Culture and Ecology of Chaco Canyon and the San Juan Basin

- --- - - --~ -----31D / D-9tcCulture and Ecology ofChaco Canyonand the San Juan Basin~2..' lq . ZC>6 ~,PLEASE RETURN TO~TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTERDENVER SERVICE CENTERrl,P,TIONfI,L PARK SERVICE

Front Cover:Overview oj Chaco Canyon taken from the southwest. Pueblo del Arroyo is in the lower section andPueblo Bonito is in the center. (Chaco Culture NHP Museum Archive, C-4580.)Back Cover:LANDSAT image oj the San Juan Basin dated August 16, 1973. (On file, Archaeology Projects,National Park Service, Intermountain Region, Santa Fe.)

--------Culture and Ecology ofChaco Canyonand the San Juan BasinbyFrances Joan MathienPublications in Archeology I8HChaco Canyon StudiesNational Park ServiceU.S. Department of the InteriorSanta Fe, New Mexico2005

ContentsLIST OF FIGURES ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. viiLIST OF TABLES ..................................................... xiPREFACE ., ....................................................... xiiiACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................. xvii1. THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE CHACO PROJECT ....................... 1Background to the Chaco Project ...................................... 4The Chaco Prospectus ............................................. 7Methods ...................................................... 8Remote Sensing Techniques ..................................... 8Survey Techniques ......................................... 12Excavations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15Analytical Techniques ....................................... 16Summary ................................................ 18Organization of This Volume. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 192. THE ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES OF THE CHACO AREA ..... 21The Historic Setting ............................................ " 21Geology ................................................ 22Climate ................................................. 31Hydrology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34Soils. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36Flora .................................................. 37Fauna .................................................. 43Summary ................................................ 45Paleoenvironmental Reconstructions ................................... 45Geomorphological Reconstruction .............................. " 45Palynological Reconstruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 46Evidence from Pack Rat Middens .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 48Comparison of Pollen and Pack Rat Midden Results ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 51Dendroclimatological Reconstruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 52Chaco Project Interpretations ................................. " 53Summary ................................................... " 57iii

3. THE PRECERAMIC PERIOD IN CHACO CANYON ....................... 61Models for the Preceramic Adaptation .................................. 61Chaco Project Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 63Survey Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 64Excavations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 69Comparative Data ............................................... 88The Chaco Canyon Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 88The San Juan Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 90Contributions of Chaco Project Preceramic Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 94Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 954. THE FOUNDATIONS OF CHACOAN SOCIETY: BASKETMAKER III TO PUEBLO I. 97Chaco Project Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 99Survey Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 99Excavations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 101Comparative Analyses ........................................... 106Architectural Studies ....................................... 106Evidence for Chacoan Lifestyles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 113Contributions of the Chaco Project ................................... 118Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1195. THE FLORESCENCE OF THE CHACO PEOPLE: THE CLASSIC PERIOD(PUEBLO II TO EARLY PUEBLO III) ............................... , 127Survey Results ................................................ 128Excavations .................................................. 13129SJ1360 .............................................. 13129SJ627 ............................................... 13429SJ629 (Spadefoot Toad Site) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13829SJ633 ............................................... 141Other Small House Excavations ................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14329S1389 (Pueblo Alto) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 143Studies at Other Related Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 157Other Great Houses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 157Shrines, Signaling Stations, and a Communications System .............. 165Stone Circles .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 169Roads and Road-related Features ............................... 169Irrigation Systems and Agricultural Fields ......................... 171Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1746. THE CLASSIC ADAPTATION WITHIN CHACO CANYON ................. 177Environmental Parameters Affecting Agriculture .......................... 177Land Available and Used for Agriculture ........................ " 180Estimated Population Supported by Available Agricultural Land ........... 183iv

Estimates of Available Water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 185Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 185The Chacoan People. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 185Population Estimates ....................................... 188Diet and Health .......................................... 192Great House and Small House Differences .............................. 196Architectural Studies .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 196Portable Items ........................................... 209Evidence for Ritual, Ceremony, and Cosmology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 218Construction andlor Closure Offerings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 218Possible Ritual Rooms and Practices ............................. 219Cosmology ............................................. 219Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2227. THE FINAL YEARS (A.D. 1140 TO 1300): ABANDONMENTS,FLUCTUATIONS, OR CONTINUITY? ............................... 225Past History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 225Chaco Project Research .......................................... , 231Archival Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., 235Survey ................................................ 235Excavations .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., 236Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2418. RELATED COMMUNITIES IN THE SAN JUAN BASIN ................... , 245Surveys of Outlying Communities .................................. " 245Research at Three Great House Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 255Guadalupe Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 256Bis sa'ani Community ...................................... 257Salmon Ruin ............................................ 258San Juan Basin Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 261Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2639. EXPLAINING PUEBLO SOCIAL ORGANIZATION ..................... " 267External Influences ............................................. 267Indigenous Development Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... " 272The Chaco Project Model ............................ . . . . . . .. 272Agricultural Surplus as the Independent Variable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 277Dual Social Organization .................................... 279Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ " 28210. HISTORIC PERIOD STUDIES ..................................... 299Chaco Project Results .......................................... " 303Survey ................................................ 303Excavation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 311v

