a tale of two sites. functional site differentiation and lithic technology during the late pithouse...

8/12/2019 A tale of two sites. Functional site differentiation and lithic technology during the Late Pithouse period in the Mimbres area of Southwestern New Mexico.PDF

1/14

A tale of two sites: Functional site differentiation and lithic technology duringthe Late Pithouse period in the Mimbres area of Southwestern New Mexico

Bernard A. Schriever a , , Matthew Taliaferro b , Barbara J. Roth ca Gila National Forest, 206 Beech Street, Trinidad, CO 81082, USAb Department of Anthropology, University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712, USAc Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada Las Vegas, 4505 S. Maryland Pkwy Mailstop 455003, Las Vegas, NV 89154-5003, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 2 February 2010Revision received 23 September 2010Available online 20 January 2011

Keywords:MobilityLithic technologyProcurementEconomicSubsistenceResidentialPithouseMimbresMogollon

a b s t r a c t

The raw materials from which stone tools are made can provide considerable information relevant tobehavioral variation within a prehistoric population. By examining the stone used for tools from twodifferent types of Late Pithouse period (A.D. 5501000) residential sites from the Mimbres Mogollon areaof Southwestern New Mexico, this paper illustrates how understanding the lithic landscape of a regionprovides a means to assess behavioral variation in stone procurement practices. The analysis indicatesthat the differences in mobility and economic pursuits between longer-term residential sites containingpit structures and a shorter-term seasonal residential site with ephemeral architecture structured theraw material procurement practices of sites occupants. Pit structure sites were focused on agriculturalpursuits and used a technology that centered on the production of informal tools fashioned from locallyavailable raw materials. The seasonal residential site focused on wild resources and evidenced greaterreliance on formal tool production using raw materials acquired from beyond the immediate vicinityof the site. Despite increasing sedentism and agricultural dependence of the regions population, someportion of the population exercised seasonal mobility strategies and associated technological andbehavioral practices more typical of hunting and gathering populations, suggesting a diverse socio-

economic system within the region. 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Introduction

A valuable, but often overlooked, property inherent in a piece of stone is information about its place of origin ( Odell, 2000, p. 272 ).Knowledge of the geological distribution of specic stone and thelocalities from which it was acquired provides the means to ad-dress a wide range of research topics, including the technologicalstrategies, subsistence practices, exchange relationships, and socialorganization of past people ( Andrefsky, 2008; Odell, 2000, 2001 ).For example, does the distribution of particular stone material inthe archaeological record relate to the preferential use of materialfor specic purposes, resource control and exchange relationships,mobility strategies, or some combination of these?

Unfortunately, practical constraints often limit knowledge of the distribution of lithic raw materials and its procurementlocalities. While geologic maps can be used to identify the nearestpotential sources of stone materials, the usefulness of such infor-mation is often limited. Only by establishing theactual distributionof material sources and preferably specic locales of procurement

can the implications of the distribution of stone material in thearchaeological record be evaluated ( Ericson, 1984, p. 5; Wyckoff,2005 ). Depending on the uniqueness of a stone materialor the abil-ity to reliably discriminate between different materials, this taskcan require extensive survey and the evaluation of resources with-in a vast area, which may be impractical given the economic andtemporal constraints with which researchers often deal. However,if our goals are to accurately infer past human behaviors, especiallyrelated to lithic source use, it is essential to become familiar withthe lithic landscape.

In this paper, we address the role of raw material availabilityand its impact on lithic assemblage variability using a case studyfrom the Mimbres Mogollon region of southwest New Mexico.We compare lithic assemblages from two types of Late Pithouseperiod (A.D. 5501000) residential sites to illustrate howknowledge of stone procurement localities can illuminate behav-ioral differences between short and long duration residentialoccupations. Previous studies of Mimbres Late Pithouse periodstone procurement have only involved pit structure sites that rep-resent long duration occupations focused on agricultural pursuits(Dockall, 1991; Nelson, 1981 ). Other types of sites, includingresidential sites lacking pit structures, are present in the region,and these are generally considered to represent short-term

0278-4165/$ - see front matter 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi: 10.1016/j.jaa.2010.12.001

Corresponding author.E-mail address: [email protected] (B.A. Schriever).

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 30 (2011) 102115

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology

j o u r na l h om e p a ge : www.e l s e v i e r. c om / l oc a t e / j a a
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2010.12.001mailto:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2010.12.001http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02784165http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jaahttp://www.elsevier.com/locate/jaahttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02784165http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2010.12.001mailto:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2010.12.001


2/14

seasonal occupations directed at other economic or social activitiessuch as gathering desert resources. Specically, this study investi-gates howthe differences in economic pursuits practiced by peopleat pit structure sites occupied for long periods and those of contemporary seasonally occupied residential sites differed inrelation to lithic raw material procurement and their organizationof lithic technology.

Our primary goal is to determine if lithic technology wasorganized similarly throughout the Mimbres area regardless of the site setting, function, and occupation duration. Or, did thediffering economic pursuits at seasonally occupied sites lead todifferent ways of organizing lithic technology, as would beexpected based on studies of foraging groups ( Binford, 1979; Joneset al., 2003; Kelly, 1995; Shott, 1986 )? This study seeks to answerthese questions by drawing upon the excavated assemblage fromthe Florida Mountain site (LA18839), a seasonally occupied

residential site located outside Deming, New Mexico, and the re-sults of an opportunistic catchment survey around the site(Fig. 1 ). By comparing the Florida Mountain site assemblage withdata from contemporaneous pit structure sites, we can addresswhether the organization of lithic technology at residential sitesvary based on the economic focus of the sites occupants.

Cultural setting

The cultural developments within the Mimbres Mogollon re-gion mirror those occurring throughout much of the greater south-western United States. Through time, people in the region adoptedagriculture and gradually increased their dependence on it.Residential mobility decreased over time, and groups beganaggregating into larger villages, with residential pit structureseventually replaced by pueblos. These trends all reect peoples

Fig. 1. Location of sites discussed in text.

B.A. Schriever et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 30 (2011) 102115 103


3/14

changing life ways as they accommodated the growing labordemands of agricultural intensication, increasing population,and resource stress ( Creel and Anyon, 2003; Hegmon, 2002;Minnis, 1985 ). In the Mimbres region, the Late Pithouse period rep-resents that pivotal time during which many of these changesoccurred.

During the Late Pithouse period, Mimbres family groups lived indomestic pit structures that are essentially roofed pits excavatedinto the ground. While the available data are sparse until the latterhalf of the period, there were probably a few co-resident familiesliving at each site, and these occupants built and constructedspecialized pit structures to serve as communal space ( Creel andAnyon, 2003 ). Mimbres Late Pithouse period pit structure occupa-tions are characteristically located near the best potential agricul-tural land and exhibit ample evidence for the production,preparation and storage of cultigens ( Minnis, 1985 ). Initially, peo-ple occupied these sites seasonally, probably during the wintermonths when they would subsist on stored agricultural products(Schriever, 2002 ). People at pit structure sites also hunted andgathered wild resources, but through time they became less resi-dentially mobile and more dependent on agricultural products(Diehl, 1996; Diehl and Minnis, 2001; Minnis, 1985 ).

Unfortunately, little is known about where Mimbres groupswere and how they lived when not in residence at the pit structuresites. Surveys and excavations in the Mimbres region have beenfocused primarily along the regions major rivers and their tribu-taries, where pithouse sites are virtually the only type of site forthe period ( Lekson, 1992; Schriever and Holcomb, 2004 ). Limitedsurveys in other environmental settings have been conducted inthe region, and these surveys have identied sites dating to theLate Pithouse period ( Blake and Narod, 1977; Kemrer, 2003;Lekson, 1992 ). Based on the few excavated sites in these othersettings ( Minnis and Wormser, 1984 ; Timothy Kearns personalcommunication, 2003), the occupations exhibit less investmentin architecture and site maintenance, suggesting that people antic-ipated occupying them for shorter durations than pit structuresites.

