Peloncillo Mountain Apache Site

This incorporates Richard Henderson's 1957 original interview notes as part of the Mescalero-Chiricahua Land Claims Project. These provide supplemental data to highlight the salient attributes of a
large archaeological site recorded by Deni Seymour in the upper Peloncillo Mountains and help substantiate inferences regarding its ancestral Chiricahua Apache affiliation. When ethnographic data
are analyzed with the interpretive filter provided by the archaeological record new perspectives arise on how the recollections and traditional accounts can best be interpreted in relation to
on-the-ground evidence. Abstract notions or recollections of a story told are placed in context each time an ancestral place is discovered archaeologically. Through this juxtaposition these sources
take on entirely new relevance, revealing that subtle and time-dependent nature of the content conveyed in these accounts. These sources also enhance the significance of the archaeological record,
providing a basis for knowledge claims about material evidence of the past.

Narrative historical documents indicate that the southernmost ancestral Apache intermittently occupied large mountain-top settlements where bands gathered for ceremonies, for communal hunting,
and for planning raids or battles (Ball 1970:22; Betzinez and Nye 1959:85; Cole 1980; Cortés y de Olarte 1989:65; Sweeney 1991, 1992; Robert Geronimo, Henderson field notes 1957:414). One of
these large habitation sites, probably the historic equivalent of a feasting ground, has been identified in the Hueco Mountains of southern New Mexico (Cerro Rojo Site, FB 9609; Seymour 2002,
2004). Another sizable site in the Peloncillo Mountains (AZ CC:12:58, ASM) of southern Arizona, the Hormiguero Site, is the focus of this chapter (Figure 2 site map). It is situated on the saddle and
slopes of a prominent peak that extends out into the San Simon Valley. Because of its large size and definitive evidence of an ancestral Apache presence it provides a useful example by which to
convey the nature of early historic ancestral Chiricahua material culture. This site serves as an illustration of how multiple lines of evidence may be used together to distinguish the ancestral Apache
occupation from prehistoric ones and to discern which historic group occupied the encampment. Furthermore this site is an example of one way in which important places were used repeatedly
through time and provides a context to discuss the focal residential strategy of one of the southernmost Apache.

Prediction and Expectations

It is common knowledge that Apache sites are difficult to find, but this is not really an accurate assessment. Many ancestral Apache sites are now known but a large segment of the archaeological
profession is still unfamiliar with the signature. In order to find them it is necessary to adopt a different set of mental templates and search images because the nature of ancestral Apache features
and artifacts and how they are distributed on the landscape differ from those of sedentary groups. Moreover, the earliest ancestral Apache material and land-use signatures differ substantially from
the late historic and ethnographic ways of life and so these sources cannot be used uncritically as a basis for identifying ancestral Apachean sites. Expectations derived from the ethnographic
literature can be misleading when not adjusted for the unique lifeways of the earliest Chiricahua and Mescalero or to changes through time.

In reality we can predict the locations where many ancestral Apache sites will be with relative accuracy. The senior author readily found this Hormiguero Site in 2005, and others in the same range.
By focusing on certain topographic features and terrain characteristics and understanding Apachean landscape use, a quick analysis, a long drive, and a hike through rough elevated terrain resulted
in the identification of Apache-specific features and artifacts. By understanding that encampments are not evenly distributed across the landscape, but rather, in fact, they tend to cluster, additional
sites have been encountered here and in other places throughout Arizona and New Mexico. It is also useful to recognize that the signatures of the houses and other features and artifacts diverge
from expectations that are based on what archaeologists have said about late historic Western Apache, Lipan, and Jicarilla.

Sites are Not Evenly Distributed Across the Landscape

Ancestral Apache habitation sites are not equally distributed across the landscape (Seymour 2002, 2006a, 2008a; Seymour and Haines 2006). Clusters of habitation sites within each of the primary
Apache geographic areas (Western Apache, Lipan, Jicarilla, Mescalero, and Chiricahua) have been found where broad-scale investigations by the senior author have been specifically directed
toward identifying Apache sites. Surveys over sizable areas of the "Apache landscape" have revealed patterns of clustered habitation locales bordered by expansive empty spaces (without
habitation or discernable use) which were linked by trails and resource use zones and bounded by sacred sites and territorial limits. Discussing how the Chiricahua found their way between places
and how they knew when they entered another's territory, informant David Smitty noted "There's a kind of natural trail-you know the land…Take a route known by the mountains" (Henderson field
notes 1957:785; Seymour 2002). Sam Chino said "It's landmarks they follow. Might be a spring-they head for a spring. They go where it's good to walk. Then they might pass a mountain"
(Henderson field notes 1957:766). Examples, drawn from field data, include a cluster in the Franklin Mountains in the Mescalero area (Seymour 2002), the East Stronghold of the Dragoon
Mountains in the Chiricahua area, in the Black Canyon area near Heber in the Western Apache/Yavapai area (Seymour 2002, 2006a; Seymour and Haines 2006), and around the pueblos and at the
plains-mesa interface in the Salinas Pueblo area (Seymour 2006b, 2007a, 2008b). Trail routes are known ethnographically and archaeological evidence inferred to be trail markers, also noted
ethnographically, have been found in both Arizona and New Mexico (e.g., see Seymour 2002 for an extensive discussion).

Chiricahua Land Claims investigations hint at this land-use pattern, the significance of which is revealed only after seeing the patterning archaeologically. For example, when informants were asked
about knowledge of mountain ranges surrounding named (important) places they often responded with the next important named range rather than the geographically closest range or series of
ranges. Areas not used by a particular group were often viewed as valleys (relatively unimportant, lacking a focal point) or as the oral historic equivalent of the white undocumented space on a map
(e.g., Eugene Chihuahua, Henderson field notes 1957:245, 253). This lapse in knowledge seemingly reflects the pattern seen archaeologically where only certain terrain sectors and landscape
subsets were used. Stories told of unfamiliar places often go without place-name referents.

Dramatic changes in lifestyle and landscape-use patterns during a person's lifetime are reflected in some cases as a more restricted geographic breadth and an absence of knowledge, owing to the
danger of being shot if they ventured too far from Warm Springs (Tom Duffy, Henderson field notes 1957:121) or to cessation of raiding and warfare that had brought people much further afield (Sam
Chino, Henderson field notes 1957:198). The stories believed to be many generations old were told of more geographically dispersed places and more encompassing land-use practices, often
outside the individual's personal knowledge; these places often have names but usually without an on-the-ground referent (Christian Naichee, Henderson field notes 1957:136). These reflect
contracting and shifting land-use patterns through the generations as altered subsistence pursuits and relations with neighbors changed the geographic focus of family groups. These portions of the
landscape are not longer a lived landscape (e.g., Thomas 2002:173); in such circumstances, ancestral words may take on entirely new meanings, as they adjust to the new realities of life.

Documentary accounts of military campaigns also reinforce the authenticity of this sporadic distribution of habitation sites across the landscape. For example, Thomas (1959:14-18) describes
numerous encounters with Apache rancherías in various ranges, with considerable distance traveled that was devoid of settlement. These nodes of occupation reflect a uniquely Apache cultural
geography rather than chance encounters across an otherwise densely populated landscape. Sites are in so few locations owing in part to the persistent use of these favored places through time.

Habitation sites do not occur evenly across the landscape and not all areas in a region were occupied because only certain landscape sectors were appropriate for habitation, although the
selection criteria differed across space and through time. Among the Chiricahua and mountain-based Mescalero, habitation sites tend to be restricted to certain topographic settings, such as
specific sectors of the mountains and foothills. As Christian Naichee (Henderson field notes 1957:366) commented a "person can't camp just anywhere, [they] have to go to a difficult place-rocky
cliff, mountain, where it's hard to approach them." As Chiricahua informant Sam Chino noted "they camp where they can overlook the country, and camps were close together because they were
afraid of the Mexican people. So they camp close together and where it was not easy to get at them. They weren't scattered out very much" (Henderson field notes 1957:746). Discord with
neighboring, valley-based peoples accounts for entrenchment in this pattern but selection of suitable terrain sectors also facilitated construction of huts and the thrifty accomplishment of daily
activities.