History of the Chaco Navajo '" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 322Related Research Projects ......................................... 325Assessment of the Research ...................................... " 32811. THE CHACO PROJECT FROM A BROADER PERSPECTIVE .............. " 331Two Studies in Culture and Ecology .................................. 331Binford's Hunter-Gatherer Studies .............................. 332A. Johnson's Southwestern Horticulturalists ........................ 338Implications for Chaco Canyon and Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 342APPENDICES ..................................................... 345A. EXCAVATED SITES IN CHACO CANYON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 345B. CHRONOLOGY CHARTS ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 363C. THE CHACO SYNTHESIS PROJECT ................................ 369REFERENCES ..................................................... 381INDEX ........................................................ " 425vi

Figures1.1. Map outlining the San Juan Basin, which is located at the southeastern edge of .the Colorado Plateau .............................................. 21.2. Map of the Chaco Basin ............................................ 31.3. Map of Chaco Culture NHP, locating Pueblo sites excavated by the Chaco Project ....... 51.4. 1929 oblique aerial photograph of Chetro Ketl .............................. 91.5. 1929 aerial photograph of small house site and unfinished great house (29S12384)excavated by Frank H. H. Roberts, Jr. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 102.1. Map of the 19 sub-basins of the Chaco Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 232.2. Geomorphic features of the Chaco arroyo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 272.3. Schematic cross-section of alluvial fill in the Chaco Wash ..................... 292.4. Precipitation contours for the San Juan Basin ............................. , 332.5. Vegetation map of Chaco Canyon prepared by Potter and Kelley (1980) ............ 392.6. Environmental changes in Chaco Canyon ................................ 482.7. Environmental reconstruction based on study of macrobotanical remains recoveredfrom pack rat middens ............................................ 492.8. PDSI plotted in 25-year increments from A.D. 901 through 1325 ................ , 543.1. Archaic and Basketmaker II sites recorded during the inventory survey . . . . . . . . . . . .. 653.2. Examples of Archaic and Basketmaker III dart points and preforms ............... 693.3. Location of Archaic sites near Cly's Canyon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 713.4. Location of Archaic rockshelters and dune sites investigated in the rincon westof Cly's Canyon ................................................ 723.5. Overview of 29SJ1118, a stone masonry quarry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 733.6. Overview of 29SJ116 ............................................ , 733.7. Map of excavations at 29SJ116 ...................................... , 743.8. Overview of 29S1126 ............................................. 753.9. Map of excavations at 29SJl26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 763.10. Map of trenches at 29SJl26, indicating materials recorded during excavation . . . . . . . .. 773.11. Overview of Atlatl Cave and Owl Roost Shelter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 793.12. Overview of AtIatl Cave with steep talus visible in foreground .................. 793.13. Map of Atlatl Cave, showing grid layout and excavated areas ................... 803.14. Map of Atlatl Cave, showing areas A and B, the locations of artifact concentrations. . . .. 813.15. Pictographs in Atlatl Cave, including the broad-shouldered man. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 833.16. Sandal and atlatl fragment recovered from Grid 30, Area B, of Atlatl Cave .......... 833.17. Overview of dune ridge location of Sleeping Dune " ...................... " 843.18. Map showing relationship of Ant Hill Dune and Sleeping Dune . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 853.19. Map of grid system at Sleeping Dune ................................. " 863.20. Map of grid system and artifacts recovered at Ant Hill Dune .................. " 87vii

~~~-------3.21. Overview of Sheep Camp Shelter, excavated by the University of Kansas as part of theChaco Shelters Project ............................................ 893.22. Judge's (1982b) hypothetical correlation of chronology, culture, and climate for theSan Juan Basin ................................................. 924.1. Joseph Maloney excavating a slab-lined house near Casa Rinconada in 1936 . . . . . . . . .. 984.2. Identified Basketmaker III habitation sites in and around Chaco Culture NHP . . . . . . .. 1024.3. Identified Pueblo I habitation sites in and around Chaco Culture NHP . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1034.4. Map of Shabik'eshchee Village. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1044.5. Map of 29SJ423, indicating excavated structures and surrounding features ........ " 1054.6. Map of 29SJ299, indicating the A.D. 500s to early 700s site use and the Pueblo Icomponent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 1074.7. Map of 29SJ628 ............................................... 1084.8. Map of 29SJ721, indicating A.D. 600s to late 700s use .................... " 1094.9. Map of 29SJ724 ............................................... 1105.1. Mapof29S11360 .............................................. 1325.2. Construction phases at 29JS1360 ................................... " 1335.3. Map of 29SJ627 ............................................... 1355.4. Construction phases B, C, and D at 29SJ627 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1365.5. Map of 29SJ629 ............................................... 1395.6. Construction phases I through IV at 29SJ629 ........................... " 1405.7. Mapof29SJ633 ............................................... 1425.8. Map of Pueblo Alto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1445.9. The Pueblo Alto community ...................................... " 1455.10. Phase IA construction at Pueblo Alto, A.D. 1020 to 1040 .................... 1465.11. Phases IB and IC construction at Pueblo Alto, A.D. 1020 to 1040 ............... 1475.12. Phase II construction at Pueblo Alto, A.D. 1020 to 1050 ..................... 1485.13. Phase III construction at Pueblo Alto, A.D. 1040 to 1060 ................... " 1495.14. Phase IV construction at Pueblo Alto, A.D. 1080 to 1100 .................... 1505.15 Phase V Construction at Pueblo Alto, A.D. 1100 to 1140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1515.16. Road network around the Pueblo Alto community. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1535.17. Road-related rooms and entry points at Pueblo Alto ........................ 1555.18. Map of Chetro Ketl (29S11928) ..................................... 1585.19. Early Type I masonry beneath Room 62 at Chetro Ketl ...................... 1595.20. Map of Talus Unit No.1 (29S11930) ................................. , 1615.21. Map of Una Vida (29SJ391) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1625.22. Map of Kin Nahasbas (29SJ392) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1645.23. Shrine at 29SJ423: A) Overview of site. B) Plan of shrine ................... 1665.24. Altar box at shrine at site 29SJ423 ................................... 1675.25. Shrines, stone circles, great kivas, and great houses in Chaco Canyon. . . . . . . . . . . .. 1685.26. Map of Chaco roads system ....................................... , 1705.27. Map of the Poco site, 29S1101O ..................................... 1725.28. Map of three excavated circular masonry structures at the Poco site .............. 1725.29. Aerial photograph of the Chetro Ketl field, indicating placement of test trenchesexcavated by Richard Loose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 173viii