The evidence from one of these short-duration occupations, theFlorida Mountain site ( Schriever, 2002, 2010 ), also suggests thatthe purposes of these sites differed from those of pit structuresites.While pit structure sites are typically associated with the best ara-ble lands within the region and contain considerable evidence forthe use of agricultural products, the locations of sites like FloridaMountain are not conducive to agriculture. Many of these short-term occupation sites are located in the lower desert elevationsof the region where agriculture is only possible through irrigation.There is no evidence for irrigation features or even featuresassociated with ak-chin techniques associated with these sites(Schriever, 2002 ). Rather, they appear to be best suited for provid-ing access to seasonal game and wild plant resources.

Lithic technology and raw material availability

Lithic technology offers insights into a multitude of social prac-tices. From a technological organization perspective, analyses of lithic assemblages have been used to make inferences about prac-tices as diverse as mobility strategies, risk management, designoptimality, semiotic signaling, and social complexity ( Andrefsky,1994; Bamforth, 1991; Bamforth and Bleed, 1997; Barton, 1997;Bleed, 1986; Cowan, 1999; Daniel, 2001; Kelly, 1988; Kuhn,1991; Nelson, 1991; Odell, 1998; Parry and Kelly, 1987; Sackett,1982; Shafer and Hester, 1983; Tomka, 2001; Torrence, 1983;Weissner, 1983 ). The operational sequence for lithic material be-

gins with the procurement of raw material suitable for producingthe desired end product. As this statement implies, a preconcep-

tion of the future tools use is a determining factor in the selectionof the material used in its manufacture. Other technological con-straints such as reliability, maintainability, versatility, exibility,and transportability will likewise be contributing factors in theselection of adequate materials ( Bleed, 1986; Kelly, 1988; Nelson,1991; Parry and Kelly, 1987 ).

The availability of suitable raw material is an important factorinuencing the technological strategy used by social groups(Andrefsky, 1994; Binford, 1979, 1980; Brantingham and Kuhn,2001; Nelson, 1991; Parry and Kelly, 1987; Roth and Dibble,1998; Wenzel and Shelley, 2001). A different technological strategywould be implemented in areas where suitable raw materials werepresent throughout the landscape when compared to an areawhere suitable raw materials were present in only a few selectlocalities ( Andrefsky, 1994; Brantingham and Kuhn, 2001; Daniel,2001; Kuhn, 1991 ).

Binfords early formulation of the forager and collector conceptscarried expectations for the utilization of tool stone based on itsavailability. Generally, an expedient technology will be practicedin areas where rawmaterials are abundant and resources are hom-ogenously dispersed and predictable. Where raw materials arescarce and resources are likewise distributed in an unpredictable,patchy manner, a curated technology is likely to be practiced(Binford, 1979, 1980). Using this line of rationale, Parry and Kelly(1987) conducted a comparative analysis of various groups practic-ing different mobility and subsistence strategies. Their researchshowed that there were correlations between sedentary popula-tions and expedient technologies, as well as between groupspracticing maize horticulture and using an expedient technology(Parry and Kelly, 1987 ).

Recently this simplistic dichotomy of expedient and curatedtechnologies has come to the forefront of discussions concerningthe organization of lithic technologies ( Andrefsky, 2008, 2009;Bamforth, 1986; Nash, 1996; Odell, 1996 ). Many researchers nowview curation along a spectrum that reects a tools actual usein relation to its maximum potential use ( Andrefsky, 2009, p.71 ). Thus all tools are located along a spectrum ranging from lowto high use in relation to maximum potential use. Despite thisreformulation of the curation concept, researchers agree that thereare multiple factors that inuence lithic technological organiza-tion, reduction strategies, and tool use, with one of the most signif-icant being raw material availability.

Previous investigations of Late Pithouse period stoneprocurement in The Mimbres region

Few specic locations for stone procurement (mines or quar-ries) have been reported in the Mimbres area ( Dockall, 1990;Fitting, 1971; Fitting and Stone, 1969; Kemrer, 2003 ). Further,

lithic studies in the region typically note the potential geologicsources of raw materials without thoroughly investigating the spe-cic distributions of these material sources or whether specicprocurement locales, in fact, exist ( Dockall, 1991; Fitting, 1972;Schriever, 2002; Turnbow et al., 2000 ). The diverse geology of theregion ( Mack, 1997 ) and the perception that alluvium and streamsediment loads mirror this diversity have led many researchersto simply assume that much of the material used for tool stonewas locally available at sites situated in or near alluvial settings.

There are only two detailed studies of stone procurementrelated to the Late Pithouse period in the Mimbres region ( Dockall,1991; Nelson, 1981 ). Both of these studies deal with pit structuresites located along the Mimbres River that were involved in agri-cultural subsistence pursuits. Nelsons (1981) technological analy-

sis focused on stone assemblages from multi-component andsingle component pithouse and pueblo sites stretching up the

104 B.A. Schriever et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 30 (2011) 102115


4/14

Mimbres Valley from the desert lowlands in the south to the pon-derosa pine forests in the mountains to the north. As part of thisanalysis, she also conducted a limited catchment survey to identifystone sources available within a 1= 4 mile radius of each site, includ-ing the alluvium of the river and major side drainages (Nelson per-sonal communication, 2005). With respect to the Late Pithouseperiod, she found that lithic technology at the investigated siteswas primarily expedient and based on coarse-grained stone pro-cured from the immediate vicinity of the sites ( Table 1 ). Only for-mal chipped stone tools such as projectile points were made of materials from non-local sources (e.g. obsidian), which were avail-able in areas, located a considerable distance from sites (tens of kilometers).

Likewise, Dockall (1991) conducted a technological study of thechipped stone assemblage at NAN Ruin that included a 2 km-radiuscatchment survey to locate stone resources. While NAN Ruin is amulticomponent site with both Late Pithouse and Classic Mimbresperiod occupations, the excavated contexts were adequate to allowDockall to segregate archaeological materials by time periods andexamine technological changes through time ( Dockall, 1991 ). Forthe Late Pithouse period, he found that lithic technology wasprimarily expedient, and that it was based on the use of coarse-grained stone raw materials derived from local alluvium andbedrock outcrops located within a few kilometers of the site(Table 2 ). Again, all of the stone originating from beyond this rangewas associated with formal tools used for specic tasks, such asobsidian used for projectile points and greenstone used for axes.

These studies agree that, except for the rare formal tools,Mimbres stone technology at Late Pithouse period pit structuresites was expedient and based on the abundant coarse-grainedmaterials procured within a few kilometers of sites. Other studiesthat have considered stone use within the Mimbres region havealso noted that distance to source is an important factor in the var-iability of lithic assemblages ( Findlow and Bolognese, 1984; Fittingand Stone, 1969 ). Further, Dockall, (1991, p. 154) critiques previousstudies (e.g. Lekson, 1990 and Nelson, 1981 ) that suggest variabil-ity in Mimbres lithic assemblages reects temporal changes intechnology and raw material use associated with subsistencechanges. Rather, he argues that the variability in assemblages is ex-plained as a function of the geological availability and proximity of raw materials.

Given the close proximity to abundant sources of stone, theexpedient nature of Mimbres technology is expected ( Andrefsky,1994; Brantingham et al., 2000; Daniel, 2001; Kuhn, 1991; Nelson,1991 ). The focus on the production of informal tools may also be

related to the poor quality of locally available materials. The abun-dance of raw materials allowed knappers to generate adequateake tools for most tasks. Formal tool production could thus bereserved for higher quality raw materials procured from moredistant sources.

Previous research on Mimbres stone procurement indicates thatstone procurement at Mimbres Late Pithouse period residentialoccupationsalong the Mimbres River was conditioned by the avail-ability and proximity of raw materials. At pithouse residential sitesfocused on agricultural pursuits, stone procurement was directedat obtaining coarse-grained materials from sources within a fewkilometers to support lithic production dominated by informal toolproduction.

