PREFACE

the Apaches. Based on their location and lifeway, Kenmotsu (2001:35–37) argues that the Jumanos arevisible in the archaeological record as a regional variant of the Toyah Complex.These hypothesized linkages between archaeological complexes and early historical groups requireadditional testing but, if they are correct, then at least three distinct groups of Plains bison hunters appearto have ranged into southeastern New Mexico during the protohistoric period. Although the majorsettlements of these groups may have been outside the region, seasonal camps and procurement sitesshould be present. Archaeological research in southeastern New Mexico therefore has the potential tocontribute valuable information concerning at least a portion of the settlement-subsistence strategy,including exchange relations with the Pueblos.The task of relating the protohistoric groups to modern linguistic groups has occupied ethnohistorians andlinguists for more than a century, and no consensus has yet emerged. Archaeological research cancontribute to this work, but our approach is subject to the inherent limitation that there is no necessaryrelationship between material culture and biological or linguistic groups. More importantly, thecombined effects of European conquest, disease, and the rapid cultural change precipitated by suchinnovations as firearms and horses resulted in a near total disruption of native populations in theSouthwest and Southern Plains. While some adjusted and survived, others were wiped out or assimilated.Although there might be some slender threads of material culture continuity in the resulting morass, theywill be, at best, difficult to trace. A more productive approach that plays to the strengths of the disciplineis to formulate and test hypotheses of group identity using archaeological data, and to investigate howthose groups were impacted by the events of the protohistoric period and how they responded to them(Boyd 2001:15–17).SUBSISTENCE STRATEGIESThe overall objectives of research under this problem domain are to understand the strategies used byaboriginal groups to meet their annual and long-term nutritional needs, and to examine how and whythose strategies changed through time. Again, the basic questions that must be addressed for eachcultural-temporal period vary depending on the level of inquiry. At the site/component level, the basicquestion relating to subsistence is:• what plant and animal food resources were collected, processed, and/or consumed by the site’sinhabitants?As that information is accumulated for sites in different areas, the subsistence patterns characteristic ofeach can be identified. At this area/generalization level, the questions are:• what seasonal variation was there in the procurement of food resources?• what were the subsistence resource staples?• what areas were the foci of subsistence activities?At the regional/interpretive level, information from the lower level investigations can be combined toreconstruct the subsistence strategies employed during different time periods, and changes in thosestrategies through time can be examined. At this level, the basic questions are:• what was the relative contribution of hunting, gathering, and cultivation?• what strategies were used to buffer against periods of low resource availability?• how were scheduling conflicts handled?• were there differences in the subsistence strategies employed by contemporary groups?• how did subsistence strategies change in response to changes in resource availability inducedby environmental change and demographic pressure?• how did subsistence strategies change with the introduction of various technologicalinnovations – cultigens, ceramics, the bow-and-arrow, horses, firearms?4-22