6.1. Graph of the drought severity index measured in four-year increments for theChaco area between A.D. 901 and 1201 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1786.2. Composite of masonry types ....................................... 2006.3. Construction labor at great houses by event. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 202604. Mean labor requirements by five-year intervals ........................... 2036.5. Known areas of production of ceramic wares found in Chaco Canyon . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2106.6. Sources of nonlocallithic materials recovered in Chaco Canyon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2137.1. Map of the Headquarters site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2277.2. Map ofBc 236 ................................................ 2287.3. Map ofBc 288, the Gallo Cliff Dwelling ............................... 2297 A. View of Bc 288 nestled inside of a rock shelter ........................... 2307.5. Close view of masonry at Bc 288 .................................... 2307.6. Map of Lizard House . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2327.7. Map ofBc 362 ................................................ 2337.8. Map of Leyit Kin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2347.9. Map of 29SJ633 ............................................... 2378.1. Correlation of chronological divisions used by researchers studying the San Juan Basin . 2478.2. Early Pueblo II communities with Chacoan structures ....................... 2488.3. Late Pueblo II communities with Chacoan structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 249804. Early Pueblo III communities with Chacoan structures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2508.5. Late Pueblo III communities with Chacoan structures ....................... 2518.6. The Chaco halo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2599.1. Access graphs for Pueblo Bonito during stages IlIA (first and second floors) andVIA (first floor) ............................................... 2949.2. Access graphs for Kin Kletso, stages IA and IE ........................... 29510.1. Richard Wetherill and Navajo in camp behind the north wall of Pueblo Bonito in1896 or 1897 ................................................. 30010.2. General view of Pueblo Bonito and surrounding buildings taken in 1929 from thesouth side of Chaco Canyon. A number of historic structures are visible .......... . 30410.3. A 1929 view from the North Mesa looking across Pueblo Bonito to the Pueblo BonitoLodge, the Chaco Trading Company, and Pueblo del Arroyo ................. . 305lOA. The School of American ResearchlUniversity of New Mexico field-school station10.5.10.6.10.7.10.8.10.9.located on the south side of the Chaco Wash, west of Casa Rinconada ............ .Pueblito 3 at the Doll House site (29SJl613). This is a two-room structure ........ .House 9 at the Doll House site (29SJl613) ............................. .Inscriptions from rock-art files for site 29SJ206 .......................... .Map 1, locating Historic period site components attributable to the Pre-Pueblo Revoltperiod, or prior to 1692 (n= 1) ..................................... .Map 2, locating Historic period site components attributable to the Post-Pueblo Revoltperiod, 1692 to 1753 (n=4) ....................................... .30630730730831231310.10. Map 3, locating Historic period site components attributable to the Pre-Reservationperiod, 1753 to 1868 (n=33) ...................................... . 31410.11. Map 4, locating Historic period site components attributable to the Early Reservationperiod, 1868 to 1880 (n=4) ....................................... . 315ix

10.12. Map 5, locating Historic period site components attributable to the Middle Reservationperiod, 1880 to 1920 (n=24) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31610.13. Map 6, locating Historic period site components attributable to the Late Reservationperiod, 1920 to 1945 (n=43) ....................................... 31710.14. Map 7, locating Historic period site components attributable to the Recent period,post 1940 (n= 13) .............................................. 31810.15. Map 8, which combines Historic period site components from the Post-Pueblo Revoltthrough the Early Reservation periods, 1692 to 1868 (n=46) .................. 31910.16. Structures 1, 2, and 3 at the Doll House site (29SJ1613) as seen from Structure 5 ..... 32010.17. Map of the Doll House site (29SJ1613) ................................ 32110.18. Opportunities for wage labor included excavations at archaeological sites; e.g.,Pueblo Bonito in 1924 during the National Geographic Society expedition . . . . . . . . .. 326B.1.Correlation of Pecos classification with various assigned dates and phase terminologyas applied to Chaco Canyon (1924-2001) ............................... 368x

Tables1.1. Sets of aerial photographs of Chaco Canyon and selected outlying Chacoan sites ..... " 112.1. Five alluvial units identified by Hall ................................... 302.2. Plants important for discriminating habitats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 422.3. PDSI values ................................................. " 533.1. Evidence for Paleoindian use of the Chaco area ............................ 643.2. Breakdown of presedentary sites recorded during transect survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 643.3. Archaic and unknown component types by survey area examined after additional landswere added to the park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... " 663.4. Lithic assemblages from Archaic sites in four areas added to the park . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 673.5. Projectile points assigned to the Archaic Period from four areas added to the park . . . . .. 683.6. Comparison of chipped stone materials recovered from Atlatl Cave and the two dunesites located in the same rincon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 886.1. Estimates of land in Chaco Canyon available for crop production. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1826.2. Estimated acres of farm land needed per person . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1836.3. Estimated population in Chaco Canyon that could be supported by agriculture ....... 1846.4. Estimates of populations at excavated sites based on faunal remains .............. 1846.5. Bonito phase population estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1866.6. Pierson's population estimates for Chaco Canyon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1886.7. Windes's small-house population estimates, based on adjusted inventory survey ...... 1896.8. Unusual architectural features found in great houses ........................ 2066.9. Estimates of ceramic imports into Chaco Canyon by period ................... 2116.10. Percentages of lithic imports into Chaco Canyon by period .................. " 2126.11. Proj ected ceramic consumption rates for four sites in Chaco Canyon . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21711.1. Major ecological zones and expected subsistence behavior defined by Binford (2001) . .. 33411.2. Population thresholds identified by Binford (2001) ......................... 33711.3. Comparison of differences among Eastern and Western Pueblo groups ............ 341A.1. Sites excavated or examined by the Hyde Exploring expedition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 346A.2. Sites excavated or examined by the National Geographic Society expedition . . . . . . . .. 348A.3. Sites excavated or examined by the School of American Research/University ofNew Mexico field schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 351A.4. Sites excavated or examined by the National Park Service between 1937 and 1969 . . . .. 355A.5. Excavations and tests conducted by the Chaco Project ...................... , 358xi

-- - -- - ---- ~----- - --B.I. Ceramic typological time used in artifact analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... " 363B.2. Bonito phase ceramic assemblages .................................. " 364B.3. Dominant ceramic types by period used by TrueII (1986) in analysis of architectureof small sites ................................................. 365B.4. Chaco chronology as updated by T. C. Windes ........................... 366C.!. The organization of production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 371C.2. Society and polity .............................................. 372C.3. The Chaco World .............................................. 373C.4. Economy and ecology ........................................... , 374C.5. Chaco, Mesa Verde, and the confrontation of time ......................... 375C.6 Chacoan architecture ............................................ 376C.7. The capstone conference ......................................... , 377C.8. In Search of Chaco: New Approaches to an Archaeological Enigma, edited by DavidGrant Noble . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 379xii