This mode of landscape use has implications relevant to the suggested hiatus in occupation in central Arizona and the despoblado along the Coronado route (Haury 1985; Plog 1978; Seymour
2006a, 2008a, 2009a). These inferences derive from projects largely focused on the archaeological signature of settled farmers and from contract (cultural resource management) projects that tend
to take place in low-lying areas rather than in rocky or rough terrain. This is one reason most known Western Apache sites are near prehistoric pueblos (e.g., Gregory 1981); such preexisting
features were undoubtedly attractive to mobile groups, but this aboriginal practice represents a limited subset of the larger settlement strategy. The absence of sites in a project area that lacks
certain terrain features or certain types of topography does not mean that the Apache were not present in that region. While the valleys might be devoid of Apache sites, such sites are usually
abundant in the rocky terrain of the adjacent mountains, as recent work has demonstrated (Seymour 2006a, 2008a).

Another aspect of this clustering relates to residential groups-families and often friends and acquaintances (Mary Botella, Henderson field notes 1957:856)-"going together" (hóka; "to go together"
Sam Chino, Henderson field notes 1957:703) or moving between a select number of favored places. "The basis for unity in this alliance of families [which composed the local group] was…mutual
orientation to a favored spot and economic raiding cooperation" (Henderson (1958:6), although there was considerable fluidity of local groups (Opler 1941:7; Henderson 1958:87). In these desirable
locations, camps may be clustered or not, depending on the nature of terrain, the density of resources, time of year, purpose for the gathering, and also, as noted above, the need for defense. As
Sam Chino (Henderson field notes 1957:704, 756-761; also Charlie Smith, Henderson field notes 1957:761) noted, at one location they might be scattered out in a territory but they "camp around
where it's to your advantage, but close enough that you're together." In his family experience there were differences in the degree of clustering between camps, for example at Correlito-a lower place
suitable for the winter-individual camps were spread out, around springs there in a big open space, not close together, whereas at Pigacitka, which was in the pines and more brushy, camps were
closer together. Consequently, the larger the population (a) the more sizable the individual encampment if people clustered together, or (b) if not, the more widely the individual camps were
dispersed across the terrain.

Large Site Formation
Large Apache sites like Cerro Rojo and the Hormiguero sites are relatively rare, or at least not that many have been identified to date. The Land Claims interviews and other ethnographic and
ethnohistoric data suggest that there were only a select number because people congregated at the same ones and there was a tendency to use the same places through time. This latter point is
corroborated by chronometric dates from large archaeological sites that show repeated use through many centuries. There should, however, be one or two large encampments in each band territory
and these territories changed over time. Moreover, as favored encampments were discovered by the enemy they might be abandoned in favor of safer places. These large encampments are situated
on the sizable hills and mountain tops and slopes and they tend to share certain common characteristics.
Large habitation sites are distinguished on the basis of accumulations of numerous structures, either grouped together in discrete clusters or spread out, but still on or within a defined landform (on
a mountain, ridge, or hill, or in a canyon). A question that pertains to each of these sites is whether the hut accumulations result from (a) close-interval repeated short-term occupations by small
groups or (b) occupation by a large group or a series of groups at one specific time, perhaps on a repeated short-term (annual or semiannual) basis-the early equivalent of the feasting grounds or a
main camping ground from which people would dispersed to hunt and collect. Data used together from a variety of sources are needed to address these basic questions.

One way to begin to address these issues is to obtain dates from each locus. This is complicated by the fact that not every locus contains chronometrically datable material and such an approach
can be costly. Even when numerous dates are obtained it is also necessary to run several dates within each locus to assess temporal depth of occupation in that locus. A pot (useful for
luminescence dating) may have been broken only once every two hundred years, while people may have been reusing a locus for many centuries. A thermal feature may have been used, casually
cleaned out, and reused over a similar period of time and may reflect very different dates between the upper and lower fills.

Moreover, discrete short-term occupations can result in a continuous series of overlapping dates because available techniques are not always sufficiently precise to distinguish this level of
close-interval movement and reoccupation. For example, it can be difficult to distinguish between a location that might have been used by a large group once a year or once a decade throughout a
hundred or two hundred year period and a circumstance where small groups may have come to a place intermittently over a two-hundred-year period. Some success in distinguishing short-term
occupations by small groups has been shown for a mobile group site on the Santa Cruz River and on Sobaípuri-O'odham settlements in southern Arizona (Seymour 2009b, 2010a, 2010b). As has
been discussed with reference to the mobile group example, averaging of several chronometric dates is common source of error. Because date averaging assumes a single timeframe of use or
continuous sequence of use it can mask short-term and repeated occupations and components. Date averaging is not an effective approach if expecting punctuated episodic reuse for short periods.
Date averaging also prohibits consideration of first or last appearances of an occupation in a region or in detecting culture change. Averaging favors date overlap in an already defined universe but
identifies as anomalous anything that is outside of expectations and can seriously mask short-interval and short-duration occupations.

Archaeological examples are available of habitation locations throughout the southern Southwest that seem to represent a continuum between (a) close-interval repeated short-term occupations by
small groups and (b) occupation by a large group or a series of groups at one specific time, perhaps on a repeated short-term basis. The remotely located defensively outfitted Cerro Rojo site (FB
9609), with its almost 300 features, is inferred to be a gathering place for short-term repeated use by large groups rather than small groups repeatedly through time (Seymour 2002, 2004, 2008d,
2009c). Consistent with the documentary record that establishes expectations for these types of sites, chronometric samples produced dates over several centuries, beginning in the pre-Hispanic
period. Other characteristics of the site support the inference of long-term intermittent use by large discrete groups, including ancestral Mescalero Apache. These indices include relatively dense
and diverse material culture accumulations, the presence of an internal organization (large groups of many closely spaced structures with usable unoccupied space between), positioning near water
catchment features, and modifications made to the place including creation of storage facilities, construction of defensive features, and investment of some effort in making structures more durable,
comfortable, and definable.

With regard to artifact distributions it is widely known that in larger settlements sedentary people tend to designate dumps for discarding refuse and these areas tend to be separated from
habitation zones (Hayden and Cannon 1983). Binford (1987) mistakenly suggested parallel forms of maintenance of site space and treatment of refuse for mobile group sites, but rather, in
comparison, on large Apache sites primary refuse is often left in place as might be expected on a limited-use camp or workstation (Seymour 2009c, 2010c). The effects of this are particularly
noticeable on sites occupied in the fall and winter when, owing to climate, many more activities are conducted in and near the shelter of the dwelling. This refuse disposal pattern is consistent with
documented notions of (Mescalero) Apache site maintenance where instead of cleaning a site they simply moved to another location (Sonnichsen 1986:17). This practice results in the
accumulation of relatively high densities and diversities of material culture as compared to encampments used on a more limited basis.

The distinct loci of huts may be indicative of contemporaneous occupation by many people because local groups consisting of family and associates tended to establish residences near one
another, or as noted, they tend "to go together" (Robert Geronimo, Henderson field notes 1957:414-415; Sam Kenoi, Henderson field notes 1957:595, 600-601; Opler 1941:183). Also, social groups
from different territories tended to establish their encampments in separate locations when sharing a single encampment: "Families stay together…" These Chokonen "are in their own country," but
Chihennes "come from way over there…when they come to visit [the Chokonen band], they stay in a group, camp apart" (Sam Kenoi, Henderson field notes 1957:604).ii Thus, these discrete
clusters recorded archaeologically may represent the encampments of different families or bands, and also efforts within a group to observe the custom of mother-in-law avoidance. On flat open
ground such practices may result in nicely organized house groupings as drawn by one informant (Daniel Nicholas) for Naichee's house grouping at Fort Sill (Figure 3; also compare to Goodwin
1969:143, 644), whereas in the rugged mountains structures are grouped but are positioned with respect to natural outcroppings, small flat areas, and slopes. While located mostly on east- and
southern-facing slopes the structures themselves do not face east, contrary to many suggestions in the ethnographic record. One reason for this is because huts are situated with reference to
suitable natural terrain attributes and relative to one another and the common area between them when possible, rather than to a strict predetermined plan.