If Mimbres technological strategies were conservative and if there were few differences in raw material availability and accessamong sites, we could expect that the same stone procurementpractices exhibited at Mimbres Late Pithouse period residentialsites would be practiced at all Late Pithouse period sites, regardlessof differences in the economic focus of those sites. Alternatively, itis possible that sites focused on hunting and gathering may exhibitmore careful selection of stone for tools that would lead to greateruse of more distant resources than at agriculturally focused pitstructure sites, tied to both differences in economic pursuits andoccupation duration.

No previous studies of stone use have been conducted at non-pit structure sites in the Mimbres region. However, a study of two contemporary Jornada Mogollon sites from the desert settingon the eastern piedmont of the Franklin Mountains near El Pasois comparable. Jornada Mogollon groups practiced some agricul-ture, but they were less dependent on cultigens than people inthe Mimbres area. The site occupants invested less in architectureand site maintenance than groups in the Mimbres River Valley, andthey were more seasonally mobile ( Miller, 1989; Whalen, 1994 ).Miller (1989) found that over half of the stone materials in thearchaeological assemblages from the two sites were present asraw material in the alluvium of the piedmont. However, ne-grained materials, particularly cherts, accounted for a considerableportion of the archaeological assemblages ( Dockall, 1999a ) butwere rare in the piedmont alluvium. The results suggest that toolstone selection required the procurement of materials from outsidethe immediate environs of the site.

Stone availability and the Florida Mountain site

The Florida Mountain site ( Minnis and Wormser, 1984;Schriever, 2002 ) provides the opportunity to investigate whetherstone procurement practices of Mimbres Late Pithouse period peo-ple varied as a result of differences in site function and occupationduration. The site is a seasonal residence located about midway

along on the western piedmont of the Florida Mountains ( Fig. 2 ).It is situated in the Lower Chihuahuan ecological zone, which istypied by desert scrub-brush vegetation. The surrounding soilsare unsuitable for cultivation without irrigation, and the nearestreliablewater supply is over 3 km to the north, making agriculturalproduction untenable ( Neher and Buchanan, 1980 ). This settingdiffers from contemporary pit structure villages, which are typi-cally located along major rivers and their tributaries adjacent toexpanses of arable land ( Blake et al., 1986; Minnis, 1980 ).

The Florida Mountain site consists of a large artifact scatter witheight circular stone clusters ( Fig. 3 ). The architecture at the sitediffers considerably from that of contemporary residential pitstructures that required considerable costs in labor, time, andmaterials to construct. The excavators noted no evidence of oors,

postholes, or superstructures within the excavated structures(Schriever, 2002 ). Only a few features were encountered during

Table 1

Galaz lithic materials and distance to sources.

Number Within 3 km 320km >20 km

CoarseBasalt 3874 XRhyolite 438 XQuartzite 118 XGreenstone 14 XOther local and siltstone 21 X

FineChalcedony 1538 XChert 99 X Jasper 180 XGlassy rhyolite 41 XOther exotic 3 XObsidian 70 X

Total 6396 6323 3 70

Percent coarse 69.81Percent ne 29.55Percent distance 98.86 0.05 1.09



5/14


6/14

excavation at the site: one possible hearth in Rock Cluster 5, a largepit feature under a portion of Rock Cluster 1, two paved circularrock areas of unknown function, and a linear rock alignment.However, the recovered artifact assemblage consists of a diversearray of objects including thousands of sherds, chipped and groundstone, and animal bone fragments. Minnis and Wormser (1984, p.244) noted that the diverse assemblage from the site mirrors thatfrom contemporary pit structure villages such as Harris (Haury,1936) and Galaz ( Anyon and LeBlanc, 1984 ), suggesting that theoccupants of the Florida Mountain site may not have led signi-cantly different lives from contemporary inhabitants along theoodplain of the Mimbres River. While this may be true regardingthe social life and daily practices of the site occupants, the lithicassemblage indicates behavioral differences related to the eco-nomic activities pursued from the site.

Investigation into the mobility strategy represented at the sitesuggested that three to six contemporaneous households occupiedthe site at least twice during the Late Pithouse period ( Schriever,2002 ). The ephemeral architecture, lack of features includinghearths, and informal refuse disposal across the site indicated thatthe site was primarily occupied during non-winter months andmost likely only for a single season. In addition, the primary pur-pose for the sites occupation was to access wild resources. Thelarge faunal assemblage recovered from the site consisted exclu-sively of economically important species (such as cottontail, jack-rabbit, pronghorn, and deer) ( Schmidt, 2002 ), indicating that thesites inhabitants practiced a considerable amount of hunting.The breakage patterns of most of the 28 broken projectile pointsare consistent with use as hunting tools (see Dockall, 1999b; Odell,

1981 ; Odell and Cowan, 1986). Wild plant remains, includingcheno-ams (chenopodium, amaranthus), tansy mustard ( Descurai-

nia spp.), dropseed ( Sporobolus spp.), and walnut ( Juglans majo r),were present in the processed otation samples, but no cultigenswere recovered. Finally, the ground stone assemblage is made upof at/concave and basin metates, lacking the trough metates reg-ularly associated with the processing of cultigens.

Stone procurement at the Florida Mountain site

The lithic assemblage used in this study came from excavatedcontexts at the Florida Mountain site. The excavation strategy di-vided the site into three sample strata: (1) stone concentrations,(2) the areas between stone concentrations, and (3) the site periph-ery ( Minnis and Wormser, 1984; Schriever, 2002 ). Only 1.2%(81.4 m 2 ) of the total site area (6537.9 m 2 ) was excavated. Excava-

tions focused on the area within rock structures (47.9 m2) and the

areas between them (28.5 m 2), with limited testing around the siteperiphery (5 m 2). The data presented here derives from 61 of the82 excavated units and includes 40 of the 48 units within struc-tures, 18 of the 31 units between structures, and all ve of theunits around the site periphery ( Schriever, 2002 ).

Attributes recorded during the analysis of lithics from the siteincluded raw material, cortex, weight, and tool type. Raw materialswere divided into categories based on texture, color, and the sizeand proportion of phenocrysts. Cortical variation was recordedusing four categories: primary (akes with 100% of the dorsal sur-face covered in cortex), secondary (akes with 99% to no cortexcovering the dorsal surface), and non-cortical/tertiary (akes lack-ing any cortex on their dorsal surface). Tool type categories include

projectile points/hafted bifaces, bifaces that lack hafting attributes,uniface tools (akes with edges modied in a patterned manner),

Fig. 3. Map of Florida Mountain site. The outer dashed line delimits extent of site. The inner dashed line delimits sample strata 2, the area between rock clusters.



7/14

modied akes (akes exhibiting minimal to moderate edge mod-ication), and cores.

A great diversity of material types is present in the chippedstone from the site ( Table 3 ). Based on a geologic study of the Flor-ida Mountains ( Clemons, 1998 ), potential sources for all of thematerials at the Florida Mountain site are represented in the com-plex amalgamation of metamorphic, igneous, and sedimentaryrocks that compose the Florida and the Little Florida Mountains(Fig. 4 ). While this suggests that most of the raw materials wereavailable locally, it should not simply be assumed to be the case.Source locations were thus investigated to determine if materialswere, in fact, locally available.

To begin investigating the stone procurement practices of thesites occupants, a transect survey was conducted along the pied-mont beginning close to the western base of the Florida Mountainsin Mahoney Park and proceeding west for approximately 5 km tothe point where the piedmont becomes obscured by dunes(Fig. 4 ). The transect was placed to pass close to the Florida Moun-tain site and represents one of the longest potential study sectionsacross the piedmont at any point around the Florida Mountains.The length of the transect provided the opportunity to evaluatechanges in the distribution of stone resources and their quantitiesalong the piedmont slope. This allowed for an evaluation of the ex-tent to which material used at the site was readily available in thealluvium of the surrounding piedmont.