PrefaceThe National Park Service (NPS) Chaco Projectwas a cooperative and multidisciplinary endeavor thatmaintained several ties to earlier field schoolsconducted in Chaco Canyon by the University of NewMexico (UNM), School of American Research (SAR),and Museum of New Mexico (MNM) from 1929 to1942, and in 1947. First, several archaeologists involvedwith the Chaco Project had been field-schoolstudents in Chaco Canyon (e.g., John M. Corbett,Robert H. Lister, Alden C. Hayes, and Thomas W.Mathews) and were later employed by the NPS forsome period during their careers prior to the initiationof the Chaco Project. Second, during those earlyyears, UNM held title to several sections of land thatwere within the boundaries of Chaco Canyon NationalMonument (Hewett 1936:207-213). A 1949 agreementceded those parcels to the NPS, with the understandingthat UNM would have the privilege ofconducting research in future years. (Note that, forpurposes of this volume, the original NPS administrativedesignation HChaco Canyon NationalMonument" and the current NPS administrativedesignation "Chaco Culture National Historical Park"will both be referred to as "the park. ") Third, duringthe Chaco Project several NPS staff held facultyappointments in the department of anthropologyand/or taught at least one course per academic year.Fourth, a number of UNM graduate and undergraduatestudents from various departments were ableto participate in various natural and cultural resourcestudies. Fifth, and last, so as not to separate the twomajor collections and to make them more easilyaccessible for future study, the NPS Chaco Projectcollections remain on the UNM campus as part of acooperative agreement between these two institutions.Although the following brief review of this uniquemultidisciplinary collaborative program is offered forits historical perspective, other institutions were alsoinvolved, and younger investigators continue to pursueanswers to new questions.In the 1960s, John M. Corbett was the NPS chiefarchaeologist. When the opportunity to begin anothermajor NPS research program arose, he realized thatmany questions about Chaco Canyon remainedunanswered. Additionally, the NPS could gain recognitionfor its archaeological research program byinitiating a project that utilized cutting-edge technologyand employed a multidisciplinary approach tostudies of adaptive change in a well-known andarchaeologically rich area in northwestern NewMexico. To gain approval for his plan, Corbettneeded a prospectus that included a research design,plans for facilities, number and types of personnel,and costs. He contacted Douglas W. Schwartz,Director of SAR, who prepared an initial bibliographyon Chaco studies and sponsored an advanced seminaron Chaco Canyon. A number of scholars representingNPS, UNM, and Chaco research, as well as specialistsfrom related fields, met on January 8-11, 1969. Theseminar discussions (NPS Chaco Culture NHPMuseum Archive, No. 1996) were formalized byWilfred Logan and Zorro Bradley as the ChacoProspectus (NPS 1969); it was soon approved byGeorge B. Hartzog, then Director of the NPS (Maruca1981:11-12).To initiate the program, Thomas R. Lyons, ananthropologist and geologist who had worked in theSan Juan Basin and who was testing remote sensingtechniques at the Technical Applications Center atUNM, was appointed acting director of the ChacoCanyon Archeological Center on September 20, 1969.Studies were initiated by faculty and students in thedepartments of biology , geography, and geology, andthe Office of Contract Archaeology. Lyons updatedthe natural and cultural resources bibliography andconcentrated on the evaluation of remote sensingtools. Space on the UNM campus was provided forLyons and his staff until a permanent research facilitywas completed on the second floor of the anthropologybuilding in 1972.Throughout the years, numerous NPS administrativechanges ensued; these affected the name of theproject and how it was managed over the years. Inxiii

List of participants in the School of American Research Advanced Seminar on Chaco Canyon,January 8-11, 1969.ParticipantBradley, ZorroCampbell, JohnCorbett, John M.Daugherty, Richard D.Ellis, Florence H.Ewing, GeorgeHaag, William G.Longacre, William A.Potter, Loren D.Reed, Erik K.Schwartz, Douglas W.Vivian, R. GwinnAffiliationNational Park Service, Washington, D.C.Department of Anthropology, University of New MexicoNational Park Service, Washington, D.C.Department of Anthropology, Washington State UniversityDepartment of Anthropology, University of New MexicoMuseum of New Mexico, Santa Fe, NMDepartment of Anthropology, Louisiana State UniversityDepartment of Anthropology, University of ArizonaDepartment of Biology, University of New MexicoNational Park Service, Santa Fe, NMSchool of American Research, Santa Fe, NMDepartment of Anthropology, University of ArizonaNames under which the Chaco Project operated.DateName1969 - Sept. 20 Chaco Canyon Archeological Center1971 - Aug. 10 New Mexico Archeological Center1973 - July 18 Chaco Center1976 - Nov. 21 Division of Remote Sensing established under the Southwest Cultural Resource CenterDivision of Chaco Research established under the Southwest Cultural ResourceCenter1978 - Oct. 1 Division of Cultural Research1980 - April 20 Branch of Remote Sensing placed under the Division of Cultural Research1985 - Mar. 31 Branch of Cultural Research placed under the Division of Anthropology of theSouthwest Cultural Resource Center1995 - May 15 Archaeology Program of the Intermountain Cultural Resource Center1997 - Jan.Archaeology Program of the Intermountain Region, Santa Fe OfficcList of Publications in Archeology, Chaco Canyon Studies.SeriesNumber18A18B18CTitle and Author/EditorArcheological Surveys of Chaco Canyon, New Mexicoby Alden C. Hayes, David M. Brugge, and W. James JudgeGreat Pueblo Architecture of Chaco Canyon, New Mexicoby Stephen H. LeksonTsegaL' An Archeological Ethnohistory of the Chaco Regionby David M. BruggeDate ofPublication198119841986xiv

18D18E18F18G18HSmall Site Architecture of Chaco Canyon, New Mexicoby Peter J. McKenna and Marcia L. TruellEnvironment and Subsistence of Chaco Canyon, New Mexicoedited by Frances Joan MathienInvestigations at the Pueblo Alto Complex, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, 1975-1979Volumes I and II by Thomas C. WindesVolume III edited by Frances Joan Mathien and Thomas C. WindesCeramics, Lithics, and Ornaments of the Prehistoric People of Chaco Canyonedited by Frances Joan MathienCulture and Ecology of Chaco Canyon and the San Juan Basinby Frances Joan Mathien19861985198719972005List of Repons of the Chaco Center.SeriesNumber1234567891011121314Title and Author/EditorRemote Sensing Experiments in Cultural Resource Studies: Non-destructive Methods ofArcheological Exploration, Survey, and Analysisedited by Thomas R. LyonsAerial Remote Sensing Techniques in Archeologyedited by Thomas R. Lyons and Robert K. HitcocockThe Outlier Survey: A Regional View of Settlement in the San Juan Basinby Robert P. Powers, William B. Gillespie, and Stephen H. LeksonA History of the Chaco Navajosby David M. BruggeStone Circles of Chaco Canyon, Northwestern New Mexicoby Thomas C. WindesThe Architecture and Dendrochronology ofChetro Ketl, Chaco Canyon, New Mexicoedited by Stephen H. LeksonArchitecture and Material Culture of29SJ1360, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico.by Peter J. McKennaRecent Research on Chaco Prehistoryedited by W. James Judge and John D. SchelbergA Biocultural Approach to Human Burials from Chaco Canyon, New Mexicoby Nancy J. AkinsExcavations at 29SJ 633: The Eleventh Hour Site, Chaco Canyon, New Mexicoedited by Frances Joan MathienExcavations at 29SJ 627, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, Volume 1. The Architecture andStratigraphyby Marcia L. TruellExcavations at 29SJ 627, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. Volume II. Artifact Analysesedited by Frances Joan MathienThe Spadefoot Toad Site: Investigations at 29SJ 629 in Marcia's Rincon and the Fajada GapPueblo 1l Community, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico2 volumes by Thomas C. WindesEarly Puebloan Occupations in the Chaco Region: Excavations and Survey of Basketmaker1II and Pueblo I Sites, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico2 volumes by Thomas C. WindesAn Archaeological Survey of the Additions to Chaco Culture National Historical Parkedited by Ruth M. VanDykeDate ofPublication19761977198319791978198319841984198619911992199320062006xv