The Hormiguero Site (AZ CC:12:58, ASM), also a large hill top site with between 50 and 100 features, is inferred to be a gathering place for short-term repeated use but by variably sized groups.
The site exhibits an internal organization but is much less concentrated than Cerro Rojo and some of the hut clusters are positioned at such a distance from others that they seem not to be
constituents of a larger contemporaneous organization. Single or paired structures are situated in widely separated places, whereas clusters of huts are found in others. Relatively diverse and dense
accumulations of debris are found scattered around the site, mixed with prehistoric materials. In addition to habitation and work areas, this site possesses constructed water catchment features,
fabricated storage facilities, and sacred spaces. Moreover, it is positioned so as to have a commanding view of the valley and overlooks primary trading and travel routes. It is also visible from and in
line-of- sight with an ancestral Apache site in the Whitlock Mountains.

Hut distributions at the Whitlock Mountain site (AZ CC:7:11, BLM) exhibit a different pattern suggestive of episodic use by small groups through the years. Here individual and paired structures are
scattered widely across the terrain in no relation to one another and no central focus other than they are in somewhat of a fan-like distribution out from a nearby spring. Hut outlines were placed with
reference to specific suitable locations on the terrain rather than with reference to larger social units. Sparse material culture suggests a limited range of activities, in fact, artifact density and
diversity is so low that much of the surface is culturally barren. Here it is suggested that modest use by smaller groups resulted in the gradual accumulation of rock hut outlines in a generally
desirable location. This episodic multi-occupancy was undertaken by small groups who perhaps returned to a location through time or by different small groups who used the place in a limited way
during each visit. The former is suggested to explain some of the individual encampments because an Apache platform cache (see below) was also documented at this site; caches (storage) imply
an expectation to return.

Small structural sites in the East Stronghold of the Dragoon Mountains exhibit a similar pattern of single structures scattered on the lower slopes and occasionally on the bottom of the enclosed
tree-covered valley that is secluded and remote in relation to areas used by non-Apaches. Thermal features situated on the valley bottom and rock shelters containing symbolic representations,
such as mountain spirits, provide a focal point. Many of these loci contain late historic metal and glass indicating they were used in the Apache Wars during times of intense pressure from
enemies. The thick vegetation and canyon walls would have helped dissipate the smoke and hide the inhabitants. This inference is supported by Robert Geronimo's (Henderson field notes
1957:404) statement about a late site in Mexico, where the "main camp [was] down in [a] big canyon where they could hide their fire. Of course in old time, [they] had fires in high elevations."
Distantly separated small loci were established at this time as a way to spread out risk in case of surprise attack (Ball 1970:9).
In each of these cases the archaeological record provides a basis for seeing how behavior noted in ethnographic and ethnohistoric records is translated in the material and spatial realms. These
examples provide tangible evidence of the ways in which groups used the landscape and they establish a basis for expectations of clusters and patterns that reflect differences in periodicity,
duration, diversity, and intensity of occupation. On all of these sites there is an expectation for multi-occupancy by the ancestral Apache (e.g., there is an expectation people will come back year
after year). For each group, it is important to think in terms of high mobility with perhaps dozens of residences each year (perhaps two being large) as opposed to a 200-year residence. With
respect to an archaeological site, it is useful to think of the Whitlock example in terms of dozens of exceedingly short visits by family groups, the Peloncillo example as dozens of short occupations
often by supra-family groups, perhaps members of one or more bands, while the Cerro Rojo Site seems to represent multiple visits by numerous bands throughout many centuries.

Desirable Landscape Attributes

Site distributions conform to landscape-use models developed throughout the Athapaskan-occupied area of the Southwest and to expectations for the local area. When the nature of landscape
interface is understood and when appropriate terrain features are present, Apachean sites are relatively easily found when present. It is useful to consider that:

1. Sites are clustered
2. They focus on distinctive landforms (a rock shelter or prominent an distinctive peaks),
3. They tend to be found on east-facing slopes, sometimes the south-facing slope of a ridge,
4. They focus on terrain features: utilize the natural rockiness of the terrain for construction of hut rings,
5. They concentrate around necessary resources,
6. They are found in remote and rugged terrain, rather than in settings favored by sedentary farmers,
7. They tend to have expansive viewsheds,
8. They tend to be in a safe location with adequate escape routes,
9. Large sites often exhibit inter-visibility.

Many of these attributes have been discussed in other articles, chapters, and reports and will not be reiterated here. A point to remember, however, is that habitation locations were selected on
the basis of the intersection of several critical criteria simultaneously. The locations and actions of neighbors were the most relevant considerations to the ancestral Apache. This meant that the
ancestral Apache habitation scheme was designed in ways that facilitated raiding while maximizing seclusion and safety. If a threat was in one area, habitation sites would be in another,
perhaps on the far side of a range or in another range all together. Habitation sites might be at low elevations in remote areas not generally accessed by opposition forces, while habitation sites
were higher up and in more rugged settings in ranges that saw more frequent retaliatory campaigns. Moreover, resources (natural and cultural) were not equally distributed, and residential sites
were situated with reasonable access to, but often not at, resource acquisition zones. But only some viable natural resource zones could be accessed owing to the proximity of the enemy. For
example presidial efforts focused on campaigns in areas known to be frequented by Apaches (waterholes, camps, mescal harvesting areas) (Griffin 1988), often cutting off long-accessed
collection area and necessitating selection of another. Spanish and later Mexican and American settlements provided concentrated and renewable resources as long as the herds effectively
rejuvenated and the rancho and town residents did not mount a too formidable opposing force. Presidios that at first presented obstacles, later served as resource distribution points that
supplement the Apache diet in times of need (e.g., Apaches de Paz). Similarly habitation and resource use areas varied depending upon the viability of access routes. Trails led between safe
places along safe routes, but these could be made obsolete when discovered by intruders.

Because Southwestern mobile groups used such large expanses of the landscape, and because groups routinely dispersed, coalesced, and shifted, their awareness and use of the landscape
differed from that of settled groups. The conscious incorporation of movement between multiple suitable places within a territory and avoidance of stability, both as survival strategies, are
reasons the Land Claims efforts had such difficultly pinpointing Chiricahua territorial boundaries, the ranges of individual leaders, and the distributional limits of bands. Moreover, territorial
boundaries overlapped and many other groups used routes through Chiricahua territory to access Mexico.

Key landscape features or characteristics that distinguished a location from those surrounding it attracted occupation. As Wheeler Tsnoltos noted "usually the highest and longest one is given
the name" (Henderson field notes 1957:508). Each location was named, based upon its unique character (also see Basso 1996), which allowed people to regroup after their seasonal forays or
once being dispersed after an attack. These landmarks serve as beacons for travelers from a distance. The distinctive name applied, based upon its unique character, allowed members to
distinguish between places. Furthermore, these locations often provided a ready supply tool stone and rocks for building in a landscape (such as the limestone hills) that was otherwise devoid
of useful materials (Seymour 2002).

Many new sites throughout the Chiricahua and Mescalero areas, including this Hormiguero Site (its distinctive attributes left unstated so as not to expose its location), have been found
relatively quickly by using these criteria as part of a predictive model. Where this model has been used in the Western Apache and Jicarilla areas many new sites have been found as well,
suggesting that once it is used more widely, more habitation locations will be found on a more widespread basis. To date more than 100 new mobile group sites affirm the validity of this
approach. Until recently, mobile group landscape use has not been fully theoretically or methodologically conceptualized in the Southwest. But concerted focus since the 1990s on developing
middle range theory applicable to the Apache has led to advancements in fundamental understandings of mobile group landscape use, raiding-related behavior, and household organization from
an archaeological standpoint (Seymour 2002, 2008c, 2009b, 2009d, 2010b, 2010c; Seymour and Robertson 2008).

Resources and Encampment Selection
The factors effecting encampment location selection changed through time, some decreasing in weight as security needs increased with the intensification of conflict and raiding. While
necessary resources, such as fuel, water, and forage for livestock were important in habitation site selection (but see Betzinez and Nye 1959:84-85, 86), these were trumped by the need for
a safe location with concealment and adequate escape routes (Ball 1970:17). This interplay between attending to the basic needs of life and fulfilling the requirement for security was
necessitated by their raiding lifestyle. Archaeological residential site locations seems to track this social dynamic from a condition of relatively low populations and often amiable inter-group
interactions to one where there was increased conflict and an ever-present pressure from adversaries. This change occurred gradually through time but seems evident in some of the earliest
known contexts. This lent to a uniquely Apache way of addressing these factors, establishing a balance between security and other day-to-day subsistence, social, and spiritual needs.