At six locales along this transect, samples of raw materials, eachconsisting of 150 stones, were recorded. These sampling localeswere spaced at 1000-m intervals. At each transect sample location,every piece of stone within an expanding radius circle was re-corded until the minimum count of 150 stones was reached. Foreach stone in a sample, the material type, size, weight, color, andcortex characteristics were recorded. A raw material type collec-tion was used to compare specimens observed in the eld withknown rock samples. Measurements of the stone were taken usingdigital calipers, and weights were taken using a digital scale thathad an upper weight limit of 5000 g. For the few stones that ex-ceeded the scales upper limit, a measurement of 5000+ gramswas recorded.

Twelve different material types were represented in the 902analyzed stones from the six samples ( Table 4 ). The majority( 96%) of the materials recorded in the samples were medium-to very coarse-grained with the remaining materials ne- tomedium-grained or vesicular. From a tool stone perspective, thene- to medium-grained materials in the six samples would beconsidered coarse for knapping purposes. There were no ne-grained cryptocrystalline materials encountered at the samplinglocalities.

As expected, the lithologies of the materials recorded in thesamples are consistent with the upslope bedrock sources, the onlyexception being a piece of vesicular basalt in Sample 6. Based onthe geologic map of the upslope bedrock sources ( Clemons, 1998 :Sheet 1b), it is not surprising that granite/syenite represents over80% of the samples and is the most common rock type at each sam-pling locale ( Fig. 5 ). The relatively low proportion of limestone(8.3%) in the samples is somewhat surprising given the presenceof considerable exposures of limestone bedrock sources near theupslope transect initiation point. The dearth of other materials inthe samples is consistent with the limited potential bedrocksources for these materials upslope.

Comparing the results of the transect survey to the FloridaMountain stone assemblage, it is readily apparent that the pro-curement practices at the site are different than those at contem-porary pit structure sites in the Mimbres Valley. At the FloridaMountain site, ne-grained material is more prevalent than wouldbe expected given the material types identied in the sampletransect, and most of the lithic assemblage derives from sourcesover 3 km away from the site. Of the chipped stone materials pres-ent at the site ( Table 3 ), it is unlikely that any of the ne-grainedcryptocrystalline materials were from the piedmont alluvium.Given the amount of these materials present, particularly chert(agates), it could be expected that at least a few pieces of rawmaterial would have been recorded in the transect samples if thesematerials were procured from the alluvium surrounding the site.Two pieces of quartzite were recorded in the transect samples,but the low incidence of this material within the alluvium doesnot seem sufcient to account for the fact that one-quarter of thechipped stone assemblage from the site is quartzite. Further, thesetwo pieces differ in color and texture from the quartzite present inthe lithic assemblage. Basalt also had a low occurrence in the tran-sect samples, suggesting that much of the basalt from the FloridaMountain site did not derive from the piedmont alluvium. Thesame can be inferred for the rhyolite and andesite materials repre-sented in the lithic assemblage. The single granite piece canreasonably be assumed as local, whereas the Type A variety of rhyolite, schist, siliceous siltstone, and rhyolitic tuff do not derivefrom the piedmont alluvium.

With respect to the other igneous category, reanalysis of these materials after completing one of the many reconnaissancetrips around the Florida Mountains found most of the items to bethe microcrystalline rhyolite that forms the White Hills ( Schriever,2002 ). These hills protrude through the western portion of theFlorida Mountain piedmont some 2.4 km to the northwest of thesite ( Fig. 2 ), making them a local source of stone. Large akes,tested cobbles, and both unstandardized and bifacial cores were

Table 3

LA18839 lithic materials, distance to sources, and cortical variation on akes.

Number Within 3 km 320 km >20 km Primary Secondary Non-cortex Total

CoarseAndesite/Basalt 296 X 26 91 179 296Rhyolite 149 X 15 37 97 149Quartzite 746 X a 23 177 546 746Type A 241 X 8 79 154 241Other 42 X 1 13 28 42

FineChalcedony 112 X 1 39 72 112Chert (agate) 894 X 34 307 553 894 Jasper 194 X 7 41 146 194Obsidian 21 X 0 8 13 21Total 2695 487 2187 21 2695% Coarse 54.69 2.71 14.73 37.25% Fine 45.31 1.56 14.66 29.09% Distance 18.07 81.15 0.78

a Asumes quartzite derives from somewhere in the Florida Mountains, southern Cookes range, or the Tres Hemanas range.



8/14


9/14

along with the granite, other igneous (White Hills rhyolite), andquartz were all acquired from the piedmont alluvium, togetherthey represent only about 18% of the lithic assemblage from thesite. Given that the Florida Mountain site is surrounded by pied-mont alluvium for at least 3 km in any direction, it is clear thatthe majority of the lithic material was procured from sources notin the immediate vicinity of the site.

Unfortunately, the knowledge of the distribution of stonesources in the Florida Mountains is not yet sufcient to condentlyinfer the distance from which all stone materials in the siteassemblage were procured. However, personal reconnaissanceand professional survey of the surrounding area ( Gilman et al.,2007, 2009; Schriever, 2004 ) have allowed for an evaluation of the distribution and use of various stone resources in the FloridaMountains. Together, this work provides a 512 km catchmentaround the Florida Mountain site. At each location visited, the areawas surveyed in an effort to locate bedrock exposures and second-ary deposits of stone resources. The stone resources present werethen evaluated for their potential use as tool stone based on thematerials size, texture, fracture characteristics, and evidence of an-

cient procurement. Samples of materials were collected for addi-tional analysis.

As a result of this work, a number of stone sources present inarchaeological assemblages from sites around the FloridaMountains were located and evaluated. Chalcedony, jasper, agate,perlitic obsidian, and other ne-grained volcanic and hydrother-mally altered stone occur in the rhyolite and tuff beds exposedalong the southern portion of the Little Florida Mountains(Fig. 4 ) some 10 km away from the Florida Mountain site (see Cle-mons, 1998, pp. 4647 ). There is ample evidence for ancient pro-curement activity in this area, including tested cobbles, vastamounts of debitage, isolated tools, and even lithic reductionsites. Evidence that the inhabitants of the Florida Mountain siteused these sources was incidentally provided through the sourc-ing of obsidian from the site. One piece of obsidian in the assem-blage came from the perlitic obsidian zones that are exposed inthe southern Little Florida Mountains. While other sources of stone may also have been accessed, it seems reasonable to sug-gest that this area represents the source for much of the jasper,chalcedony, ner-grained rhyolite, and chert (agate) present inthe site assemblage.

Basalt is also relatively common as clasts in formations andalluvium in the northern Florida Mountains. Therefore, it couldeasily have been procured from many locations including thosein the southern Little Florida Mountains. Unfortunately, the widearea where this material is available plus the regular evidence thatpeople procured it wherever it was located precludes being able toidentify the precise location where the Florida Mountain site occu-pants obtained their basalt. However, basalt does not occur withfrequency within a 4 km range of the site.

The only exposure of Type A rhyolite is located on the easternside of the Florida Mountains in the White Dome Well area, about4 km over the mountains to the east of the Florida Mountain site(see Fig. 2 ). This material occurs naturally throughout this areaas boulders and cobbles in the gravels of the piedmont surface.There was considerable evidence of ancient procurement associ-ated with the material. A thin discontinuous scatter of lithic akesand debitage covers the entire piedmont. The vast assemblage of the area and lack of nearby sites suggest it represents an informallithic procurement and reduction zone.

Table 4

Material types of all rocks recorded from the six transect samples near the oridamountain site.

Stone material Number Percent Grain size

Granite or syenite 749 83.0 Coarse to very coarseLimestone 75 8.3 MediumAndesite (altered) 35 3.9 MediumRhyolite 17 1.9 Fine to medium

Basalt 13 1.4 FineSandstone 6 0.7 MediumHornfels 2 0.2 MediumQuartzite 2 0.2 FineIgneous 1 0.1 VesicularQuartz 1 0.1 CrystallineVesicular basalt 1 0.1 Vesicular

Total 902 100

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample 5 Sample 6

95.45 96.62 69.33 88.00 68.00 80.67

P e r c e n

t o f s a m p

l e

Granite or Syenite Limestone Andesite (altered) Rhyolite

Basalt Sandstone Hornfel Quartzite

Igneous Quartz Vesicular Basalt

Fig. 5. Proportions of stone material in transect samples.