1971, Robert H. Lister, then at the University ofColorado, completed a m~or research project in MesaVerde National Park. He soon transferred to UNM,where on February 8 he was appointed professor ofanthropology; and in April he became permanentdirector of the Chaco Project. This allowed Lyons toconcentrate on studies in remote sensing, which hepursued over the next decade not only in the canyon,but also in other environments. In 1976, the RemoteSensing Division was created as a separate entitybecause the investigations expanded beyond ChacoCanyon; this division would be reintegrated in 1980.Over time, a number of permanent staff wereresponsible for the archaeological research program.Lister directed Chaco Project studies from 1971through 1978. Alden C. Hayes, who was completingNPS reports on Gran Quivira and Mesa Verde, joinedthe staff in June 1971 to direct field surveys andexcavations. He also filled in behind Lister, whobecame Chief Archaeologist in Washington, D.C.,after Corbett retired. As Hayes neared retirement inJanuary 1976, W. James Judge, who had joined theNPS staff on July 1, 1974, assumed many of theseresponsibilities. In 1978, when Lister retired, Judgebecame director of the project, a position he held until1985. Lyons, Lister, and Judge also taught courses atthe undergraduate and graduate levels in the UNMdepartment of anthropology; the last two held jointNPS/UNM faculty appointments.Much of the field work was carried out undercontract. Initially archaeologists were hired for surveyor excavation through the Office of ContractArcheology at UNM. In 1978, when field work hadbeen completed, most of them became NPS termemployees for four years to complete analyses ofmaterials recovered and prepare reports. When theterm appointments expired in 1982, much work stillremained. Although they found other employment,these dedicated archaeologists voluntarily completedthis work. Only a few would receive contracts toassist them with their analyses and reports.On October 26, 1984, the NPS established a taskforce to evaluate a proposal to consolidate what wasthen called the Division of Cultural Research with theDivision of Anthropology in the NPS SouthwestCultural Resource Center. This transfer was finalizedon March 31,1985. In that year, Judge resigned, andLarry V. Nordby took responsibility for the programas it was transferred from UNM to NPS offices inSanta Fe in 1986. The focus was on completion ofreports and publication of results. Twenty-two titleswere published in two government series. Additionally,numerous papers appeared in journals and editedvolumes; many are listed as Contributions of theChaco Center, which are maintained in the NPSanthropology program office in Santa Fe.Because it was the intention of UNM and theNPS to retain their two m~jor Chaco collections in thesame facility, data collected by the Chaco Project andthe accompanying analytical records remain at UNMunder a cooperative agreement. The responsibility forthe NPS collections now resides with the superintendentof Chaco Culture National Historical Park.The two collections are accessible to researchers whovisit the Chaco Culture NHP Museum Collections onthe UNM campus in Albuquerque.When it came time to produce a synthesis of theChaco Project, NPS archaeologists were aware thatmuch new research expanded our knowledge of thePueblo use of Chaco Canyon and the Chaco World.As a result, Stephen H. Lekson was asked to direct asynthesis project that would bring our interpretationsup-to-date. Two volumes were originally planned tobe part of a companion set. This volume is the firstof the two; it covers the work conducted by NPS from1969 through 1985. Lekson's The Archaeology ofChaco Canyon: An Eleventh Century Pueblo RegionalCenter, published by the School of AmericanResearch, is volume II. It incorporates the mostrecent scholarly interpretations of the Chaco World.In summary, John M. Corbett envisioned amajor research program in Chaco Canyon that wouldevaluate the natural and cultural resources of a wellknownarea and provide information to the publicthrough reports and an interpretive program. AsWilshusen and Hamilton (2005) conclude, this was amajor cultural resources management program that,because of its discoveries, resulted in enlarging theformer Chaco Canyon National Monument into ChacoCulture National Historical Park in 1980 and itsdesignation as a World Heritage Park in 1987.Corbett would have been pleased with these results,which, I think, went beyond his expectations.xvi

AcknowledgmentsThe Chaco Project was a labor of love for all ofthose involved, not just the archaeologists and theirprofessional colleagues who contributed to studies ofnatural resources and the environment. Many workedbehind the scenes to run the organization and supportthe program, and there were numerous volunteers whogave generously of their time and energy. Someserved only a short time, while others spent manyyears. Based on available records, I would like torecognize those listed on the following two pages;hopefully, no one has been missed.I also want to thank Jim Judge, who, when heannounced his resignation in 1985, called me into hisoffice and indicated that I was to serve as generaleditor of the Chaco Project publications program.Additionally, he provided a tentative outline for asynthesis of the project, which I would eventuallywrite. These were formidable tasks for someone whohad not joined the Chaco Project until the field workwas completed. At that time, I doubted if it would bepossible to complete these assignments; but with a listof remaining publications and the help of mycolleagues, we pressed ahead one volume at a time.In my capacity as general editor, I worked withmany people who made the completion of thepublications program possible. First and foremost arethe archaeologists and staff of the Chaco Project andcounterparts in other fields who have given of theirtime to complete the numerous volumes, worked withpeer reviewers' comments and editors' changes, andproofread final versions of manuscripts. Without theircontributions, these publications would not have beenpossible. Without these publications, a synthesis ofthe project could not have been written. Additionally,typists and editorial assistants processed handwrittentext and tables and formatted them intoreadable typed versions, and finally into camera-readycopy. Over the past two decades, the following haveassisted in various aspects of this work: RosemaryAmes, Sarah L. Chavez, Dolores M. Guenzi, RodHardy, Leah Hott, Sherry 1. Ivey, J. P. Moore,Margaret Mosher, Heidi Reed, Lauren T. Rimbert,Carmen Silva, Judy Stem, and Gloria J. Vigil.Editors who polished the prose were invaluable;among them were Douglas L. Caldwell, Barbara E.Cohen, Carol J. Condie, M. Robyn Cote, Barbara L.Daniels, Jane N. Harvey, Kathy McCoy, IreneMitchell, Bruce Panowski, June-el Piper, PaulaSabloff, Lynne Sebastian, John C. Thomas, and LauraWare. Jerry L. Livingston, scientific illustrator,formatted the layout of many volumes, provided linedrawings and photographs, and supervised the work ofEmesto Martinez, drafting technician. Additionalillustrations were drawn by Gigi Bayliss, NancyLamm, Matthew Schmader, Cherie Rohn, and VickiSpencer. Photographs were provided by Gary Listerand Bruce Moore. Barbara E. Cohen, Barbara L.Daniels, Jane N. Harvey, and Kathleen Havill indexedthe volumes. To all of these people, lowe a debt ofgratitude.Besides NPS funds, support came from a numberof people and institutions. Included are The JonsonFoundation, the Maxwell Museum of Anthropology ofthe University of New Mexico (which sponsoredChaco Tours), New Mexico State University MuseumDocent Tours, and the Southwest Parks andMonuments Association (now Western National ParksAssociation). Other individuals donated fees fromlectures or tours to the Chaco Publications Fund; suchassistance was often the boost needed to complete aspecific report.I also want to acknowledge the role that JoyceRaab, Chaco archivist, has played in this production.We shared office space for over a decade, duringwhich time she has been a professional colleague whoknew where to find materials and photographs. Mostof all, she listened as I faced challenges with differentaspects of production of the volumes that make up thisseries-especially this one.xvii

