PREFACE

As Sebastian and Larralde recognized, the introduction of cultigens into southeastern New Mexico islinked to the concept of intensification. As defined by Binford (2001:188), intensification “refers to anytactical or strategic practices that increase the production of food per unit area. Production can beincreased by investing more labor in food procurement activities or by shifting exploitation to speciesoccurring in greater concentrations in space.” His description of this process is generally consistent withthe diet breadth model in that the subsistence strategy progressively focuses on lower ranked resources.In environments in which the resource mix permits intensification, the preferred strategy ofhuman actors experiencing subsistence stress will be increased dependence upon terrestrial plants.Human dependence upon aquatic resources occurs either as a supplement to a plant-basedstrategy or as the primary strategy in environments that prohibit plant-based subsistence options(Binford 2001:210, Generalization 7.05).Although environmental change might, in some instances, precipitate the subsistence stress triggeringintensification, Binford argues that it is primarily a response to population packing, which reduces themobility options of hunter-gatherers and limits them to a smaller annual range. Specifically, his researchsuggests that:Groups that are dependent on terrestrial animal resources appear to respond to packing pressuresat a population density level of 1.57 persons per 100 square kilometers. When population levelsof 9.098 persons per 100 square kilometers are reached, the shift away from primary dependenceupon animal resources has already occurred and dependence upon either terrestrial plants oraquatic resources has increased correspondingly (Binford 2001:443).For Binford, the adoption of agriculture is one of the intensification options open to hunter-gatherers withaccess to cultigens. Consequently, as Wills has argued, “foragers adopt domesticated plants not tobecome farmers but to remain effective foragers” (1988:36). In addressing the issue of the adoption ofagriculture, we therefore need to answer several, more specific questions:• were late Archaic hunter-gatherers in southeastern New Mexico intensifying resourceprocurement in response to subsistence stress and, if so, when?• when did groups in southeastern New Mexico have access to cultigens and when were theyactually adopted?• what other intensification options were open to hunter-gatherers in New Mexico?• what, if any, selective advantages would have favored the adoption of agriculture over thoseother options?In discussing the introduction of cultigens into the Southwest, Minnis (1985:329) suggests that cultivationprovided a reliable and efficient form of insurance against the failure of one or more wild resourcestaples. Similarly, Wills contends that “… the adoption of domesticated plants can be explained asnatural selection for strategies that reduce environmental uncertainty and thus increase population fitness”(1988:31). Given these arguments, I have suggested that the reliability and predictability of cultigenswould be particularly advantageous for hunter-gatherers for whom storage was a primary over-winteringstrategy (Hogan 1994). However, this argument may not be applicable to southeastern New Mexicowhere winters are shorter and milder, and where there are probably fewer temporal incongruities in theavailability of subsistence resources. In such environments, the advantages of cultigens might be relatedless to risk minimization and more to their potential to increase the production of food per unit area. If so,then the selective pressures favoring the adoption of cultigens would be the same as those favoring otherforms of intensification.4-30