10/14

Although no sources of quartzite were located during the studyand none are reported in the geologic description of the mountains(Clemons, 1998 ), the presence of a few pieces in the piedmont allu-vium indicates that a bedrock source may exist somewhere in theFlorida Mountains. Potential sources for quartzite could be theupslope siliceous sandstones of the Bliss Formation ( Fig. 4 ), partic-ularly if there is any metamorphism due to faulting or intrusions.

The sources for the obsidian artifacts from the Florida Mountainsite are widely distributed across the region ( Shackley, 2004 )(Table 5 ). The Sierra Fresnal and Los Jageyes sources located 50to 100 km away in northwestern Chihuahua comprise over half the sample. Mule Creek localities and the Blue/San Francisco Riversources along the New MexicoArizona border, some 100150 kmdistance, make up nearly one-quarter of the sample. Four speci-mens represent the Antelope Wells source, 90 km to the south-west. The single piece from the Mount Taylor source likelyoriginated from the Rio Grande alluviums as close as 10 km theeast. As noted earlier, one piece of Florida Mountain perlite fromthe Little Florida Mountains was present. Thus, the majority of the obsidian (75%) derives from sources between 50 km and100 km away to the south and southwest, while all but two of the remaining items come from sources over 100 km to thenorthwest.

The results of this study support the suggestion made earlier inthis paper and elsewhere ( Schriever, 2002 ) that much of the mate-rial used by the areas inhabitants could have been availablewithinthe mountains and surrounding alluvial deposits. However, the re-sults also suggest that these resources are not ubiquitous, andmostwould haverequired effort to procure. Unlike contemporaneous pitstructure sites, the Florida Mountain site occupants did not rely onthe locally available coarse materials for the majority of their lithicneeds. Rather, the majority of the lithic materials in the sitesassemblage originate from sources over 5 km away.

Statistical analyses

Statistical tests were carried out to begin to explain the variabil-ity present between lithic assemblages recovered from the FloridaMountain site (LA18839) and two pit structure sites in theMimbres River Valley: the NAN Ranch and Galaz ruins. The rstof these was aimed at discerning whether or not the distributionof coarse- and ne-grained lithic materials between sites was a re-sult of chance ( Table 6 ). The results of these tests showed thatthere was a signicant difference in the distribution of these mate-rials between the Florida Mountain site and both Galaz and NANRanch ( v 2 = 191.26, df = 1, p < 0.001; and v 2 = 195.74, df = 1, p < 0.001 respectively). Interestingly there was not a signicant dif-ference in the distribution of ne- and coarse-grained materials be-tween NAN Ranch and Galaz ( v 2 = 2.19, df = 1, p = 0.14). These

results suggest that selection of either ne- or coarse-grainedmaterials at NAN Ranch, Galaz, and possibly within the generalMimbres Valley proper differed signicantly from selective mech-anisms at the Florida Mountain site. Based on the expected values

of the tests used, the difference with regards to the Florida Moun-tain site can be accounted for by the larger than expected numberof ne-grained materials present in this sites assemblage.

To further investigate these apparent patterns and potentiallymake some statement about the organization of lithic technologywithin the Mimbres Valley and at the Florida Mountain site,statistical tests were carried out that measured the distributionof ne- and coarse-grained materials with respect to cortical vari-ation in akes. For this portion of the analysis the collection recov-ered from NAN Ranch was compared to the Florida Mountain sitesassemblage ( Table 7 ). With regard to both ne- and coarse-grainedmaterials and different ake types as represented by their corticalvariation (e.g. primary akes, secondary akes, and tertiary akes)a signicant difference is present between the NAN Ranch andFlorida Mountain assemblage ( v 2 = 57.64, df = 2, p < 0.001). Furtheranalyses measuring the distribution of ne- or coarse-grainedmaterial fashioned into different ake types as represented by cor-tical variation found more dissimilarities between the sites assem-blages. With regards to different ake types manufactured fromne-grained materials, the Florida Mountain site assemblage dif-fered signicantly from the NAN Ranch assemblage ( v 2 = 33.66,df = 2, p < 0.001). Likewise, the distribution of different ake typesmanufactured from coarse-grained materials differed signicantlybetween sites ( v 2 = 541.07, df= 2, p < 0.001). Again, based onexpected values it appears that the majority of these differencescenter on the exploitation and reduction of ne-grained materialsat the Florida Mountain site while sites within the Mimbres Valley,represented by the NAN Ranch assemblage, tended to focus on theexploitation and reduction of coarse-grained materials.

Analyses were also conducted that compared the distributionof paired levels of cortical variation between sites. Thus primary

and secondary akes, secondary and tertiary akes, and primaryand tertiary akes were compared between the assemblages col-lected from the NAN Ranch and Florida Mountain sites ( Table 8 ).Results of these analyses showed that there were signicantdifferences between the NAN Ranch and Florida Mountain sitewith regard to all ake type pairs and all raw material textures.Again, the signicant differences centered on the discrepancy be-tween ne-grained material at the Florida Mountain site andcoarse-grained material at NAN Ranch. All but one relationshipwas signicant at the 99.9% condence interval. The one excep-tion measured the distribution of primary and secondary akesfashioned of ne-grained material between NAN Ranch and theFlorida Mountain site. This relationship, while still signicant(v 2 = 5.40, df = 1, p = 0.02), potentially points to a general trend

in the data sets in two ways. First, a major source of the variationcontributing to these signicant differences is the distribution of

Table 5

Sourced obsidian data from the Florida Mountain site.

Source Number of samples

Sierra Fresnal 23Los Jagueyes 2Mule Creek Antelope Creek/Mule Mountains 7Mule Creek North Sawmill Creek 1Mule Creek San Francisco/Blue River 1Antelope wells 4Mount Taylor 1Florida Mountain perlite 1

Table 6

Chi square statistic data for the distribution of coarse- and ne-grained lithicmaterials between sites.

Site Coarse Fine

NAN Ruin 3028 1228Galaz 4465 1931LA18839 1474 1221

LA 18839/NAN ruin LA 18839/Galaz ruin NAN ruin/Galaz ruin

Observed Expected Observed Expected Observed Expected

1474 1745.488 1474 1760.599 3028 2993.8241221 949.512 1221 934.401 1228 1262.1763028 2756.512 4465 4175.401 4465 4499.1761228 1499.488 1931 2217.599 1931 1896.824v

2 = 195.745**

v2 = 191.257

**

v2 = 2.191

**

p < 0.001.



11/14


12/14

To investigate the above proposition, similar analyses wereconducted to test whether the relative proportions of formal andinformal tools at the Florida Mountain site, the Galaz ruin, andthe NAN Ranch ruin represented similar sampling populations(Table 9 ). The results of these tests showed that there was a signif-icant difference in the distribution of formal and informal tooltypes among all the sites. Specically, the Florida Mountain dif-fered signicantly from both the Galaz and the NAN Ranch ruins(v 2 = 244.569, df = 1, p < 0.001; and v 2 = 32.456, df = 1, p < 0.001respectively). Based on expected values of formal and informaltools at the different sites, it is apparent that the Florida Mountainsite has greater than expected values of formal tools and less thanexpected values of informal tools when compared to the Galaz andNAN Ranch ruins. Similarly, NAN Ranch ruin differed signicantlyfrom the Galaz ruin due to its higher than expected frequency of formal tools and less than expected number of informal tools((v 2 = 72.473, df= 1, p < 0.001). Taken together, these results sug-gest that there were different ways of organizing lithic technologyin the Mimbres region during the Late Pithouse period. When com-pared to sites in the Mimbres Valley, lithic technology at the Flor-ida Mountain site was apparently organized to focus on theprocurement of ne-grained material, which would initially be re-duced off-site and transported to the site where the nal stages of the reduction sequence took place. Generally, sites in the MimbresValley tended to focus on the exploitation of coarse-grained rawmaterials that were locally available in the valleys alluvium. Whencompared to the Florida Mountain site, sites in the Mimbres Valleytended to focus on the production of informal tool types. However,these valley sites also appear to show variation in their investmentin the production of formal and informal tools. Based on the datapresented from the assemblages collected from the NAN Ranchand Galaz ruins ( Table 9 ) it appears that the Late Pithouse periodinhabitants of the NAN Ranch ruin produced more formal toolsand less informal tools than expected when compared to the Galazruin where the inhabitants focused more intensively on the pro-duction of informal tools.