Personnel associated with the Chaco Project from 1969 to 1985 include:Abbink, Emily Clay, Glendalee Hall, StephenAkins, Nancy J. Cly, Susan Harrison, DennisAltschul, Jeffrey S. Comber, Mary Jo Harrison, GeraldAmes, Rosemary Cooper, Kelly Hasuse, AmosAnastasio, Julian Creelman, Frank Hayes, Alden C.Aragon, Ann M. Creelman, Linda Henry, WilburArany, Lynn Crowder, June Henry, WilfordArchuleta, Rosarita O. Cully, Anne Hitchcock, Robert H.Atencio, John Cully, Jack Hodges, WilliamAtkins, Victoria Curran, Antoinette Holley, JayAugustine, Ken Curtis, Bonnie Hooten, Linda JeanBandy, Phil Curtis, Curt Hopkins, Thomas S.Barde, David Curtis, Greg Hott,LeahBeardsley, John Curtis, Kathy Huckins, RogerBegay, Gene Curtis, Robert Hulett, MattBegay, Tsosie Curtis, Ty Ingbar, EricBennett, Connie Davis, Cindy Ireland, Arthur K.Bertram, Jack Davis, D. Ivey, Sherry J.Betancourt, Julio Dean, Glenna Jacobson, LouAnnBeven, Bruce Dean, Jeffrey S. Joiner, CarolBeyale, Chee DeAngelis, James M. Jones, KirtlandBeyale, George Dederich, Jo Devon Jorde, LynnBeyale, James Dennison, Alvin Judge, W. JamesBlanchard, Scott P. Dolphin, Lambert Kee, JamesBlea, Enrique Donaldson, Marcia Kee, VictorBoyer, Kent Drager, Andrew King, NormanBradford, James Drager, Dwight L. Kinney, FrancesBrancard, William DuBois, R. Klappert, H. E.Bratcher, L. Angelle Ebert, James I. Klausner, StephanieBretemitz, Cory D. Eggert, Kenneth G. Kloth, RaymondBritt, Martin Emslie, Steve Knight, GeorgiaBrooks, Marita H. Etavard, Dorothy Knight, SuSuBronitsky, Ronald Etavard, Paul Lagasse, Peter F.Broster, John Etcitty, Ben LaneJI, CharlesBrown, Galen Etcitty, Gilbert Lekson, Stephen H.Brugge, David M. Etcitty, Herman Levine, DaisyBums, Bruce FanaIie, Rosalie Levine, RichardBurt, Fred Flynn, Leo Lewin, HarrilynCameron, Catherine M. Forman, Mac Lewis, DavidCamilli, Eileen Fransted, Dennis Linville, JuneCassidy, Dorothy Freund, Pan Lister, Gary G.Castiano, Wayne Fulgham, Tommy R. Lister, Robert H.Castillo, Wallace Garcia, Eddy Livingston, Jerry L.Charles, James Gillespie, William B. Loose, Richard W.Chavez, Sarah Lee Gleickman, Carol Lopez, DanielChavez, Shirley Graham, Martha Lopez, JimmyClaffery, Mary Greenlee, Robert Lopez, JuniorClary, Karen H. Guenzi, Dolores Lopez, LewisClark, Jennie Gutierrez, Alberto Love, David W.Clay, Amanda Hagarty, Barbara M. Lyons, Thomas R.xviii

Majewski-Bums, DonnaMalde, HaroldMatjon, PeterMartinez, JohnnyMasterson, KellyMathews, Thomas W.Mathien, Frances JoanMcKenna, Peter J.McKibben, AnnMcLeod, C. MiloMeleski, RichardMiles, Judith L.Miles-Neely, BethMills, Barbara J.Mitchell, CheeMoore, Bruce E.Moquin, MikeMorain, Stanley A.Morgan, VernonMorrison, C. RandallMosher, MargaretNeller, Earl H.Noonan, TerryNorberta, BenNordby, Larry V.Obenauf, Margaret S.Pablo, JimmyPadilla, LouisPattison, NataliePeaker, L.Peterson, DelmarPowers, Robert P.Ralph, ElizabethRatti, BrettReeves, CarolineReinhard, Karl J.Rice, PhilRimbert, Lauren T.Roll, SteveRose, MartinRoss, CatherineRoss, JosephSalazar,Sappington, RobertSchalk, Randall F.Schelberg, John D.Schieck, CherieSebastian, LynneShaffer, JohnShipman, ThomasShorty, PavShure, StephenSiemers, Charles T.Snow, CordeliaSounart, RobertSonnleitner, StephanieSpeth, JohnStanford, DennisStein, JohnStems, JudithStiner, MarySullivan, SharonTainter, JosephTatum, Lise S.Thrift, JohnToll, H. WolcottToll, Mollie StrueverTruell, Marcia L.Trujillo, JakeTrujillo, NelsonTso, PaulVanDevender, ThomasVicklund, LonytaVigil, CarolVigil, GloriaWainwright, BernardWalt, HenryW andsnider, LuAnnWarburton, MirandaWare, JohnWarren, A. HeleneWarren, RichardWasson, DanWells, Stephen G.Welsh, StanleyWerito, CliffordWerito, RogerWerner, OswaldWero, JohnWeymouth, JohnWhite, AdrianWhittlesey, JulianWilliams, DavidWills, Elizabeth o.Wills, Wirt H.Windes, Connor L.Windes, Mary JoWindes, Thomas C.Windes, ToddWindham, MichaelWitter, AnnWitter, DanYazzi, BruceYoung, Lisa C.Young, Richardxix

For this volume, lowe special thanks to JeffreyS. Dean, who reviewed the chapters on environmentand natural resources studies; to Earl Neller for hiscomments on the Preceramic; to R. Gwinn Vivian,who carefully read and commented on chaptersdevoted to the Pueblo adaptation; to David M.Brugge, who reviewed the Historic Period chapter;and to Thomas C. Windes and Arthur K. Ireland, whoassisted with the list of personnel involved and theremote sensing studies. Ireland also reviewed a longerversion of the remote sensing studies section.Although Jerry L. Livingston retired a decadeago, he had prepared most of the line drawings thatappear in this volume; John George located them inthe Chaco Culture NHP Museum Archive. Those thatwere not yet finalized were recently drawn by GeorgiaBayliss, who works in the same style as Livingston.Walter Wait assisted with the scanning of thesefigures.Through the assistance of James Brooks andCatherine Cocks of the School of American Research,Barbara J. Mills and Stephen Plog graciously revieweda much longer manuscript and offered many usefulsuggestions to improve the content and presentation ofthe data. The interpretations that follow in thissynthesis, however, are mine alone.Jane N. Harvey edited and proofread thechapters. Kathleen Havill prepared the index. Tothese colleagues, I offer my deep-felt gratitude.Now, at the conclusion of the Chaco Project, Imust admit that the opportunity to participate in thismajor research project has been a challenge. I amgrateful to Jim Judge for taking this student under hiswing and trusting her with the responsibility ofpresenting the work of so many colleagues in thisvolume.Frances Joan Mathien, NPS Archaeologist,and General Editor for Chaco Project PublicationsMay 2005xx

Chapter OneThe National Park Service Chaco ProjectAND WHEREAS, the extensive prehistoric communal or pueblo ruins in San Juan and McKinleyCounties, Territory of New Mexico, principally embraced within the Chaco Canyon and generally knownas the Chaco Canyon ruins, situated upon the public lands owned and controlled by the United States, areof extraordinary interest because of their number and their great size and because of the innumerable andvaluable relics of a prehistoric people which they contain, and it appears that the public good would bepromoted by reserving these prehistoric remains in a National Monument with as much land as may benecessary for the proper protection thereof.NOW, THEREFORE, I, Theodore Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, by virtue of thepower in me invested by section two of the aforesaid act of Congress, do hereby set aside as the ChacoCanyon National Monument, subject to any valid and existing rights, the prehistoric ruins and burialgrounds situated in San Juan County, New Mexico. . .. (By the President of the United States ofAmerica, A Proclamation [No. 740-Mar. 11, 1907-35 Stat. 2119].)Chaco Canyon is located in the northwesterncomer of New Mexico in the approximate center ofthe San Juan Basin (Figure 1.1). As part of thesoutheastern section of the Colorado Plateau, the SanJuan Basin encompasses an area of approximately40,000 km 2 , and is ringed by mountains-the San Juanand La Plata mountains on the north, the Carrizo andChuska mountains on the west, the Zuni Mountains tothe south, and the Nacimiento Mountains to the east.The San Juan Basin includes several smaller drainagesystems; e.g., the Chaco, which flows into the SanJuan River west of Farmington and near Shiprock.Within the approximately 11,500 km 2 Chaco Basin,Chaco Canyon (Figure 1.2) was carved out of thelower section of the upper Chaco Wash just before itmeets the Escavada Wash to form the Chaco River.Chaco Canyon is 32.5 km long, and from 500 to1,000 m wide (D. Love 1983b: 187). Sandstones andshales form the cliffs that rise between plains thatstretch north from the Escavada Wash and south fromChacra Mesa to enclose the canyon.Today Chaco Canyon is a tourist and researchdestination, but this was not always so. We nowknow that Archaic hunters and gatherers camped thereover several millennia; ancestors of historic Pueblopeople dependent on maize agriculture created themasonry structures for which Chaco Canyon NationalMonument was established. The canyon is now hometo only a few National Park Service (NPS) employees,who live amidst Navajo sheep- and cattle-rancherswhose ancestors came to this area after the Pueblopeoples moved to other locations. Deciphering thishistory has been under way for more than 150 years(Brand 1937a; Frazier 2005; Lister and Lister 1981;Gwinn Vivian 1990; Gordon Vivian and Mathews1965). The NPS Chaco Project (1969 to 1985) addedmuch to our understanding of this history; it was amajor research program that has inspired manyscholars who continue the quest for explanation ofevents that occurred in this stark setting. This volumewill document the Chaco Project's contributions fromboth historical and regional archaeological perspectives.This chapter will outline the background inwhich the NPS Chaco Project took place; e.g., thescholarly milieu in which the research was conducted,

2 Chaco Project Synthesis50. J ••• 'u'o'-c±-cL. ,'.Figure 1.1.Map outlining the San Juan Basin, which is located at the southeastern edge of theColorado Plateau. (Taken from Drager and Lyons 1983.)

_"'~I". _~,.. __The NPS Chaco Project 3•I J'____ COLORADO :____.._..,,-: i,o 1\N I \.H \ .CI:. \IiC I ~I·1-. \ .\•I Mexican• Sprlng$,', ........ , ...... ::::·::h._~ .... ..:•i.-....... - --:------..--".,•Ii•I •I •IQ 20SCALEI ..._~__..... I MILES Ni___ State Boundaly• • • "Continental DivideChaco Drai:na&e &am___ Count;, BouncWy::::>- Major Strcam&Figure 1.2. Map of the Chaco Basin. (Taken from DeAngelis 1972:Figure 1.)