The large mountain-top Cerro Rojo site was described as a mountain retreat where multiple bands were defensively postured deep within the Hueco range, far from the main roads (Seymour
2002, 2004, 2008d). The Hormiguero Site, on the other hand, seems to have been positioned offensively to intercept travelers. Located on the outer edge of the range and positioned so as to
overlook a distant trail demarcated by non-local (Spanish and O'odham) artifacts, possibly the road to Cíbola but almost certainly the José de Zúñiga trail (see Madsen 2009), this site may
be the archaeological equivalent of an ethnographically described practice:

Meantime our men went on west to where a main road passed between several towns …Where the road ran along the river through the timber was the locality in which the Apaches were
accustomed to lie in wait for travelers especially pack trains laden with dry goods (Betzinez and Nye 1959:86).

The jutting peaks and elevated terrain of this province provided long-distance views where the Apache-safely settled in-could see travelers coming for days before they arrived (e.g., Ball
1970:79-80; Sweeney 1997:72, 86). Hour-glass-shaped figures, seemingly with Spanish-style hats, on rock shelter walls at the Hormiguero Site (Figure 4) may provide evidence of such
visual encounters during the historic period, though dates from the site indicate long-term reuse of this location. If this was a setting where raiders congregated it would explain many
aspects of this site location, including its placement exceedingly far from documented water sources.

To avoid surprise encounters the Apache tended to camp away from certain water sources, such as heavily used springs, staying a quarter to as much as a mile or more away (Ball
1970:17; Sam Chino; Henderson field notes 1957:743; Seymour 2002). Deep in the heart of their territory, where other groups did not venture, this rule might be disregarded. Historically
documented surprise attacks near springs in the Hatchet and Florida mountains may represent such cases where opposing military were not expected and so the inhabitants used relatively
low-elevation settings near water (Schroeder 1974:64, 68, 78, 119; Thomas 1932:8, 1959:8, 13, 14; Seymour 2005:21-22).

Yet, a ready supply of water was needed if inhabitants were to stay in a location for any length of time (Opler 1941:24, 183). As one Apache, James Kaywaykla, said "Apaches can go long
without food, but no creatures can go without water" (Ball 1970:16). With regard to camp selection Christian Naichee (Henderson field notes 1957:802) said: "They pick a place where there's
water, because they need the water to cook. So they always pick a place where they can get wood and water. Then they would go from that place-put up their shelter there-it wouldn't be too
far to inada [mescal]." Dry camps were established in an urgent or difficult situation as well, as Captain Joseph Alton Sladen discovered in his 1872 stay with the Chokonen-Chiricahua
Cochise (Sweeney 1997:84-86). At AZ CC:12:58 (ASM) numerous structures and other evidence suggest an extended stay and repeated visits, but there are no known springs or rivers
nearby or even within a few miles. Why then did they choose this location for this rather sizable encampment, repeatedly, and where did they obtain their water?

It is first important to understand that the Chiricahua Apache had an entirely different way of thinking about water, and what was sufficient for daily needs, than did many other groups. They
sometimes went for relatively long periods without and had different customs regarding bathing (e.g., sometimes using sand instead, Ball 1970:79, 81, 108) and pre-prepared staples meant
that cooking did not occur at many locations, but they could find water in many places and obtain it by different means (e.g., Ball 1970:74; Opler 1941:348).

Often water was available as no more than a trickle or was collected in natural basins. At AZ CC:12:58 water may have been acquired in a way similar to what was described by Kaywaykla
in the Tularosa Basin: "There was a little trickle of water and it took a long time for people to drink and fill their jugs before watering the horses" (Ball 1970:82). At the Hormiguero Site water
is now visible seeping down the back of the low natural overhang, as shown as the dark spot in Figure 5 a. Discrete areas were modified below these seeps to collect water by forming
rock-outlined collecting basins with bedrock bases. It is not known whether these are Apache-specific feature types or whether they were made by earlier prehistoric occupants and
continued in use by the Apache. Discovery of similar features will eventually help address this question in a way similar to the procedure used for the storage platforms described below.

Many other ancestral Apache encampments discovered archaeologically are miles from running water sources but no seeps are apparent. In such cases, mortar cups, tinajas, and huecos
provided water and the mortar cup shown in Figure 5 b is one of many at the Hormiguero Site. Other encampments, such as at Cerro Rojo, and habitation sites on Otero Mesa and in and
near the Sacramento, Organ, Franklin, and Hueco mountains of southern New Mexico have huecos or natural depressions in rocks as their main source of water, which seemingly
accommodated sizable populations. During the rainy season water was also readily available at AZ CC:12:58 (ASM) in rocky washes, and low areas owing to the near-surface presence of
bedrock (Figure 5c).

The Distinctly Apache Signature

Numerous mobile groups other than the Apache occupied southern Arizona and sedentary farmers occupying the valley bottoms sometimes used the foothills and mountains
for various activities. This invariably raises the question as to the basis for attributing the Hormiguero Site to the Apache rather than to some other group. Several
characteristics of this site provide a basis to suggest it was occupied by the ancestral Apache, and specifically the Chiricahua.

Different geographically based Apache groups practiced varied lifestyles and therefore used the landscape differently and left different material culture traces. Groups
differentiated in key ways through time, becoming more distinct. It is easy to forget that the modern ethnographic divisions between groups were not necessarily those of
relevance in ancestral times. Too often a Western Apache (or Plains Apache) analogy is used for the Chiricahua and Mescalero with the expectation that the nature of their
archaeological signature will be the same. The latter two groups were much more mobile than the Western Apache and so many aspects of their lives and their archaeology
are different. The relevance of this mobile characteristic and the nature and intensity of raiding is often underestimated with respect to its effect on material culture and
landscape use. Moreover, Land Claim interviews with tribal members reinforce the reality that each modern reservation (and earlier, each band) is composed of people from
many sources, including other Apachean tribes, providing a basis for the continual transformation of traditions, as has occurred in the past. As Maud Geronimo noted different
groups are "all mixed up" (Henderson field notes 1957:645, 649). Also, Sam Kenoi (Henderson field notes 1957:583) states that the Apache originate from the Yaqui, a
statement that suggests that the origin of his family line was with that group, perhaps recruited through intermarriage or abduction, or as Christian Naichee (Henderson field
notes 1957:782-783) describes, thorough the migration of individuals and families into the area. He says that individuals from other groups would live for many years among the
Chokonen, but they would know they belong to another group. Thomas (1959:13) similarly noted in his Land Claims report that the Chiricahua have close relations with the
Tarahumara. Documentary sources also indicate that the Jano and Jocome intermixed with their neighbors, and ethnographic data indicate that the O'odham intermixed as
well (Goodwin 1969; Seymour 2007b, 2008e). From these interviews it is clear that each family group used a different series of important places so only a subset of behavior
and places has been captured. Geronimo's Apache were different in fundamental ways from his ancestors and from the ancestors of other Apachean groups throughout the
Southwest and Plains. For these reasons unseriated direct historical and direct ethnographic approaches can be misleading, resulting in confusion and inappropriate
expectations.

Depictions of Apache Symbolism
Sources that are accessible by non-archaeological means may be quite helpful in understanding symbolic aspects of landscape setting (e.g., Basehardt 1959, 1960; Basso
1996), especially when the relevance associated with place names can be argued to have been transferred through time. The Land Claims interviews demonstrate some of this
loss, as people became separated from the land. A methodological challenge relates to understanding how and in which ways such associations and landscape perceptions
remain constant or change as other aspects of lifeway change. It is widely acknowledged that the way those symbols interface with the material record changes through time,
and this is especially pertinent as people settle down. Therefore the persistence of distinctly Apache symbols in rock art (mountain spirits) is a welcome contribution because
they illustrate some degree of continuity in symbolic expression through time and provide a means for archaeologists to definitive apply a cultural affiliation to associated
material culture.

Several rock art panels at the Hormiguero Site provide relatively clear evidence of an ancestral Apache presence. Many wasp-wasted or hour-glass-shaped red-painted-style
figures, including those noted above, are characteristic of Athapaskan groups (see Figure 4). A subset seem to be depictions of Spaniards and are in a rock shelter which also
provides evidence of a concealed fire. The large tree branch dates one use of this shelter to the A.D. 1450 to 1650 period.