Discussion

Data from the Florida Mountain site illuminate the differencesin stone procurement behavior and the organization of lithic tech-nology among Late Pithouse period people as structured by theireconomic pursuits. Variens (1999, pp. 153155) discussion of the site catchments of agriculturalists provides a productiveframework within which to consider these differences in stoneprocurement behavior. Drawing on cross-cultural studies, Varienconcludes that in at terrain (1) the size of the most intensely usedarea around a settlement is approximately 2 km in radius, (2) thesize of the area in which resources are regularly procured is around

7 km in radius, and (3) the maximum size of daily procurementforays would have been around 18 km in radius. When terrain isvariable, the effective radii of catchments shrink based on theenergetic output necessary to traverse the terrain.

The results of previous studies of stone procurement at Mim-bres pit structure sites in the Mimbres Valley, where groups weredependent on agricultural production, t nicely with Variensmod-el. Both Dockall (1991) and Nelson (1981) found that almost all of the stone used at pithouse sites in the valley was acquired fromsources within a few kilometer radiuses around them. Except fora few materials used for special tools, the remaining material de-rived from sources within the 18 km daily foray distance. Thus,peoples stone procurement practices at these sites were on anas-needed basis requiring little investment or planning.

In contrast, the occupants of the Florida Mountain site musthave had to consider stone procurement concerns regularly. Someof the coarse-grained materials in the lithic assemblage were avail-able locally in the piedmont alluvium and in the nearby WhiteHills. However, the site was not located to provide access to theraw materials that occur most frequently in the assemblage.Depending on the location of stone sources and the routes takento reach them from the Florida Mountain site, topographic relief could be considerable and could signicantly affect the extent of the catchments to the east of the site. However, the limited sizeof the Florida Mountain range, the relatively shallow passesthrough the mountains (some only about 2000 feet higher thanthe site elevation), and the relatively at nature of the piedmont,make it likely that the majority of stone sources in the mountainswould have been accessible within the 18 km catchment aroundthe Florida Mountain site. It would have only taken several daysto circumnavigate the entire Florida Mountains range or travelfrom the site to any point in the mountains and return. The occu-pants of the Florida Mountain site could have procured stone fromsources in and around the mountains through movement directlyto and from the sources within a day. However, based upon ethno-graphic studies of forager resource procurement ( Binford, 1980;Kelly, 1995), it seems more likely that they would have embeddedtool stone procurement in short duration logistical forays, such ashunting or gathering trips, in and around the mountains.

Statistical analyses point to differences in core reduction andtool production strategies in the valley proper and the FloridaMountain site. These differences show an overwhelming prefer-ence for locally available coarse-grained material at NAN Ranchand Galaz while inhabitants of the Florida Mountain site more fre-quently used ner-grained materials. Likewise, the disproportion-ate amount of primary and secondary akes recovered from sitesin the Mimbres Valley, and the abundance of tertiary akes atthe Florida Mountain site, could point to differences in the organi-zation of lithic technology of Mimbres peoples.

Implicit in any discussion of technological strategy is design

efciency ( Bleed, 1986; Nelson, 1991 ). A tool must function whenrequired to reduce the risk of failure ( Bamforth and Bleed, 1997;Bleed, 1986; Nelson, 1991; Torrence, 1983 ). Lithic technologiesare generally designed to be reliable and/or maintainable, thoughexibility, versatility, and transportability are also deciding factors(Bleed, 1986; Nelson, 1991 ). Reliable tool designs often includecomponents that are over-designed to withstand the stresses ac-crued through use and often implement redundant componentseach with a similar function to assure the tool functions whenneeded ( Bleed, 1986, pp. 739740 ). Generally, reliable tools areused at predicted times and are designed to function at thesetimes. Maintainable tools on the other hand often feature modularcomponents for easy replacement when faced with failure. Thesetools are designed for partial function so that they work even when

part of the sub-system fails. Maintainable tools areused forgeneraltasks that are most often continuously or unpredictably scheduled

Table 9

Chi square statistic data for the distribution of tool types among sites.

Site Informal tool Formal tool

NAN Ruin 138 72Galaz 775 93LA18839 28 68

LA 18839/NAN ruin LA 18839/Galaz RUIN NAN ruin/Galaz ruin

Observed Expected Observed Expected Observed Expected

28 52.078 28 79.967 138 177.85768 43.922 68 16.033 72 32.143

138 133.922 775 723.033 775 735.14372 96.078 93 144.967 93 132.857

v2 = 32.456

**

v2 = 224.569

**

v2 = 72.473

**

**

p < 0.001.



13/14

and tool maintenance takes place as needed and are most oftenused when failure cost is low ( Bleed, 1986, pp. 740741 ).

We believe that different design systems were being imple-mented at sites in the Mimbres Valley and at the Florida Mountainsite. The focus on informal tool production in the Mimbres Valleyproper is more reminiscent of a system focused on producingmaintainable tools. Within this system, tools were produced asneeded to meet demands that were continuously present and thecomponents of the general tool-kit were modular in design andwere in essence under-designed with little or no evidence of re-touch. This design system made use of locally available raw mate-rial to produce tools that were exible in design and were capableof performing varied tasks.

Conversely, the inhabitants of the Florida Mountain site appearto have invested in a different design system that valued reliabilityand transportability over other factors. In this system ner-grainedmaterials that required more investment to procurewere used pre-dominately for formal tool production. The relative lack of primaryand secondary akes fashioned from ne-grained materials atteststo the fact that initial reduction of the material took place off-site,and that reduced cores were being transported back to the site forfurther reduction and use.

We argue that these design systems were tied to both economicpursuits and mobility strategies. Procurement, use, and rejuvena-tion of ne-grained materials are known strategies of raw materialuse associated with mobile foragers. It is clear that the occupantsof the Florida Mountain Site targeted ner-grained materials; weargue that this strategy was designed to provide reliable and main-tainable tools that could be transported on gathering or huntingforays.

Conclusions

Theresults of this study show that economic pursuits and differ-ences in occupationduration structured notonly stoneprocurementpractices but also the manner in which lithic technology was orga-nized during the Late Pithouse period. At agriculturally focused pitstructure sites occupied for long periods, stone procurement wasprimarily limited to approximately a 3 km radius from the site aswould be expectedconsidering the high availability of raw materialand the useof an expedient technology that focused on the produc-tionof informal tools. In contrast,the occupants of theFloridaMoun-tain site procured the majority of their stone from sources locatedover 10 km from the site. Stone procurement could have occurredduring foraging forays and may be related to the need for reliableand maintainable tools for hunting and gathering activities. Thus,both theeconomic pursuitspracticed at these sites andthe mobilitystrategies of their occupants played important roles in the organiza-tion of lithic technology during Late Pithouse period.

The results also demonstrate the relevance of investigating thestone raw materials available in as broad a region around a site aspossible. Only by accurately characterizing the lithic landscapearound sites within a region will it be possible to examine the dif-fering choices and practices of the occupants and to begin develop-ing explanations for these. Based upon the previous studies thathave investigated Mimbres stone procurement practices and thepervasiveness of cobbles of various materials in the piedmont allu-vium around the Florida Mountain site, it could be expected thatthe stone procurement practices at this site would mirror thoseat pit structure sites in the Mimbres Valley. However, as the resultsindicate, simply assuming that most of the material at the FloridaMountain site was procured from the surrounding alluvium wouldhave presented a grossly inadequate portrayal of the raw material

availability in the area and lead to erroneous inferences about thesite occupants access to lithic raw material.

