PREFACE

The two complexes are distinguished primarily on the basis of their lithic assemblages. The Cerro Rojoassemblage consists largely of expedient shaped tools crudely shaped by percussion, but with finelyretouched edges. Tools include end- and side-scrapers, drills, distinctive forms of perforators, agaveknives, well-made bifacial knives, and well-made Washita and Harrell projectile points. The Canutillolithic assemblage includes finely retouched, broad-based perforators; large, well-flaked triangular andlanceolate biface knives; snub-nosed end-scrapers; core and debitage indicative of core-blade and bipolarreduction; and varieties of triangular, basal-notched or basal indented projectile points (Soto, Chihuahua,and Bliss).The culture history questions for this period derive as much from the work of ethnohistorians as fromarchaeological research.• Can Protohistoric groups in the region be distinguished based on differences in artifacts,features, and site layout?• Are there differences in the settlement and subsistence strategies of those groups? Can thosegroups be tied to late prehistoric populations in the region?• Can they be tied to the historic groups mention in the Spanish records – Jumanos, Querechos,and Teyas?• When did Apachean groups arrive in southeastern New Mexico?• To what extent did Protohistoric groups in southeastern New Mexico participate in the Plains-Pueblo exchange network?• What impact did the introduction of the horse have on regional settlement-subsistencestrategies?• How did Apache settlement-subsistence strategies change as a result of conflict with theComanches?As for any temporal period, archaeological groups are initially distinguished based on differences inartifact assemblages, architectural forms, or settlement layout. The settlement/subsistence strategies ofthose groups are then investigated, in part to provide further evidence to determine whether the tentativelyidentified groups are in fact distinctive. A logical starting point for this research would be to determine ifthe protohistoric sites in southeastern New Mexico have affinities with one or more of the complexesalready defined in adjacent areas. If the Protohistoric groups are linked to the prehistoric populations inthe region, then it should be possible to demonstrate continuous occupation of the area and continuity insome aspects of material culture should be demonstrated. An occupational hiatus and marked change inmaterial culture, on the other hand, is generally interpreted as evidence for population replacement.As already noted, Jelinek (1967:156–159) sees a sharp increase in the use of bison during the LateMcKenzie phase and a corresponding reduction in the evidence for agriculture. He speculates thatprehistoric farmers in the Middle Pecos valley focused increasingly on bison hunting as the bison herdsexpanded in the Southern Plains and, between about AD 1250–1350, he argues that they abandoned theirold sedentary lifeway to become nomadic hunters (Jelinek 1967:162–164). Evidence from the HendersonSite (Rocek and Speth 1986; Speth 2004) generally supports this hypothesis, but indicates that thetransition may not have been as drastic as Jelinek infers.Henderson is an E-shaped pueblo with 100–130 rooms built around two plazas, located near the mouth ofthe Rio Hondo. It was first occupied in AD 1250–1270 and was largely abandoned sometime in the early1300s, although an ephemeral terminal occupation or re-occupation of the site is dated to about AD 1400.Although initially interpreted as a typical Lincoln phase site, subsistence remains from the site are morecharacteristic of a Plains Village pattern. Specifically, the evidence indicates that maize and bison weresubsistence staples, which were supplemented by the seasonal procurement of a variety of wild plantresources, large and small game, fish, and freshwater mollusks. The bison bone at Henderson are largelyof moderate to high utility, suggesting that bison were procured at some distance from the site and only4-20