A second panel consists of five charcoal-drawn mountain spirit or gah'e masks on the back of a different rock shelter. This mountain spirit symbolism is uniquely Apache
(Figure 6).iii Furthermore, the attributes of the drawings indicate that these are ancestral Chiricahua rather than Western Apache. The headdress that the Chiricahua gah'e (or
gaa'he) wears differs from the Western Apache ga'an in that it has three upright prongs, whereas the uprights are interconnected by a horizontal or interlinking cross bar(s) for
the Western Apache. Moreover, the Peloncillo Mountains are in the heart of historic Chiricahua Apache territory. Intrusions into Chiricahua territory (all of southeastern Arizona
and southwestern New Mexico) by the White Mountain Apache were contested by the Chiricahua and battles were fought (Eugene Chihuahua, Henderson field notes 1957:63,
68, 69, 71, 101-102; Henderson (1958:4; Opler 1941:4), although White Mountain Apache territory was inappropriately fixed as being much further south by the Land Claims
work, reaching almost as far south as Benson on the San Pedro (see for example Goodwin 1969:4), which is indisputably Cochise's domain. At one time Chiricahua territory
stretched between the Rio Grande and the Santa Cruz River Valley (with raids far into the Papaguería or Tohono O'odham Nation lands) and extended north of the Gila (toward
Globe and, apparently, even as far as Holbrook) and south of the international border, winter visits going far into Mexico (Ball 1970:19; Goodwin and Basso 1993:257).
These rock art depictions are an example of how the most subtle evidence is sometimes the most convincing of cultural affiliation. While many aspects of life changed from
the earliest to the latest period of occupation, certain symbolic and ceremonial aspects of Chiricahua Apache life remained constant, at least in outward expression. Because
of this continuity in symbols and physical expression of beliefs we can connect the rock art at this site to the modern day Apache.

Storage Platforms and Caching

Some features are seemingly more specifically culturally diagnostic of the Ancestral Apache than are structures. One such feature type is the storage platform which seems to be a specific type
of formalized cache made by the Apache. Caches are an important element in mobile settlement systems (Binford 1979, 1980). Items tend to be cached in anticipation of later use, which for
mobile groups indicates the intention to revisit a place. Stashes of important items may be found on residential sites, such as have been identified at an early Apache site in the Dragoon Mountains
and at the Hormiguero Site, but caching in locations distant from habitation sites was also important, for raiders, and the Apache in particular.

The historic and ethnographic records related to the nineteenth-century Apache describe caches placed in remote areas (Ball 1970:173-174; Betzinez and Nye 1959:91). In these remote locations
caches function as focal points of reliable and clustered resources on the landscape that reduced risk and provided necessary supplies for use in periods of shortage or when forced to escape
attackers. Caches were situated along known routes and in areas where certain bands were expected to return. They were tucked into caves or rock shelters as the following passage indicates:

…my people went south for the winter, sometimes as far as the land of palms and oranges in Mexico. We harvested food as we went, and we stored surpluses in caches, preferably in caves near a
water supply. We also left cooking utensils because pottery breaks easily. And we stored blankets, bales of calico, and other commodities taken from smugglers who were constantly going back
and forth in caravans. If our people were forced to flee they used these reserves (Ball 1970:19-20).

The importance of caches can be understood when considering the nature of Apache subsistence. Resources obtained by raiding were inconsistent and unreliable and depended on the presence
of a pack train, the lack of successful resistance from a rancho, or accurate surveillance of a town. Naturally occurring resources were available seasonally, but the time of ripening and best
gathering locations varied from year to year. Often these had to be obtained in areas that were under the control of enemies, thereby restricting access at critical times. Caches provided a location
where important and basic resources that were relatively long lasting could be stored for future use.
This is key when understanding that all possessions but a food sack, a blanket, and a water jug were often lost when an Apache settlement was attacked (see Ball 1970:3-4). When subject to
surprise attack, Apache rancherías were burned and possessions destroyed. Fleeing Apache had no time to grab any but the most readily available necessities so caches provided a safe and
reliable stash of items that could be used in such times of severe need. They served as a source of basic items that could be replenished. These caches were widely spaced so that if one were
discovered and destroyed or if troops were nearby, another could be used.
Items interred in caches during the late Apache period included ammunition, weapons, containers or utensils, and dry goods, such as calico (Ball 1970:66, 86, 173), as the following notion
indicates:

Grandfather took us to a cave in the mountains and left us. There was food and other supplies, and water was available nearby. We lived unmolested for several weeks, gathering all the food in the
vicinity...They made dresses from a bolt of calico cached in the cave. And they used the cooking pots left there, made of clay, decorated, and with a semicircular base so perfectly balanced but
they righted themselves if tipped (Ball 1970:66).

These bulky or breakable items were stored for use in periods of shortage. Stashes of ammunition and weapons were particularly useful when a surprise attack forced warriors to flee without the
full complement of weaponry. Contents were sometimes stored for extended periods, as mention is made of items stored in a cache for six years (Ball 1970:173).

Another aspect of caching behavior involves storing items on habitation sites in anticipation of return visits, which means that bulking and breakable items need not be transported, but are left in
place and are available for future use. Because the Apache moved around the landscape their habitation sites reflect incomplete records of the range of activities conducted by them. Evidence of a
suite of regularly occurring daily activities may be duplicated in numerous widely spaced residential sites within their territory, but evidence of less frequently occurring activities may be found more
rarely. One infrequently undertaken activity may occur in the Dragoon Mountains and another in the Peloncillo range, though both ranges may host habitation sites used by the same local group.
On the largest residential sites to which they planned to return they often cached items. The presence of these caches can be used, along with other evidence, to suggest intermittent repeated use
of a habitation location.

Branch and rock platforms found in rock shelters throughout a broad area were most likely used for the storage of pottery, basketry, and a range of other supplies. These features consist of
multiple layers of yucca or ocotillo branches for the base, with one layer set in one direction and the next laid down perpendicular to the first (Figures 9 and 10). These platforms are sometime
pedestalled and at other times are flush with the base of the rock shelter. The wood platform is surrounded by cobbles that also hold the ends of the branches in place. Either grass or oak leaves
are interspersed between the upper layer of branches and are situated on top; these likely provided cushioning and stabilized the bases of storage containers. Thinking these were caches, I
excavated one on the Otero Mesa escarpment (Juniper Canyon) and discerned that the branches were laid on the surface of the rock shelter floor rather than excavated into it (Seymour 2002;
Seymour and Church 2007:74-78). The most reasonable explanation is that this feature type is a storage or sleeping platform. The former seems most likely because one was constructed with
ocotillo branches that still contained their spikes and was covered with oak leaves, which even today retain their sharp edges. The leaves or grass (as found on one such feature in the Whitlock
Mountains, AZ CC:12:58, ASM) may have provided a nesting within which basketry or clay vessels were set.

Dating and Associating Storage Platforms with the Apache

These unique storage platforms are restricted to this late time period and are inferred on the basis of a number of convergent lines of evidence to relate specifically to the ancestral Apache
occupation. These platforms are of considerable value for dating this occupation, because of their unique form, their widespread distribution, and their direct association with ancestral Apache
material culture. They are particularly well suited for radiocarbon dating because they are usually covered with annual plants, such as grass or leaves, and made of short-lived species which are
ideal for avoiding the "old wood" problem (e.g., Schiffer 1982, 1986). Regrettably, all known examples lack the items that were cached.

Several lines of evidence suggest that these features are related to one of the mobile populations of the terminal prehistoric and early historic periods, and specifically the ancestral Apache
population, rather than to any of the prehistoric culture groups in whose territories they occur (e.g., the Jornada Mogollon, San Simon Mogollon, Mimbres, and Hohokam). First, this is not a
documented feature type for prehistoric sedentary groups in the Southwest. Perhaps most telling is that while the distribution of this unique feature type overlaps multiple prehistoric cultural and
geographic boundaries, it is not exclusive to any one of them (Figure 11). Several rock shelters contain these platforms, which are known from throughout the ancestral Chiricahua and Mescalero
areas. They occur in the Whitlock and Peloncillo mountains of southeastern Arizona to Rough and Juniper canyons along the Otero Mesa escarpment in southern New Mexico north of El
Paso-areas separated by 300 linear miles (see Figure 11). This lack of conformity with prehistoric geographic and cultural boundaries contributes strongly to the inference that these features result
from mobile groups who crossed the traditional territorial boundaries of more sedentary groups. The traditional culture area boundaries that define prehistoric culture groups in the Southwest do not
account for the more widespread distribution of these features. Only the distributions of mobile groups are sufficiently broad to account for the distribution of these feature types, and dates indicate
that these features were constructed late.

