PREFACE

Our next concern was therefore the kinds of data actually recovered from the sites. Specifically, welooked at three general data sets: subsistence remains, absolute dates, and major artifact classes (Table3.8). The recovery rate for pollen was low for all site categories except the long-term residences and thebedrock mortar sites, both of which had buried refuse deposits. Given the expense of processing pollensamples, it appears that their collection is best restricted to contexts that are both protected and in clearcultural contexts (e.g., buried refuse deposits, the interiors of storage features, and pollen washes onground stone and ceramic vessels). Faunal remains were recovered from slightly less than half of the sites(47%) and at five of those sites, the remains were limited to freshwater mussel shell. Again, the presenceor absence of faunal materials appears more related to preservation conditions than to component type,although the low proportions of faunal materials at quarry and ring midden sites is consistent with thespecialized functions proposed for those component categories. The excavation methods used may alsobe a factor, however. The common use of quarter rather than eighth inch screen means that significantlyfewer small bones and bone fragments would have been recovered and, at many sites, the relatively smallareas excavated by hand would militate against the recovery of faunal remains.Macrobotanical remains were recovered from the two long-term residential sites, both bedrock mortarsites, and high proportions of the ring midden and miscellaneous feature components. The proportion ofdomestic scatters yielding macrobotanical remains was lower (0.41), and none were recovered from theartifact scatters or quarries. In many cases, those remains consisted only of charred fuel wood. Althoughpoor organic preservation is undoubtedly part of the problem, improved field methods might enhancerecovery rates. From our readings, it appears that a sample of 1 to 2 liters of soil is generally collected forflotation. Logically, if macrobotanical materials are expected to be scarce owing to the poor organicpreservation at shallow open sites, then yields might be increased if larger volume of sediments wereprocessed by flotation. Ideally, the entire fill from features should be processed or at least the minimumsample size should be increased to something on the order of 5 liters of sediments. It also appears that thecollection of flotation samples has been limited to features even in cases where extensive refuse deposits(cultural soils) are present. Typically, materials cleaned from thermal features and other food scraps aremajor components of refuse deposits, so they should be heavily sampled for subsistence remains.Even with improved sampling methods, there is no guarantee that the recovery of macrobotanical remainswill significantly improve. At open sites, flotation is best suited to the recovery of woody materials,small hard seeds, or other plant parts that are preserved by charring (e.g., corn cupules). Fleshy plantparts used as food are much less likely to be recovered. Evidence of these resources is more likely to bepreserved as microfossils. Phytoliths are more likely to be preserved than pollen in many contexts, andefforts to recover them at open sites might be productive once the background research is completed todetermine which plant resources produce identifiable phytoliths. Lipid residues may also prove useful ifthe signatures of plant resources in southeastern New Mexico can be identified. One immediateapplication of these techniques would be to the analysis of microscopic plant materials embedded in thefissures of grinding stones, which may be preserved even at open sites.In contrast to the variable recovery of subsistence remains, radiocarbon dates were obtained for half of thedomestic feature and quarry components, and for all of the miscellaneous feature, ring midden, andbedrock mortar sites. No radiocarbon dates were obtained from artifact scatters, however. Except for thescatters, it therefore appears that absolute dates can be regularly obtained from open sites in southeasternNew Mexico, particularly if more use is made of AMS dating at sites yielding only small quantities ofcharcoal.3-20