Acknowledgments

This study would not have been possible without the supportprovided by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Las CrucesField Ofce, the Graduate College at the University of Oklahomaand the University of Oklahoma Anthropology Department. Specialthanks go to Neil Suneson of the Oklahoma Geological Survey who

provided invaluable assistance in identifying samples from theFlorida Mountain site lithic assemblage and eld samples fromthe Florida Mountains to create a reference collection for eldand lab analysis. Dr. Margaret C. Nelson provided crucial unpub-lished data from her dissertation research on lithic raw materialavailability nearMimbresValley sites. Meade Kemrer,Thomas Hol-comb (BLM-Las Cruces) and Joshua Jones (Western Cultural Re-source Management, Inc.) shared their insight into the stonematerials of the Mimbres area. This paper beneted greatly fromcomments by Robert Stokes, Harry Shafer, and George Odell. How-ever, all problems and errors with this work are solely the respon-sibility of the authors.

ReferencesAndrefsky Jr., W., 1994. Raw-material availability and the organization of

technology. American Antiquity 59 (1), 2134.Andrefsky Jr., W., 2008. An introduction to stone tool life history and technological

organization. In: Andrefsky, W., Jr. (Ed.), Lithic Technology: Measures of Production, use, and Curation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 322.

Andrefsky Jr., W., 2009. The analysis of stone tool procurement, production, andmaintenance. Journal of Archaeological Research 17, 65103.

Anyon, R., LeBlanc, S.A., 1984. The Galaz Ruin: A Prehistoric Mimbres Village inSouthwestern New Mexico. Maxwell Museum of Anthropology and Universityof New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Bamforth, D.B., 1986. Technological efciency and tool curation. American Antiquity51, 3850.

Bamforth, D.B., 1991. Population dispersion andpaleoindian technology at theAllenSite. In: Montet-White, A., Holen, S. (Eds.), Raw Material Economies amongPrehistoric HunterGatherers. Publications in Anthropology No. 19, Universityof Kansas, Lawrence, pp. 357374.

Bamforth, D.B., Bleed, P., 1997. Technology, Flaked Stone Technology, and Risk. In:Barton, C.M., Clark, G.A. (Eds.), Rediscovering Darwin: Evolutionary Theory inArchaeological Explanation. Archaeological Papers of the AmericanAnthropological Association No. 7, Washington, DC, pp. 109139.

Barton, C.M., 1997. Stone tools, style and social identity: an evolutionaryperspective. In: Barton, C.M., Clark, G.A. (Eds.), Rediscovering Darwin:Evolutionary Theory in Archaeological Explanation. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association No. 7, Washington, DC, pp. 141156.

Binford, L.R., 1979. Organization and formation processes: looking at curatedtechnologies. Journal of Anthropological Research 35 (3), 255273.

Binford, L.R., 1980. Willow Smoke and Dogs Tails: Hunter-Gatherer SettlementSystems and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45, 420.

Blake, M., LeBlanc, S.A., Minnis, P.E., 1986. Changing settlement and population inthe mimbres valley, SW New Mexico. Journal of Field Archaeology 13, 439464.

Blake,M., Narod,S., 1977. Archaeological Surveyand Analysis in theDeming Region,Southwestern New Mexico. In: Paper Presented at the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans.

Bleed, P., 1986. The optimal design of hunting weapons: maintainability or

reliability. American Antiquity 51, 737747.Brantingham, P.J., Olsen, J.W., Rech, J.A., Krivoshapkin, A.I., 2000. Raw materialquality and prepared core technologies in northeastern Asia. Journal of Archaeological Science 27, 255271.

Brantingham, P.J., Kuhn, S.L., 2001. Constraints on Lavallois core technology: amathematical model. Journal of Archaeological Science 28, 747761.

Clemons, R .E., 1998. Geology of the Florida Mountains, Southwestern New Mexico.Memoir 43, New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources, Socorro.

Cowan, F.L., 1999. Making sense of ake scatters: lithic technological strategies andmobility. American Antiquity 64, 593607.

Creel, D., Anyon, R., 2003. New interpretations of mimbres public architecture andspace. Implications for cultural change. American Antiquity 68 (1), 6792.

Daniel Jr., I.R., 2001. Stone raw material availability and early archaic settlement inthe Southeastern United States. American Antiquity 66 (2), 237265.

Diehl, M., 1996. The intensity of maize processing and production in uplandMogollon Pithouse Villages, AD 2001000. American Antiquity 61, 102115.

Diehl, M.W., Minnis, P.E., 2001. Paleobotanical remains. In: Diehl, M.W., LeBlanc,S.A. (Eds.), Early Pithouse Villages of the Mimbres Valley and Beyond: TheMcAnally and Thompson Sites in their Cultural and Ecological Context. Papers

of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 83. Harvard University,Cambridge, pp. 4757.



14/14

Dockall, J.E., 1990. A technical analysis of rhyolite quarry debris from the NAN ruin,New Mexico. In: Shafer, H.J. (Comp.), Archaeology at NAN Ranch Ruin: 1989Season. Special Report 10. Anthropology Laboratory, Department of Anthropology, Texas A&M University, College Station, pp. 106135.

Dockall, J.E., 1991. Chipped Stone Technology at Nan Ruin, Grant County, NewMexico. Unpublished M.A. Thesis. Texas A&M University, College Station.

Dockall, J.E., 1999a. Lithic analysis results. In: Shafer, H.J., Dockall, J.E., Brewington,R.L., (Eds.), Archaeology of the Ojasen (41EP289) and Gobernadora (41EP321)Sites, El Paso County, Texas. Reports of Investigation No. 2. Center for EcologicalArchaeology, Texas A&M University, College Station, pp. 211277(Chapter 10).

Dockall, J.E., 1999. Wear traces and projectile impact: a review of the experimentaland archaeological evidence. Journal of Field Archaeology 24, 321331.

Ericson, J.E., 1984. Toward the analysis of lithic production systems. In: Ericson, J.E.,Purdy, B.A. (Eds.), Prehistoric Quarries and Lithic Production. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, pp. 19.

Findlow, F.J., Bolognese, M.,1984. Economic aspects of prehistoric quarryuse: a casestudy in the American Southwest. In: Ericson, J.E., Purdy, B.A. (Eds.), PrehistoricQuarries and Lithic Production. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 7782.

Fitting, J.E., 1971. The Hermanas Ruin, Luna County, New Mexico. SouthwesternNew Mexico Research Reports Number 3. Department of Anthropology, CaseWestern Reserve University, Cleveland.

Fitting, J.E., 1972. Chipped Stone from the 1967 Mimbres Area Survey.Southwestern New Mexico Research Reports Number 8. Department of Anthropology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.

Fitting, J.E., Stone, L.M., 1969. Distance andutility in thedistribution of rawmaterialin the cedar mountains of New Mexico. Kiva 34, 207212.

Gilman, P.A., Schriever, B.A., Gruber, T.E., Beale, N.H., 2007. Deming ArchaeologicalProject, Summer 2004, Cultural Resource Inventory Report. Prepared for and onFile at the Bureau of Land Management, Las Cruces Field Ofce, Las Cruces.

Gruber, T.E., Gilman, P.A., Toney, E.M., Wyckoff, K.C., Schriever, B.A., 2009. SouthernMimbres Archaeological Project, Summer 2007, Cultural Resource InventoryReport. Prepared for and on le at the Bureau of Land Management, Las CrucesField Ofce, Las Cruces.

Haury, E.W., 1936. The Mogollon Culture of Southwestern New Mexico. MedallionPaper No. 20. Gila Pueblo, Globe.