These platforms occur in the same rock shelters with ancestral Apache rock art and diagnostic stone tools and they are found indirectly (on the same sites) with ancestral Apache pottery and
structures (Seymour 2002, 2008a). As was noted above, the platform feature from this Hormiguero Site (AZ CC:12:58) is associated with charcoal gah'e (mountain spirit) images inscribed on the
back wall of the rock shelter described above. This association suggests that these features are related to the ancestral Apache occupation, rather than some other protohistoric group, because as
noted this symbolism is distinctively Apachean.

The 2-sigma calibrated date from a yucca stalk used in this feature's construction at the Hormiguero Site, though plagued by multiple intercepts, falls largely in the historic period, clearly after the
prehistoric period: (A.D. 1520 to 1580 (Cal BP 430 to 380) AND Cal AD 1630 to 1690 (Cal BP 320 to 260), Cal 1730 to 1810 (Cal BP 220 to 140) AND Cal AD 1920 to 1950 (Cal BP 30 to 0)
(Beta-203378).

Concurrent dates from other features and artifacts on this Hormiguero Site support the inference that these platforms are early Athapaskan. A radiocarbon sample was run that was derived from
the outer rings (with beetle galleries) of a branch from a tree in a rock shelter with historic Apachean rock art and a diagnostic early Athapaskan tool. Acknowledging that the inner rings may be
much older than the outer rings, the sample was collected from the outer wood. The sample returned a date of A.D. 1450 to 1650 (Cal BP 500 to 300) (Beta-204789). This postdates the prehistoric
sedentary occupation in this area. If the "old wood" effect were in play, such that the cutting date predates its use as firewood by a substantial degree, this sample would only be more recent,
confirming even more convincingly the historic mobile group association of this site and this feature type.

Classic Athapaskan pottery (dimpling on interior surface, gray colored brownware, thin, with wiped external surface; Figure 12) was found in the vicinity of a wickiup ring at this same site. Much of
a thin-walled jar was clustered in a 2 meter-diameter area, suggesting that it once rested on a rock shelf and when broken sherds scattered nearby. A sherd submitted for luminescence dating
returned a date of 350±30 BP, or A.D. 1626-1686 (Oxford Sample # 2552), clearly after the prehistoric occupation. Plain pottery found in another Apachean feature and not yet dated differs in
character including a darker and courser paste and a more poorly finished surface. In general, pottery found on Apache sites tends to be variable in surface treatment and in paste constituents, a
byproduct of high mobility, small social groups, and general lack of investment in standardizing techniques. Pottery used by the Apache is expected to derive from different sources as well
including scavenging prehistoric vessels and pots from contemporaneous groups obtained through raiding, trading, and gifting. In fact, the presence of non-Apachean artifacts, including pottery, can
serve as a defining criterion of sites occupied by raiders (Seymour 2008c).

These other dates on this Hormiguero Site provide corroborative evidence for post-prehistoric, ancestral Apache use of these features and provide an objective basis for choosing between age
intervals and for examining the issue of age averaging. Together these three samples offer two general possibilities. If a synchronic occupation is assumed, by averaging these dates it is possible
to infer that use during the A.D. 1630 to 1650 period is statistically most likely-a time at which historic records mention large numbers of ancestral Apache inhabiting this area. If one assumes
diachronic occupations, use in the 1600s can be inferred, but the issue of the cumulative length of consecutive occupations remains unresolved; many more samples need to be run to resolve this
issue. The site is sufficiently large and spread out, and there is such a relative abundance of material culture that multiple reoccupations are suggested. The density of ancestral Apache features
suggests that this was an important site likely occupied by many distinctive bands, potentially representing reuse by multiple groups repeated through the centuries.iv Thus, additional samples
would be needed to build a case for one or both of these possibilities, particularly in light of dates obtained for these features in other areas.

A suite of dates from a number of different sites containing these platforms throughout a broad geographic area helps bracket their use. Dates obtained from storage platforms of this type from 300
miles away provide evidence for an earlier occurrence of these features and an earlier ancestral Apache presence. A sample of grass from one of these platforms in southern New Mexico in Rough
Canyon (LA 117112/FB 16265) was collected for radiocarbon analysis and this yielded a calibrated two-sigma date of A.D. 1415 to 1490. This falls clearly in the pre-Spanish era, at the end of what
is recognized as the prehistoric occupation. Because the date was run on an annual species it is expected to be accurate and is relatively precise. This date is not inconsistent with a result
obtained from an (non-annual) ocotillo branch from another site in southern New Mexico (LA 117165/FB 16318). This sample produced a calibrated two-sigma date with dual intercepts A.D. 1450 to
1670 and A.D. 1780 to 1795 (Baugh and Sechrist 2001). Yet, another grass sample from a platform at a Whitlock Mountain site (AZ CC:7:11 [BLM]) in southern Arizona (not far from the
Hormiguero Site) resulted in a pre-1400s 2-sigma calibrated date of A.D. 1270 to 1320 (Cal BP 680 to 630) and Cal A.D. 1350 to 1390 (Cal BP 600 to 560) (Beta-203376). This is in the late
prehistoric period for this area.

This fact that some of the dates on these feature types are securely in the historic period (potentially as late as 1730 to 1810, but certainly in the 1600s) provides another line of support that they
are ancestral Apache. By the 1600s the sedentary prehistoric groups had either disappeared or had reorganized (e.g., Eastern and Western Pueblos) and so occupied and used much smaller
territories that did not include all of these remote mountain areas. Other dates, such as those from the Whitlock Mountains, clearly place this feature type in the pre-European period and at the late
end of the prehistoric period (perhaps in the 1200s or 1300s). Thus, there is continuity of this feature type from the prehistoric to historic period. Because these features are not restricted to a
single prehistoric culture area related to farmers but fall within the known broader range for proto-Apache groups they are not likely related to the sedentary farming populations. Couple these
findings with the fact that these features occur in association with distinctively Apachean rock art, features, pottery, and flaked-stone artifacts and a case can be made that they were constructed
by these ancestral Apache and used through time. Clearly, further research is needed, but the real possibility is now raised for an earlier-than-currently-accepted ancestral Apache occupation in
this area and the association of this new feature type with the Apache.

Concluding Statement

The ever-increasing archaeological record of the ancestral Chiricahua Apache provides an independent basis for evaluating the applicability of the content of the historic documentary and
ethnographic records. It is only recently that we are beginning isolate and understand the material and spatial consequences of high mobility and defensive responses to incessant pursuit by hostile
forces. Inferences derived from these historic and ethnographic sources can be fine-tuned and given greater substance by application of archaeological data. At the same time, the relevance of an
archeological pattern can be explored though documentary sources, while it is given explanatory vitality when shown to be replicable by discovery of repeated archaeological occurrences.
Among the ancestral Apache, family and friends often went together ("going together") when seasonal shifts occurred between encampments, particularly during times of the year when resource
availability allowed the congregation of larger numbers of people. This resulted in the clustering of hut distributions either in relatively compact settlements, often segmented by social groups, or in
scattered clusters of dispersed loci. Localized terrain features and resources also attracted people to a favorable location though time, gradually forming accumulations of isolated distributions of
hut remains that formed spatially extensive archaeological sites. Archaeological examples have been identified that are seemingly representative of each of these types of behavior. Study of these
resources provides an unprecedented look into the Apachean past, enhanced by the words of modern informants, the observations of anthropologists, and the chronicles of past explorers, settlers,
and military personnel. The archaeological content and distribution of sites provide guidance on how to interpret recorded statements.