4 Chaco Project Synthesisand the federal regulations that affected the researchdesign. Once the prevalent interpretations of Chaco atthe time of the project's inception are reviewed, thegoals of the Chaco Prospectus (NPS 1969) will bepresented. At that time, new research tools werebecoming available; the methods in which they wereemployed, as well as some of the results andevaluations of these new techniques, will be presentedprior to outlining how the research results are groupedinto four major topics in the remaining chapters of thisbook.Background to the Chaco ProjectDiscovery, documentation, and discussion ofdata obtained by examining several large ruins and anumber of small houses related to the Pueblo use ofthe canyon (Figure 1.3) began in the late 1800s. Anumber of institutions conducted major multiyearprojects now commonly referred to as the HydeExploring Expedition (1896 to 1901), the NationalGeographic Society Expedition (1921 to 1927), andthe combined School of American Research (SAR)/University of New Mexico (UNM)/Museum of NewMexico (MNM) field schools (1929 to 1942, 1947)(Lister and Lister 1981). In 1937, the NPS inaugurateda ruins stabilization program, and NPSarchaeologists conducted surveys and excavations atseveral sites in order to prevent loss of knowledgeabout these resources due to erosion and other naturalprocesses. By 1969, therefore, numerous surveys andexcavations had been completed-but reports oftenremained buried among field notes kept byarchaeologists or in repositories of sponsoringinstitutions. Appendix A provides a list of excavationscarried out as part of each of these majorperiods and indicates where relevant information maybe found.Just prior to the Chaco Project, Gordon Vivianand Tom Mathews (1965) published their summary ofarchaeological research in the canyon area andoutlined topics for future research. A few preceramicsites had been identified, but they were not included insurvey records and no excavations of these sites hadbeen conducted. Historic records and interaction withNavajo provided some information about their recentuse of the canyon, but the exact date of Navajoentrance into the area was uncertain. A few sitesoutside the park boundaries had been excavated (Judd1954; Gwinn Vivian 1960). Most research hadfocused on early Pueblo use of the canyon. Based onKidder's (1927) Pecos Classification, change in usethroughout that period was thought to progress froman incompletely described Basketmaker II periodwithout pottery; to life in pithouses (some in smallsettlements); to use of above-ground structures with afew rooms by agriculturalists; to multifamilydwellings, the earliest of which are found in ChacoCanyon. Early Pueblo use of the canyon wasrecognized as occurring during the Basketmaker IIIperiod, for which Shabik'eshchee Village (Roberts1929) was the type site. Shabik'eshchee Village wasthought to represent occupation during the later part ofthis period (A.D. 700s), and to continue into PuebloI (Bullard 1962); this latter period was alsorepresented by Half House (R. N. Adams 1951) andone of Judd's (1924) pithouses. Most excavators hadfocused on four of the large Classic period sites,considered to be towns much like the historic puebloswith large numbers of permanent residents: PuebloBonito (Judd 1954, 1964; Pepper 1920); Chetro Ketl(Hawley 1934; Hewett 1936; Reiter 1933); Pueblo delArroyo (Judd 1959); Una Vida (unreported); and KinKletso (Gordon Vivian and Mathews 1965).During the 1930s, Hawley (1937b; Kluckhohn1939a) recognized that sherds recovered from ChetroKetl and several small houses indicated contemporaneityof occupation. Several possible explanationswere offered, including two different mental outlooks(conservative and progressive), two different socialorganizations, or two different groups of people.Unfortunately, for the smaller and somewhatcontemporary excavated sites, only a few reports werereadily available (e.g., Brand et a1. 1937; Dutton1938; Kluckhohn and Reiter 1939). Based onexcavations at Pueblo Bonito, where the greatestnumber of exotic items were recovered from rooms inthe earliest section of the building, Judd (1954,1964)had also proposed that two different groups of peoplewere present.By 1969, several sites recently excavated by NPSarchaeologists included considerable amounts ofMcElmo Black-on-white pottery; there was somedebate over the place of this ceramic type and thedimpled McElmo masonry style in the Chacosequence. Pottery attributed to the McElmo periodincluded a number of recognized types: the mineral-

kin 9l,,~ojcU"ilFigure 1.3.Map of Chaco Culture NHP, locating Pueblo sites excavated by the Chaco Project.

6 Chaco Project Synthesispainted Escavada, Gallup, and Chaco black-on-whites,as well as carbon-painted McElmo Black-on-white.The presence of carbon-painted wares had beenattributed to colonists from other areas (Rawley1937b; Judd 1964), as well as to importation (Dutton1938; Kluckhohn 1939a). Gordon Vivian andMathews (1965:75) argued against a rapid successionof pottery styles that quickly supplanted one another;they proposed that the mineral- and carbon-paintedwares coexisted in the area for a considerable periodof time, and that the carbon-painted wares eventuallywere adopted over a wide area due to a shift indecorative materials and styles. The concept of shiftsalso accounted for the heavier design elementsemployed in the later Mesa Verde period decorativestyle (Vivian and Mathews 1965:83). The role ofmigration in Pueblo history and the meaning of theMcElmo period (when carbon-painted ceramics anddimpled masonry are introduced) in Chaco Canyonwere two issues that needed clarification (Vivian andMathews 1965).Because several large and small sites were contemporaneous,Gladwin's (1945) progression from theRosta Butte phase through the Classic Bonito phasewas incorrect. Z. Bradley (1971) partially supportedGladwin's (1945) proposition regarding a northwardmovement of population initially in Basketmaker III,then sequential development from the later Rosta Buttephase seen at the small houses to the Bonito phase ofthe large houses. Bradley's excavation at Bc 236revealed a lO-room pueblo with an enclosed kivaconstructed of large, double-faced blocks that hadbeen pecked and smoothed and remodeling of a kivato accommodate a keyhole-like recess, as well as aninfant burial accompanied by a Mesa Verde Black-onwhitebowl in a remodeled room. Using data fromPierson's (1949) survey of small houses on both sidesof the Chaco Wash, Bradley concluded that theevidence from Bc 236 indicated a peaceful transitionof people from one type of living quarters to anotherduring this later period. He proposed that the originalChaco population moved out of their Hosta Buttehomes into great houses; and that incomingnortherners then utilized the Hosta Butte houses, aswell as building their own. In contrast, Voll (1964),who had excavated a Pueblo III house (Be 362) with18 rooms, three kivas, and two plazas constructedaround A.D. 1088 and remodeled around 1109,thought that Bc 192 (excavated by Maxon 1963) andBc 362 were less like typical Rosta Butte phase sites(Bc 50 and Bc 51) and probably belonged in theMcElmo phase. The mingling of McElmo and Chacoblack-on-white pottery did not suggest massmigrations. The proposition of an influx of peoplefrom the north or the San Juan River left manyunanswered questions. Row different were thepeople? Were their differences linguistic, ethnic, orwhat? How many groups actually lived side by side inthe canyon? At what point in time can distinctionsbetween/among groups be detected?To explain the differences in masonry typesfound at small sites and the Classic Bonito- andMcElmo-style great houses, Gordon Vivian andMathews (1965: 107 -115) proposed that there werethree contemporaneous types of communities or phasesin Chaco Canyon from the mid-A.D. 1000s to theearly 1100s. Both the Hosta Butte and Bonito phaseshad evidence for long-term development within thecanyon (see also Gordon Vivian 1965 :44-45). Peopleliving in Bonito-style houses had ties with the SanJuan tradition to the north; those in the Rosta Buttesites possibly had ties with the Little Coloradotradition to the south. The McElmo phase, on theother hand, was thought to represent an intrusion ofpeople from the north who had previously adopted, orthen adopted, some of the styles used by the Bonitopeople.Causes for abandonment of the canyon wereunresolved. Because tree-ring dates from Kin Kletsoindicated construction episodes in the late A.D. 1000sand early A.D. 1100s, a proposed drought with arroyoentrenchment (Bryan 1954) was not considered acompelling reason for leaving the area at the end ofthe eleventh century. Gordon Vivian and Mathews(1965) noted that there were no tree-ring datesindicating construction after A.D. 1124; yet an A.D.1178 + date on firewood at Kin Kletso indicated usefor another half-century. Evidence for the small, laterpopulation at Bc 236 and the Headquarters site, plusscattered sites in defensive positions on Chacra Mesa,suggested "either a continual movement of smallgroups of people or succeeding intrusions of smallgroups with varying trade relationships" (Vivian andMathews 1965:113).Proposed explanations for Pueblo development,growth, and demise were therefore based mainly on