Hegmon, M., 2002. Recent issues in archaeology of the mimbres region of the NorthAmerican Southwest. Journal of Archaeological Research 10, 307357.

Jones, G.T., Beck, C., Jones, E.E., Hughes, R.E., 2003. Lithic source use andpaleoarchaic foraging territories in the Great Basin. American Antiquity 68(1), 538.

Kelly, R.L., 1988. The three sides of a biface. American Antiquity 53, 717734.Kelly, R.L., 1995. The Foraging Spectrum: Diversity In HunterGatherer Lifeways.

Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.Kemrer, M.F., 2003. Archaeological Studies in the Cedar Mountains, Luna County,

New Mexico. Prepared for and on File at the Bureau of Land Management, Las

Cruces Field Ofce, Las Cruces.Kuhn, S.L., 1991. Unpacking reduction: lithic raw material economy in the

mousterian of west-central italy. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 10,76106.

Lekson, S.H., 1990. Mimbres Archaeology of the Upper Gila, New Mexico.Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona No. 52. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Lekson, S.H., 1992. Archaeological Overview of Southwestern New Mexico. HumanSystems Research, Las Cruces.

Mack, G.H., 1997. The Geology of Southern New Mexico. University of New MexicoPress, Albuquerque.

Miller, M.R., 1989. Archaeological Excavations at the Gobernadora and Ojasen Sites:Dona AnaPhase Settlement in theWestern Hueco Bolson, El Paso County, Texas.Report No. 673. Center for Archaeological Research, New Mexico StateUniversity, Las Cruces.

Minnis, P.E., 1980. Appendix A prehistoric population and settlementconguration in southwestern new Mexico: an analysis of systematicarchaeological surveys. In: LeBlanc, S.A., Whalen, M.E. (Eds.), AnArchaeological Synthesis of Southcentral and Southwestern New Mexico.Ofce of Contract Archaeology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, pp.460505.

Minnis, P.E., 1985. Social Adaptation to Food Stress: A Prehistoric SouthwesternExample. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Minnis, P.E., Wormser, A.J., 1984. Late Pithouse Period Occupation in the DemingRegion: Preliminary Report of Excavations at the Florida Mountain Site (LA18839). In: Upham, S., Plog, F., Batcho, D.G., Kauffman,B. (Eds.),Recent Researchin Mogollon Archaeology. Occasional Papers No. 10. The University Museum,New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, pp. 229249.

Nash, S.E., 1996. Is curation a useful heuristic? In: Odell, G.H. (Ed.), Stone Tools:Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 81100.

Neher, R.E., Buchanan, W.A., 1980. Soil Survey of Luna County, New Mexico. UnitedStates Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.

Nelson, M.C., 1981. Chipped Stone Analysis in the Reconstruction of PrehistoricSubsistence Practices: An Example from Southwestern New Mexico.Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara.

Nelson, M.C., 1991. The study of technological organization. In: Schiffer, M.B. (Ed.),Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 3. University of Arizona Press, Tucson,pp. 57100.

Odell, G.H., 1981. The mechanics of use-breakage of stone tools: some testablehypotheses. Journal of Field Archaeology 8, 197209.

Odell, G.H., 1996. Economizing behavior and the concept of Curation. In: Odell,G.H. (Ed.), Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory. PlenumPress, New York, pp. 5180.

Odell, G.H., 1998. Investigating correlates of sedentism and domestication inprehistoric north America. American Antiquity 63, 553571.

Odell, G.H., 2000. Stone tool research at the end of the millennium: procurementand technology. Journal of Archaeological Research 8, 269331.

Odell, G.H., 2001. Stone tool research at the end of the millennium: classication,function, and behavior. Journal of Archaeological Research 9, 45100.

Odell, G.H., Cowan, F., 1986. Experiments with spears and arrows on animal targets. Journal of Field Archaeology 13, 195212.

Parry, W.J., Kelly, R.L., 1987. Expedient core technology and sedentism. In: Johnson, J.K., Morrow, C.A. (Eds.), The Organization of Core Technology. Westview Press,Boulder, pp. 285304.

Roth, B.J., Dibble, H.L., 1998. The production and transport of blanks and toolsat thefrench middle paleolithic site of Combe-Capelle Bas. American Antiquity 63,4762.

Sackett, J.R., 1982. Approaches to style in lithic archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1, 59112.

Schmidt, K.M., 2002. Faunal Remains from the 1982 Excavations at the FloridaMountain Site (LA18839), Luna County, NewMexico.Report on File with Bureauof Land Management, Las Cruces Field Ofce, Las Cruces.

Schriever, B.A., 2002. Mimbres-Mogollon Mobility:The Late Pithouse Periodand theFlorida Mountain Site, Luna County, New Mexico. Unpublished M.A. Thesis.Department of Anthropology, University of Oklahoma, Norman.

Schriever, B.A., 2004. Stone Tool Resources in the Florida Mountains, SouthwesternNew Mexico. Prepared for and on File at the Bureau of Land Management, LasCruces Field Ofce, Las Cruces.

Schriever, B.A., 2010. Evaluating the gendered division of labor in mimbreshouseholds at a late pithouse-period short-term residential site. In: Roth, B.J.(Ed.), Engendering Households in the Prehistoric Southwest. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 153184.

Schriever, B., Holcomb, T., 2004. Remembering the origins of the mimbresphenomenon and reexamining its distribution. In: Ludeman, L.C. (Ed.),Proceedings of the 13th Mogollon Archaeological Conference 2004. CDPublication for Information Contact Dr. Lonnie C. Ludeman, Kipsch School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces,pp.164172.

Shackley, M.S., 2004. Source Provenance of Obsidian Artifacts from the FloridaMountainsSite (LA18839), Southern NewMexico. Reporton File with Bureauof Land Management, Las Cruces Field Ofce, Las Cruces.

Shafer, H.J., Hester, T.R., 1983. Ancient maya chert workshop in northern belize,central America. American Antiquity 48, 519543.

Shott, M., 1986. Technological organization and settlement mobility: anethnographic examination. Journal of Anthropological Research 42, 1551.

Tomka,S.A., 2001. Theeffectof processing requirements on reductionstrategies andtool form: a new perspective. In: Andrefsky, Jr., W. (Ed.), Lithic Debitage:Context, Form, Meaning. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 207225.

Torrence, R., 1983. Time budgeting and huntergatherer technology. In: Bailey, G.(Ed.), Huntergatherer Economy in Prehistory. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, pp. 1122.

Turnbow, C.A., Van Hoose, J.E., Reed, L.S., Huckell, L.W., Railey, J.A., Reycraft, R.M.,Duncan, G.A., Holmes, R.D., Acklen, J.C., Baugh, T.G., Smith, G.D., Heyne, C.,Bozarth, S., Shackley, M.S., Nelson, A.R., Carpenter, A., Grant, J., Neff, H., 2000. AHighway through Time: Archaeological Investigations along NM 90, in Grantand Hidalgo Counties, New Mexico. New Mexico State Highway andTransportation Department Technical Report 2000-3.

Varien, M.D., 1999. Sedentism and Mobility in a Social Landscape: Mesa Verde andBeyond. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Weissner, P., 1983. Style and social information in Kalahari san projectile points.American Antiquity 48, 253276.

Wenzel, K.E., Shelley, P.H., 2001. What Put the Small in the Artic Small ToolTradition: raw material constraints on lithic technology at the mosquito lakesite, Alaska. In: Andrefsky, W., Jr. (Ed.), Lithic Debitage: Context, form, Meaning.Meaning. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake City, pp. 106125.

Whalen, M.E., 1994. Turquoise Ridge andLate Prehistoric Residential Mobilityin theDesert Mogollon Region. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 118,University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Wyckoff, D.G., 2005. Recent lithic technological studies on the southern high plainsand adjacent regions, part 1: identifying and sourcing raw materials. LithicTechnology 30 (2), 89106.


a tale of two sites. functional site differentiation and lithic technology during the late pithouse...

Documents