The intent is not to dismiss the value of small habitation sites or those places used for different purposes and on a limited basis. One goal here has been to illustrate that even the largest sites
may be formed by various means, but in ways that differ in duration and intensity from the sedentary farming groups that surround them. These large sites may be composed of many unrelated
short-term habitation events (and in essence consist of numerous "small sites" or discrete small-scale occupational events) or they sometimes comprise places where large groups gathered, often
repeatedly through the years, either from one band or multiple bands throughout a region. Distinguishing these on archaeological sites is one of the challenges before us.
Another goal of this chapter has been to present evidence on the material nature of the Chiricahua Apache signature using a definitive case. Together numerous intersecting lines of evidence reveal
a strong case that the Hormiguero Site is an ancestral Chiricahua Apache habitation site. Different types of evidence point to this cultural affiliation. The Apache-specific rock art indicates that there
is continuity in symbolic representation of Apache beliefs through time, providing archaeologists with a clear demonstration of identity. It is possible to proceed even further with this interpretation
and suggest, on the basis of stylistic characterization of the headdress elements, that Chiricahua mountain spirits were being depicted.

Moving from the specific to the broad view, the geographic distribution of storage platforms reveals that they are too widely distributed to be associated with one prehistoric culture group, and in the
historic period only mobile groups traversed such large territorial expanses. These distributions and the nature of these features are consistent with caching behavior, typical of mobile groups and
specifically characteristic of the Apache, as noted in documentary sources. The dates on these features span the terminal prehistoric (but not earlier) and historic periods providing further evidence
that they were constructed and used by the ancestral Apache, as this the only group to have used these geographic areas and occupied this entire region for this entire time frame. The character of
portable artifacts, specifically the pottery (and other material culture not described here), is consistent with the ancestral Apache signature, as previously defined. These ceramics have produced
dates that are consistent with the other findings from the site, providing a parallel line of evidence that supports the Apachean association. Structural evidence is also consistent with a mobile
presence and the association of other material evidence indicative of the ancestral Apache indicates they were constructed by the ancestral Apache rather than by some other mobile group.
Landscape attributes are also in line with what is known about the Apache historically and ethnographically, and are consistent with other documented habitation sites throughout the Chiricahua
and Mescalero areas that are inferred to be ancestral Apache. This consistency was sufficiently strong that the location of the site was predicted in advance and definitive evidence was found within
minutes of climbing to the appropriate elevations.

Clearly, the archaeological expression of the ancestral Apachean occupancy of the southern Southwest is unobtrusive and subtle. Yet, once the signature is internalized and long-held
conceptualizations are modified to incorporate the material and spatial realities attending high mobility the record begins to reveal its complexities. Inferences made in the past as to the material
and spatial correlates of the content of the ethnographic and historic records have been ineffective in isolating the ancestral Apache archaeologically, suggesting it is time to relinquish those notions
in favor of new conceptualizations. Efforts will be furthered by accepting that the specific characteristics of the ancestral Apache lifeway differed from understandings derived from the nineteenth
century way of life.

