PREFACE

The first option seems unlikely if cultivation were adopted as part of a resource intensification strategy,since agricultural productivity is generally proportional to the labor effort invested in cultivation. Thesecond option is also improbable unless both agricultural lands and the areas of greatest wild resourceabundance were concentrated in a relatively small area. If this were the case, then this would seem thelogical location for the primary residential base. The third option is therefore the most likely. Based onthis discussion, the following additional questions are suggested:• were household groups or some larger organizational unit primarily responsible foragricultural production and the procurement of wild plant and animal resources?• was residential or logistical mobility employed in the procurement of wild plant and animalresources?• were different settlement/mobility strategies employed by groups in different environmentalsettings and/or at different time periods?For the Ceramic period hunter-gatherers, the settlement/mobility strategy issues are largely the same asthose suggested for the Archaic period.• was the mobility strategy based predominantly on residential or logistical mobility?• what were the annual rounds of Ceramic period hunter-gatherers in the different parts of theregion?• can the territories utilized by hunting and gathering groups be distinguished from those of thehorticultural groups?There is one unique issue of particular interest, however. Leslie (1979) speculates that pithouse/pueblosettlements in the Eastern Jornada area were occupied by hunter-gatherer groups for whom shinnery oakand mesquite took the place of maize. As emphasized by Sebastian and Larralde (1989:82), examples oflargely sedentary hunter-gatherers are rare in the ethnographic record, and those few cases are eitherprimarily dependent on aquatic resources or are in contact situations with agricultural or industrialsocieties. Assuming that Leslie is correct in his interpretation of the subsistence strategy, thesettlement/mobility options available for implementing that strategy are essentially the same as thoseoutlined above for the horticultural groups. The questions relating to the Ceramic period occupation inthe Eastern Jornada are therefore a mixture of those already posed.• Were pithouse/pueblo settlements in the Eastern Jornada occupied seasonally or year-round?• Was residential or logistical mobility employed in the procurement of wild plant and animalresources?• If household groups were seasonally mobile, what was the annual round?• Were mobility options limited by a heavy reliance on storage?ProtohistoricSettlement patterns during the Protohistoric period were discussed under the subsistence problem domainand will be only briefly reviewed here. Based on archaeological evidence from the Panhandle area ofTexas, the settlement pattern of protohistoric groups on the Southern High Plains is characterized byshort-terms camps and kill/butchering sites on the Plains and by residential basecamps in drainage basinsalong the eastern margins of the Llano Estacado. This pattern suggests that these groups were sedentaryor at least foraged within a much more restricted range during a part of the year, and were only seasonallymobile. Southeastern New Mexico is on the margins of the hunting territories for these groups, so onlythe mobile hunting component of the settlement system is likely to be represented.4-53