- Page 3 and 4:
National Register criteria, and dat
- Page 5 and 6:
• What data sets are needed to ad
- Page 7 and 8:
Fields, may be downloaded from the
- Page 9 and 10:
Development of Southeastern New Mex
- Page 12 and 13:
Table of Contents ContinuedRadiocar
- Page 14 and 15: List of Tables ContinuedTable 3.13T
- Page 16 and 17: CHAPTER 2PHYSIOGRAPHY, GEOARCHAEOLO
- Page 18 and 19: The Llano Estacado Section or South
- Page 20 and 21: Table 2.1 Selected Geologic Referen
- Page 22 and 23: Portales ValleyThe Portales Valley
- Page 24 and 25: The thickness of surficial deposits
- Page 26 and 27: Alluvial Flats. Denudation of bedro
- Page 28 and 29: Table 2.3 Physiographic Regions and
- Page 30 and 31: Table 2.4Expected Average Condition
- Page 32 and 33: Site densities were calculated for
- Page 34 and 35: Figure 2.6. Area surveyed in square
- Page 36 and 37: 15. Based on the strong direct rela
- Page 38 and 39: REFERENCES CITEDAltschul, J. H., Se
- Page 40 and 41: 2005 Surficial Geologic Map of New
- Page 42 and 43: PREVIOUS TYPOLOGIESA number of typo
- Page 44 and 45: Expectation for quarry sites and to
- Page 46 and 47: As shown in Table 3.2, artifact sca
- Page 48 and 49: Table 3.3 Rank ordering of feature
- Page 50 and 51: Figure 3.2features.Histogram showin
- Page 52 and 53: Table 3.5Expanded Component Types (
- Page 54 and 55: 11. cave - a natural hollow or open
- Page 56 and 57: Ring Midden - a general donut-shape
- Page 58 and 59: Table 3.7Occurrences of Surface and
- Page 60 and 61: Our next concern was therefore the
- Page 62 and 63: SITETYPE/GEOARCH LANO SUBSISTENCE R
- Page 66 and 67: ecause we don’t know how many sit
- Page 68 and 69: Table 3.10 Proportional Area, Surve
- Page 70 and 71: Table 3.11 Distribution of Paleoind
- Page 72 and 73: Figure 3.53-32
- Page 74 and 75: Figure 3.63-34
- Page 76 and 77: Figure 3.73-36
- Page 78 and 79: Not surprisingly, the distribution
- Page 80 and 81: Table 3.15 Distribution of Unknown
- Page 82 and 83: Pielou, E. C.1969 An Introduction t
- Page 84 and 85: Wiseman, Regge N.1996 Corn Camp and
- Page 86 and 87: and projectile point chronologies c
- Page 88 and 89: Folsom is also reasonably well date
- Page 90 and 91: The Portales Complex is no longer v
- Page 92 and 93: described by some authors in the lo
- Page 94 and 95: Based on the available evidence, th
- Page 96 and 97: CeramicIn contrast to the Archaic,
- Page 98 and 99: this feature type were observed. On
- Page 100 and 101: Except for Brantley Reservoir, all
- Page 102 and 103: • Did agricultural groups eventua
- Page 104 and 105: The two complexes are distinguished
- Page 106 and 107: the Apaches. Based on their locatio
- Page 108 and 109: PaleoindianFor the Paleoindian peri
- Page 110 and 111: For Sebastian and Larralde, the que
- Page 112 and 113: Bohrer’s interpretation of the Fr
- Page 114 and 115:
As Sebastian and Larralde recognize
- Page 116 and 117:
In the Brantley Reservoir area of t
- Page 118 and 119:
small game. Some rodents may also h
- Page 120 and 121:
partly dependent on agriculture aft
- Page 122 and 123:
with the procurement of some wild r
- Page 124 and 125:
The last question is fundamental to
- Page 126 and 127:
areas, and the simultaneous presenc
- Page 128 and 129:
• what subsistence resources othe
- Page 130 and 131:
The labor invested in the construct
- Page 132 and 133:
Once site types are defined, the se
- Page 134 and 135:
PaleoindianAs discussed previously,
- Page 136 and 137:
From the above discussion, then, th
- Page 138 and 139:
Acquisition of the horse would have
- Page 140 and 141:
In using modern environmental data
- Page 142 and 143:
Table 4.1 Priority General Question
- Page 144 and 145:
Chronology and Culture History Subs
- Page 146 and 147:
Table 4.3. General question posed u
- Page 148 and 149:
1983 In Pursuit of the Past. Thames
- Page 150 and 151:
Gamble, C. S. and W. A. Boismier (e
- Page 152 and 153:
1997 Analysis of Paleoindian Bonbed
- Page 154 and 155:
1999 Comments on the Prehistory of
- Page 156 and 157:
Shelley, Phillip H.1994 A Geoarchae
- Page 158 and 159:
2000 Crosby Draw and River Camp: Co
- Page 160 and 161:
NMCRIS data indicate that survey co
- Page 162 and 163:
Addressing the Research QuestionsTh
- Page 164 and 165:
There are two major shortcomings to
- Page 166 and 167:
Artifact assemblages need to be des
- Page 168 and 169:
As with the selection of sites, the
- Page 170 and 171:
Architectural Sites(Single Residenc
- Page 172 and 173:
Based on the discussion of regional
- Page 174 and 175:
If Unit 1 deposits are exposed, the
- Page 176 and 177:
few artifacts are recovered and the
- Page 178 and 179:
2. Large artifacts should be tagged
- Page 180 and 181:
h. Subfloor tests will be dug to de
- Page 182 and 183:
. 1 x 1 m grids and/or backhoe tren
- Page 184 and 185:
Geophysical Remote SensingGeophysic
- Page 186 and 187:
1987 Man the Hunted: Determinants o
- Page 188 and 189:
CHRONOLOGICAL SAMPLINGGeneral Guide
- Page 190 and 191:
a. Conversions of Radiocarbon Years
- Page 192 and 193:
f. Samples should not be exposed to
- Page 194 and 195:
LITHIC ARTIFACT ANALYSISThe goals o
- Page 196 and 197:
24Manuport,tabular25 GroundstoneNon
- Page 198 and 199:
Use wear codes, terms and descripti
- Page 200 and 201:
B. Mano1. Type2. Material type3. Or
- Page 202 and 203:
References CitedAcklen, John C., Ma
- Page 204 and 205:
PROPOSED LITHIC MATERIAL CODE SHEET
- Page 206 and 207:
108 light gray with profuse red (26
- Page 208 and 209:
CERAMIC ANALYSISThe goals of the ce
- Page 210 and 211:
Jornada Red TooledJornada Corrugate
- Page 212 and 213:
Santa Fe Black-on-whiteGalisteo Bla
- Page 214 and 215:
VI. Whole Vessels1. Vessel height2.
- Page 216 and 217:
Data NeedsA. Usage of more sophisti
- Page 218 and 219:
5. The determination to wash the fa
- Page 220 and 221:
ARCHEOBOTANICAL STUDIES(from Dean 2
- Page 222 and 223:
V. Sample Size and NumberA. A recom
- Page 224 and 225:
B. Data return is dependent upon pr
- Page 226 and 227:
Or submit the vessel for a pollen w
- Page 228 and 229:
# FlotationSamples Flotation Sample
- Page 230:
might include “quids”, sandals,