speth. J.D. T.M. McKay. and K.K. Arntzen
2004 The groundstone evidence. In Lift 01'1 the PeripMry: Economic Change in LaJe Prrhutoric
Southeastern Nn4' Mexico. edited by 10. Speth. pp. 384-91. Memoirs. no. 37. Museum of
Anthropology. University of Michigan. Ann Arbor.
Speth. J.D. and A. Rautman
2004 Bison hunting at the Henderson site. In Li/e on Ihe Periphery: &:onomic Change in IAu
Prehistoric SoutheaSlern New Mexico. edited by J.D. Spelh. pp. 98147. Memoirs, no. 37.
Museum ofAnthropology. University of Michigan. Ann Arbor.
Speth. J.D. and SL Scott
1'i89 Horticulture and large-mammal hunting; the role of depletion and the. conslnlinlS
of time and labor. In os HlUItus. edited by S. Kent. pp. 71-79. ew York. NY;
Cambridge University Press.
The Beginnings of Plains-Pueblo lmeraction-Speth /47
Speth. J.D. and K.A. Spielmann
1983 Energy source. protein metabolism. and hunter-gatherer subsistence sirategics. journal of
Allthropological Archaeology 2(1): 131.
Spielmann. K.A.
1983 Late prehistoric exchange between the southwest and southern plains. Plains All/hropologisl
28(102. Part 1):257.72.
1986 Interdependence among egalitarian societies. journal of Anthropological Archaeology
5(4):279-312.
Spielmann. K.A. (editor)
1991 Farmers. Hunters, and Colonists: tll/eraction bent/een the Southwest and the Somhern
Plains. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.
Suhm. D.A.. and E.B. Jelks (editors)
1962 Handbook ofTexas Archeology: Type Descriptions. Special Publication [. Austin. TX: Texas
Archeological Society.
Toll, H.W., T.C. Windes. and P.J. McKenna
1980 Late eeramic patterns in Chaco Canyon: the pragmatics of modeling ceramic exchange. In
Models and Melhods in Regional Exchange, edited by R.E. Fry, pp. 95-118. SAA Papers I.
Washington. DC: Society for American Archaeology.
Vargas, Victoria D.
1995 Copper Bell Trade Patterns in the U.S. SoU/hwest aJUi Nortllwest Mexico.
Archaeological Series 187. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona, Arizona State Museum.
Wade, M. de F.
2003 The Native Americans ofthe Texas Edwards Plaleau, /582-/799. Texas Archaeology and
Ethnohistory Series. Austin. TX: Univen;ity of Texas Press.
Waskiewicz. C.. U. Noone. and J.D. Speth
2004 Scheduling conflicts at the Henderson site: evidence for a decline in medium ungulate
procurcmcnt and use. In life on Ihe Periphery: Economic Change in Late Prehistoric
Southeastern New Mexico, edited by J.D. Speth, pp. 2[5-20. Memoirs, no. 37. Museum of
Anthropology, University of Michigan. Ann Arbor.
Wiseman. R.N.
1997 A preliminary look at evidence for late prehistoric conflict in southeastern New Mexico.
In Layers of Time: Essays in HonorofRoben H. Weber. edited by M.S. Duran and D.T.
Kirkpatrick. pp. 13546. Archaeological Society of New Mexico 23. Albuquerque. NM:
Archaeological Society of New Mexico.
2002 The Fox Place: ALate Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherer Pithol/se Village Near Roswell. New
Mexico. Archaeology Notes 234. Santa Fe, NM: Museum of New Mexico. Office of Ar-
chaeological SlUdies.
2004 The pottery of the Henderson sile (LA-l 549): the 1980-1981 seasons. In life 011 the Periph-
ery: Economic Change in Lale Prehistoric Sourheasrem New Mexico. edited by J.D. Speth,
pp. 67-95. Memoirs. no. 37. Museum of Anthropology. University of Michigan. Ann Arbor.