PREFACE

had been tested with a resulting recommendation of no further work. Our feeling was that including thelatter sites would provide a more realistic appraisal of the data potential of the different component types.A breakdown of those sites by component type and geoarchaeologic unit is provided in Table 3.7 alongwith the excavator’s interpretation of the site and the presence or absence of surface and subsurfaceartifacts, features, and cultural deposits. The sample does not include any examples of single residences,possible structures, or caves/rockshelters (the Sunset Shelters Site, LA 71167, was classified as a bedrockmortar site under our typology). Artifact scatters are also under-represented in the sample, whichprobably reflects survey recommendations that these sites have limited data potential and therefore are noteligible for the National Register.Overall, the functional connotations of the component types correspond reasonable well with theexcavator’s interpretations. There is clearly considerable variability in the interpretation of artifactscatters, which indicates that this component category encompasses a variety of different activity loci,and reinforces our recommendation that priority needs to be given to developing an expandedclassification for these sites. The interpretations of miscellaneous features also vary. In all four cases, theonly features noted at the sites were charcoal/ash stains, which have no clear behavioral correlates. Incontrast, the interpretations of domestic features appear consistent with our interpretation of thecomponent type as indicating a residential occupation. The variability in the domestic featurecomponents appears to be primarily in the duration and intensity of the occupations. Similarly, theinterpretations of quarry, ring midden, and bedrock mortar sites coincides with the presence of thespecialized features emphasized in our classification. The excavator’s interpretations encompass theresidential occupations associated with these components, a fact that we recognized but elected to deemphasizein the typology. Finally, the interpretations of the residential sites also match ourclassification. For LA 3334, the Angus Site, the agreement is not surprising. The agreement for LA68188, Fox Place, likely reflects a post-excavation recoding of the NMCRIS database, however. Basedon the initial description provided in the report, this site would probably have been classified as a simplefeature in NMCRIS and as a miscellaneous feature in our expanded classification (i.e., the only visiblesurface evidence at the site were charcoal and ash stains exposed in a channel cut).We next looked at variability in the occurrence of subsurface materials among the excavated sites indifferent geoarchaeologic units. Subsurface artifacts were recovered from 42 of the 51 sites (82%) withlittle variation in the presence or absence of buried deposits among the geoarchaeologic units. Twentyseven of the sites (53%) have subsurface features and cultural deposits, but again there was no clearpatterning in their presence or absence among the geoarchaeologic units. The proportion of sites withburied features or cultural deposit is 0.40 for Unit IA and 0.67 for Unit IB, the two geoarchaeologicalunits judged most likely to have relatively well-preserved sites. The proportion is 0.75 for Unit IIA, 0.56for Unit IIB, and 0.48 for Unit III. Assuming that the sample of excavated sites is representative, theseresults suggest the geoarchaeologic units, at the scale mapped, are a poor predictor of the presence orabsence of subsurface features at individual sites.In descending order, the proportions of sites with subsurface features or cultural deposits among thecomponent type were 1.0 for residential sites and bedrock mortars, 0.75 for miscellaneous features (i.e.,sites with charcoal/ash stains), 0.67 for ring middens, 0.52 for domestic features, 0.25 for artifact scatters,and 0.0 for the quarries (the domestic features associated with these lithic procurement areas were outsideof the areas investigated during the data recovery program). Our definition of subsurface feature excludesash stained sediments or pits associated with surface-visible features such as fire-cracked rock and burnedcaliche concentrations, so the actual proportion of sites with subsurface materials is actually somewhathigher. Although estimates based on such a small sample of sites are clearly tentative, these figuressuggest that subsurface cultural sediments are not particularly rare at sites in southeastern New Mexico.The presence of buried cultural materials does not necessarily mean that the site is necessarily intact,however, as the deposits may have been eroded before being covered.3-17