References Cited

Arnold, Dean E.
1985 Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York.
Ball, Eve
1970 In the Days of Victorio: Recollections of a Warm Springs Apache. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Basehart, Harry W.
1959a Chiricahua Apache Subsistence and Socio-Political Organization, Section I. A report of the Mescalero-Chiricahua Land Claims Project, Contract #290-154. University of New Mexico,
Albuquerque.
1959b Chiricahua Apache Subsistence and Socio-Political Organization, Section II. A report of the Mescalero-Chiricahua Land Claims Project, Contract #290-154. University of New Mexico,
Albuquerque.
1960 Mescalero Apache Subsistence Patterns and Socio-Political Organization: Sections I and II. A report of the Mescalero-Chiricahua Land Claims Project. University of New Mexico,
Albuquerque.
Basso, Keith H.
1996 Wisdom Sits in Places: Landscape and Language Among the Western Apache. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Baugh, Timothy G. and Mark Sechrist
2001 Protohistoric Apachean Adaptations within the Basin and Range Province of South-Central New Mexico and West Texas: A Perspective from the Fort Bliss Reservation. On file with the
Conservation Division, Directorate of Environment, Fort Bliss, Texas. TRC Mariah Associates, Inc. Report, El Paso.
Betzinez, Jason, and Wilbur Sturtevant Nye
1959 I Fought with Geronimo. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
Binford, L.R.
1979 Organization and Formation Processes: Looking at Curated Technologies. Journal of Anthropological Research 35:255-273.
1980 Willow Smoke and Dogs' Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45:4-20.
Binford, Lewis R.
1987 Researching Ambiguity: Frames of References and Site Structure. In Method and Theory for. Activity Area Research: An Ethnoarchaeological Approach, edited by Susan Kent, pp. 449-512.
Columbia University Press, New York.
Burrus, E. J.
1971 Kino and Manje: Explorers of Sonora and Arizona. In Sources and Studies for the History of the Americas, Vol. 10. Rome and St. Louis: Jesuit Historical Institute.
Cole, D.C.
1988 The Chiricahua Apache: From War to Reservation 1846 - 1876. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Corte?s y de Olarte, Jose? Maria
1989 Views from the Apache Frontier, edited by Elizabeth A.H. John; translated by John Wheat. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Gifford, E.W.
1940 Culture Element Distributions: XVII: Apache-Pueblo. Anthropological Records 4:1. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Goodwin, Grenville
1969[1942] The Social Organization of the Western Apache. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
1929-1939a Dwellings of the White Mountain Apache. Manuscript 17, Goodwin Papers, 1929-1939. Arizona State Museum Archives, University of Arizona, Tucson.
Goodwin, Grenville
1929-1939b Miscellaneous notes. Manuscript 17, Goodwin Papers, 1929-1939. Arizona State Museum Archives, University of Arizona, Tucson.
Goodwin, Grenville and Keith H. Basso
1971 Western Apache Raiding and Warfare. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Gregory, David A.
1981 Western Apache Archaeology: Problems and Approaches. In The Protohistoric Period in the North American Southwest, A.D. 1450-1700. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University Anthropological
Research Papers No. 24, pp. 257-274.
Griffen, William B.
1988 Apaches at War & Peace: The Janos Presidio, 1750-1858. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Hammond, George Peter and Agapito Rey
1966 The Rediscovery of New Mexico, 1580-1594, The Explorations of Chamuscado, Espejo, Castano de Sosa, Morlete, and Leyva de Bonilla and Humana. The University of New Mexico Press,
Albuquerque
Hayden, Brian and Aubrey Cannon
1983 "Where the garbage goes: refuse disposal in the Maya Highlands." Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 2: 117-163
Haury, Emil W.
1985 Mogollon Culture in the Forestdale Valley, East-central Arizona. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Henderson, Richard N.
1957 Field notes of Mescalero-Chiricahua Land Claims interviews with various Chiricahua tribal members. Papers in possession of the author.
1958 An Historical and Ethnographic Study of Problems in Chiricahua Apache Territory, Social Groupings, and Ecology. Draft Master's Thesis (not formally submitted), Department of Anthropology,
University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
Hodge, Frederick Webb and Theodore H. Lewis
1990 The Narrative of Alvar Nunez Cabeza de Vaca. In Spanish Explorers in the Southern United States 1528-1543, pp. 1-123. The Texas State Historical Association, Austin.
Karns, H. J.
1954 Luz de Tierra Incognita. Tucson, AZ: Arizona Silhouettes.
Kluckhohn, Clyde and Dorothea Leighton
1962 The Navajo. The Natural History Library, Anchor Books, Doubleday & Company, Garden City.
Lightfoot, Kent G.
1995 Culture Contact Studies: Redefining the Relationship between Prehistoric and Historical Archaeology. American Antiquity 60(2):199-217.
Madsen, John H.
2009 The Expedition of Don José de Zúñiga. Lost Spanish Trails. Arizona State Museum, The University of Arizona, Tucson. Web page accessed October 15, 2009.
http://www.statemuseum.arizona.edu/exhibits/lostspanishtrails/index.shtml
Opler, Morris Edward
1941 An Apache Life-Way: The Economic, Social, & Religious Institutions of the Chiricahua Indians. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE.
Plog, Fred
1978 An Analytical Approach to Cultural Resource Management: The Little Colorado Planning Unit. Arizona State University, Anthropological Research Papers No.13. Tempe, Arizona
Reher, Charles A.
1983 Analysis of Spatial Structure in Stone Circle Sites. Plains Anthropologist Memoir 19 Vol. 28:193-222.
Schroeder, Albert H.
1974 Apache Indians IV: A Study of the Apache Indians, Parts IV and V, edited by David Agee Horr. Garland Publishing, Inc, New York and London.
Schiffer, Michael B.
1982 Hohokam Chronology: An Essay on History and Method. Chapter 8 In Hohokam and Patayan: Prehistory of Southwestern Arizona, edited by Randall H. McGuire and Michael B. Schiffer, pp.
299-344. Academic Press, New York.
1986 Radiocarbon dates and the "old wood" problem: the case of the Hohokam chronology. Journal of Archaeological Science 13:13-30.
Seymour, Deni J.
2002 Conquest and Concealment: After the El Paso Phase on Fort Bliss. Conservation Division, Directorate of Environment, Fort Bliss. Lone Mountain Report 525/528. This document can be
obtained by qualified researchers by contacting belinda.mollard@us.army.mil.
2003 Protohistoric and Early Historic Temporal Resolution. Conservation Division, Directorate of Environment, Fort Bliss. Lone Mountain Report 560-003. This document can be obtained by qualified
researchers by contacting belinda.mollard@us.army.mil.
2004 A Ranchería in the Gran Apachería: Evidence of Intercultural Interaction at the Cerro Rojo Site. Plains Anthropologist 49(190):153-192.
2005 Sampling Approach and Behavioral Model for Apachean Sites. Cultural Resources Overview and Sample Inventory in the Big Hatchet Mountains. Lone Mountain Archaeological Services, Inc,
Report #900-63, El Paso.
2006a Current Research in the Study of Protohistoric Mobile Groups: An Introductory Statement. Paper presented at the Mogollon Conference, Tucson.
2006b Athabascan and non-Athabascan Mobile Traders at the Salinas Pueblos, in the Galisteo Basin Pueblos, at Pecos Pueblo, and Near Paa-ko. Paper presented at the 2006 Pecos Conference,
Navajo Dam.
2007a With a Grain of Salt: Mobile Visitation and Residence at the Salinas and Galisteo Area Pueblos. Paper presented at the 2007 Pecos Conference, Pecos Pueblo.
2007b Delicate Diplomacy on a Restless Frontier: Seventeenth-Century Sobaípuri Social And Economic Relations in Northwestern New Spain, Part I. New Mexico Historical Review, 82(4):469-500.
2007c Misconceptions about Protohistoric Mobile Group Hut Signatures. Paper presented at the 15th Biennial Jornada Mogollon Conference, El Paso, TX.
2007d Misconceptions about Luminescence Dating: Applications for the Protohistoric. Paper presented at the 15th Biennial Jornada Mogollon Conference, El Paso.
2008a Despoblado or Athapaskan Heartland: A Methodological Perspective on Ancestral Apache Landscape Use in the Safford Area. Chapter 5 in Crossroads of the Southwest: Culture, Ethnicity,
and Migration in Arizona's Safford Basin, pp. 121-162, edited by David E. Purcell, Cambridge Scholars Press, New York.
2008b Pliant Communities: Seasonal Mobile Group Visitation at the Eastern Frontier Pueblos. Society for Historical Archaeology, January 2008.
2008c Apache Plain and Other Plainwares on Apache Sites in the Southern Southwest. In "Serendipity: Papers in Honor of Frances Joan Mathien," edited
by R.N. Wiseman, T.C O'Laughlin, C.T. Snow and C. Travis, pp 163-186. Papers of the Archaeological Society of New Mexico No. 34. Archaeological
Society of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
2008d Surfing Behind the Wave: A Counterpoint Discussion Relating To "A Ranchería In the Gran Apachería." Plains Anthropologist 53(206):241-262.
2008e Delicate Diplomacy on a Restless Frontier: Seventeenth-Century Sobaípuri Social and Economic Relations in Northwestern New Spain, Part II. New Mexico Historical Review, 83(2):171-199.
2009a Evaluating Eyewitness Accounts of Native Peoples along the Coronado Trail from the International Border to Cibola. New Mexico Historical Review
84(3):399-435.
2009b Distinctive Places, Suitable Spaces: Conceptualizing Mobile Group Occupational Duration. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 13(3).
2009c The Cerro Rojo Site (LA 37188)--A Large Mountain-Top Ancestral Apache Site in Southern New Mexico. Digital History Project. New Mexico Office of
the State Historian. http://www.newmexicohistory.org/ Select: Place, Communities, Click on 'Cerro Rojo' on the map (orange square-dot NE of EL Paso,
East of Las Cruces and Dona Ana).
2009d Nineteenth-Century Apache Wickiups: Historically Documented Models for Archaeological Signatures of the Dwellings of Mobile People. Antiquity 83(319):157-164.
2009e Manso Tipis and Other Non Sequiturs Relating to the Protohistoric Southwest. Proceedings of the 2007 Jornada Mogollon Conference, El Paso.
2009f The Canutillo Complex: Evidence of Protohistoric Mobile Occupants in the Southern Southwest. Kiva 74(4):421-446.
2010a Where the Earth and Sky are Stitched Together. Book manuscript under review at University of Utah Press.
2010b Contextual Incongruities, Statistical Outliers, and Anomalies: Targeting Inconspicuous Occupational Events. American Antiquity (January issue).
2010c Rethinking Mobility: Differentiating Parameters of Spatial Patterning in Circumstances of High Residential Mobility. Paper under review at Current Anthropology.
2010d Cycles of Renewal, Transportable Assets: Aspects of Ancestral Apache Housing. Plains Anthropologist (Spring or Summer issue)
Seymour, Deni J. and Tim Church
2007 Apache, Spanish, and Protohistoric Archaeology on Fort Bliss. Conservation Division, Directorate of Environment, Fort Bliss. Lone Mountain Report 560-005.
Seymour, Deni J. and Jeremy Haines
2006 Addressing the Mogollon Rim Hiatus, A.D. 1380 - 1700. Paper presented at the Mogollon Conference, Tucson.
Seymour, Deni J. and George Robertson
2008 A Pledge of Peace: Evidence of the Cochise-Howard Treaty Campsite. Historical Archaeology 42(4): 154-179.
Simms, Steven R., Jason R. Bright, and Andrew Ugan
1997 Plain-ware Ceramics and Residential Mobility: A Case Study from the Great Basin. Journal of Archaeological Science 24:779-792.
Sladen, Captain J.A.
1896 Making Peace with Cochise, Chief of Chiricaua (Sic) Indians, 1872. Manuscript on file at the USDA Coronado National Forest, Tucson.
Sonnichsen, C.L.
1986 The Mescalero Apaches. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Sweeney, Edwin R.
1991 Cochise: Chiricahua Apache Chief. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
1992 Merejildo Grijalva, Apache Captive, Army Scout. Southwestern Study Series No. 96, University of Texas, El Paso.
1997 Making Peace With Cochise: The 1872 Journal of Captain Joseph Alton Sladen. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Thomas, Alfred B.
1932 Forgotten Frontiers. A Study of the Spanish Indian Policy of Don Juan Bautista de Anza, Governor of New Mexico 1777-1787. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
1959 The Chiricahua Apache 1695-1876. University of New Mexico, Mescalero-Chiricahua Land Claims Project, Contract Research #290-154.
1959 The Mescalero Apache 1653-1874. University of New Mexico, Mescalero-Chiricahua Land Claims Project, Contract Research #290-154.
Thomas, Julian
2001 Archaeologies of Place and Landscape. Chapter 7 in Archaeological Theory Today, edited by Ian Hodder, pp. 165-186. Polity Press, Cambridge.
Yellen, John E.
1977 Archaeological Approaches to the Present: Models for Reconstructing the Past. Academic Press, Inc., New York.

Notes

i These notes were collected by Dr. Richard Henderson (1957, 1958) for his intended Master's thesis at University of New Mexico under a Land Claims contract overseen by Harry Basehart. The
content was used in Basehart's (1959a, 1959b) reports.

ii Chokonen and Chihenne are two of the geographically based subgroups or bands of the Chiricahua Apache.

iii Gah'e, or mountain spirits, are a group of supernatural beings who, impersonated by masked dancers, manifest themselves in certain types of curing ceremonials. Some have referred to them as
Apache katchinas. The mountain people, and their most important representatives, the mountain spirits, have a protective role, they guard the tribal territory and defend the people from enemies and
disease. Mountain people refers to the total population of mountain-dwelling supernaturals, the term mountain spirits, applies to those of the mountain people who act as dancers. (ref)

iv It also has evidence of prehistoric occupations.
---------------