PREFACE

ArchaicIn contrast to the Paleoindian period, there is a presumption that hunter-gatherers during the Archaicperiod employed a broad-spectrum adaptation utilizing a variety of resources but focused primarily onwild plants and small game. Although this adaptation is assumed to apply to all Southwestern Archaictraditions, Sebastian and Larralde (1989:5256) identify four attributes that seem to be characteristic ofArchaic subsistence strategies in southeastern New Mexico: a minimal reliance on storage; lack ofevidence for the early use of cultigens; consistent evidence for the exploitation of riverine resources or atleast freshwater mussels; and near absence of evidence for bison hunting. In discussing Ceramic periodsubsistence patterns, they also raise the issue of intensified resource exploitation in response to increasingpopulation density (Sebastian and Larralde 1989:86), a concept that may be equally useful in explainingsubsistence strategies during the Late Archaic period.Speculation about Archaic subsistence strategies in southeastern New Mexico has been based largely onanalogy with the Mescalero Apache, most explicitly in the work of Gallagher and Bearden (1980). Thereare at least two reasons for doubting the appropriateness of that analogy for reconstructing prehistoricsubsistence strategies (Sebastian and Larralde 1989:53). The first is the use of horses by the Mescalero.Basehart's informants indicated that the average Mescalero family had two to four horses but emphasizedthat many families owned no horses at all (1974:95). In reviewing other evidence, however, Basehart(1974:96) concludes that ". . . the minimum number of horses per household would range from four tosix. This estimate, while somewhat higher than those preferred by informants, appears reasonable. . ."Even admitting the likelihood that the number of horses in a particular group was subject to considerablefluctuation, these figures suggest that Mescalero bands had transport capabilities well beyond thosegroups limited to foot travel.Bohrer's (1981) analysis of the plant remains from Fresnal Shelter provides a second reason for doubtingthe appropriateness of the Mescalero analogy. Fresnal Shelter is located in the pinyon-juniper transitionzone on the western flanks of the Sacramento Mountains, just outside of the western boundary definedhere for southeastern New Mexico. The major occupation is dated from about 2100–925 BC (Carmichael1982). Based on ubiquity, Bohrer (1981:45) identifies 11 subsistence items regularly utilized at FresnalShelter. Five have long periods of availability once mature – the fruiting bracts of four-wing saltbush,seeds of buffalo gourd, stems of turk’s head cactus, juniper berries, and roots of four o’clock. Threeothers mature seasonally but reliably – prickly pear fruits, feathergrass seeds, and mesquite pods. Onlythree – amaranth seeds, dropseed grass seeds, and panic grass seeds – mature at different times dependingon the weather. Among the less common plant resources recovered from Fresnal are chenopod seeds,pinyon nuts, yucca fruits, acorns, squawbush fruits and, after about 1500 BC, chapalote maize. The lowranking for acorns is attributed to its absence in the immediate vicinity of the shelter. Pinyon and yuccaare common in the area surrounding the site, however, and Bohrer suggests that their low ranking mayindicate that appropriate storage technologies had not been developed for those resources. In addition, theavailability of pinyon nuts tends to be variable and relatively unpredictable. The low ranking for maize isnot explained, but it clearly appears to have been only a minor dietary componentBohrer sees the common dietary items at Fresnal Shelter as indicative of a risk-minimization strategyemphasizing food resources that are predictable in terms of their location and availability. While someseed resources may have been valued for their storage properties, she contends that "in the eyes of theoccupants of Fresnal Shelter, allowing food to remain stored on the living plant (fleshy roots, stems,berries) may create as reliable a food supply as aggregating harvests of these or certain other plantproducts in caches" (1981:46). In contrast, the staple resources of the Mescalero Apache indicate thatcached plant products were valued above all others, and that roots or long-lingering fruits had no place intheir list of staples. For that reason, Bohrer suggests that the Southern Paiute (Kelly 1964) may provide amore appropriate analogy of the Archaic subsistence strategy in southeastern New Mexico.4-27