------------The NPS Chaco Project 7two perspectives. Those who believed the Puebloculture was a result of indigenous development reliedheavily on ethnographic analogy and accounts ofearlier migrations wherein historic Pueblo people,who are composed of independent tribes that speakseveral languages, moved across the landscape.Leadership is centered around religious ceremonieswithin what are (or were) thought to be egalitariansocieties. Migration stories that documented originsand movements of groups across the Southwesternlandscape in search of a permanent home providedexplanations for changes in the archaeological record(e.g., Judd 1954, 1964; Gordon Vivian and Mathews1965).Other investigators thought that the constructionof great kivas and large pueblos, especially aroundA.D. 1050 to 1100, was the result of Mesoamericaninfluence; e.g., from entrepreneurs often accompaniedby priests and political leaders who sometimesremained in the area (DiPeso 1968a, 1968b, 1974; J.C. Kelley and E. A. Kelley 1975). In addition toteaching locals how to construct large pueblos, theseforeigners were responsible for bringing exotic itemssuch as copper bells and macaws from the south. Theproponents of the Mesoamerican influence modelssuggested that differences between elite foreign leadersand local inhabitants would be visible.In summary, by 1969 the indigenous developmentof Pueblo culture and its interaction withneighbors, both near and far, would be major foci forthe Chaco Project. However, these models would beconsidered from a "New Archaeology" perspective,which placed little value on ethnographic analogy(Willey and Sabloff 1980). The level of socialcomplexity and organization would be evaluatedwithin a regional perspective that considered theecological system a major factor in any explanation ofcultural evolution in the Chaco region through time(Schelberg 1982a, 1982b).The Chaco ProspectusSome Federal projects are funded to answerquestions pertinent to the management of lands undertheir care; thus, the Chaco Prospectus (NPS 1969)addressed issues that were important to both managersand researchers. The prospectus needed to take intoaccount requirements of the National HistoricPreservation Act of 1966; later projects would addressthose of the Archaeological Resources Protection Actof 1979. These new laws mandated the completesurvey of all public lands and the evaluation of sitesfor significance. If determined significant, sites wouldbe eligible for nomination to the National Register ofHistoric Places. This would affect costs of surveys,time involved, and details required. The surveymethods discussed in the next section reflect theseissues. Other management issues pertained to thelandscape; they included the type of floral cover andwildlife species to be encouraged, water- and erosioncontrolpractices to be implemented, and zoning forvisitor use. Results of studies directed toward thesegoals would also contribute to the interpretation ofhuman use of the area through time.Because the interpretive program focused on thePueblo adaptation for which the park was established,six major research topics were proposed: 1) thedevelopment of agriculture and its impact on a culturalsystem; 2) town life; 3) water-control systems in amarginal environment; 4) the cause of differentialrates of change in culture systems; 5) the implicationsof interaction between continuous distinctive culturalsystems; and 6) the cultural and ecological implicationsof popUlation growth. Comparisons amongcross-cultural databases would enhance the analysisand evaluation of the information obtained. Thatother people lived in the Chaco area prior to and afterthe Pueblos was recognized; thus, five culture periodsfor investigation were defined (Preceramic; Anasazi;Refugee; Navajo; and Recent Historic, or European).The last three would be collapsed into one. For eachculture period, data were to be collected to expand andrefine the chronology of the sequence. Withinperiods, interaction between humans and theenvironment would be evaluated through increasedknowledge about: 1) the mineral resources availableand their manner of utilization; 2) the floral and faunalresources present and their utilization; 3) thehydrological resources (how they were utilized andhow they affected the course of cultural development);4) the way climatological factors (e.g., insolation,seasonal precipitation variation, air-current prevalenceand direction) affected the cultural adaptation; 5) thecharacter and distribution of arable soils in relation tosettlement pattern; 6) which sectors of the naturalenvironment were utilized by man and how thesereflected man's view of the natural world; 7) how

----------------------------------8 Chaco Project Synthesisutilization or exploitation of the natural environmentaffected the character of that environment with regardto resource availability, landscape, patterns ofpredation, etc.; and 8) how resources, or lack of them,affected the character of the cultural adaptation. Afew years later, Judge (1975) outlined specificquestions pertaining to population, resources, andsocial organization that would be addressed for each ofthe periods defined within the Pue~lo occupation.Cutting-edge technology (e.g., computerizationof data and standardization of maps, as well as testingof remote sensing technology) would be employed.These tools and techniques would be combined withsurvey, excavation, and ethnohistorical documentationin new ways to achieve the goals stated above.Additionally, NPS managers were concernedwith preservation and maintenance of physical structures,especially the excavated great houses for whichthe park had been established. Preservation andmaintenance had been a function of the NPS RuinsStabilization Unit since its inception. Thus, projectsto develop, test, or apply equipment or materials forthe grouting of masonry walls and foundations, theuse of different mortars, and the investigation of waysto stop or arrest capillary water in standing walls wereinvestigated or monitored by park personnel. Theywill not be covered in this volume.Based on historical associations, a facility atUNM would be the administrative center for this 10-year program. Coordinated by the Chaco Center,numerous biological and geologic studies would becarried out by contractors with specialized skills andexpertise. Other research would be directed by asmall permanent staff, assisted by graduate studentsand archaeologists from UNM and other institutions.A central repository for Chaco-related materials wouldbe created, and a publications program initiated.In summary, the Chaco Prospectus outlined aprogram to improve the database for both natural andcultural resources, the testing of new researchtechniques, the curation of data, and the disseminationof results. This interdisciplinary study would examinethe archaeology and environment of Chaco Canyonand the surrounding area to better understand,manage, and interpret the park through all periods oftime. How these objectives were accomplished will bediscussed below and in the remainder of this volume.MethodsFor the study of natural resources and environment,contracts and cooperative research programsincluded professionals from the University of NewMexico (departments of Biology and Geology and theTechnical Information Center); the U. S. GeologicalSurvey; the Soil Conservation Service (the SoilConservation Service was abolished in 1994, and itsfunction subsumed by the Natural ResourcesConservation Service); the Laboratory of Tree-RingResearch at the University of Arizona; Simons, Li andAssociates; and a number of individuals. Methods aredocumented in their reports. This section will focuson new techniques for the discovery, recording, andanalysis of archaeological data, including applicationsof remote sensing technology.Remote Sensing TechniquesAlthough a number of remote sensing techniquesare part of an archaeologist's tool kit today, inthe 1970s the most common remote sensing tool wasthe aerial photograph. Both Carlos Vierra and CharlesLindbergh had recorded major areas of Chaco Canyonon black-and-white photographs taken from smallengineplanes during the summer of 1929 (Figures 1.4and 1.5). By the late 1960s, Gordon Vivian and hisson, Gwinn Vivian, had used aerial photographs toprepare maps and locate agricultural features and earlyPueblo roads (Gwinn Vivian 1960, 1972). By the1970s, however, a number of film types and platformswere available for testing. Different sensors wereviewing the earth from satellites, and others couldpossibly identify features below ground.Thomas R. Lyons designed a program thatwould evaluate these tools for archaeology and relatedstudies. He initially defined remote sensing as "atechnique for the acquisition of environmental data bymeans of non-contact instruments operating in variousregions of the electromagnetic spectrum from air andspace platforms" (Lyons and Hitchcock 1977a: 1).Photographic (optical, infrared, and microwave) andnonphotographic (radar, electric resistivity, magnetometer,radiometer, spectrometer, and scatter meter)sensors were to be examined to determine their scopeof use in cultural resource studies pertaining toexploration and discovery, regional and intrasiteanalysis, quantitative data acquisition, and historicaldocumentation (Lyons and Avery 1977).

The NPS Chaco Project 9Figure 1.4. 1929 oblique aerial photograph of Chetro Ketl. (Photograph from the Carlos Vierracollection, Museum of New Mexico.)Aeriol Photography. Aerial photography isstill the most useful and cost-effective type of remotesensing; variables such as the platform chosen, type offilm used, and time of day affect its utility. The sizeof an area and the amount of detail desired conditionthe choice of platform. Experiments with a BipodCamera Support System, which raises the camera9.14 m (30 ft) above ground (Whittlesey 1966) proveduseful in documenting and analyzing different strata inroom excavation (Klausner 1980), but at this heightpreparation of a site map by combining photographsinto a mosaic is not as satisfactory or efficient as useof plane table and alidade (Jacobson 1979). Intermediateplatforms were tested. Kites and balloons areaffected by wind gusts; a tethered balloon is unstablein gusts above 24 km per hour and its optimumelevation is around 400 to 600 m above ground(Camilli and Cordell 1983:76). More recentexperiments with a remote-controlled small airplaneby Jim Walker of Brigham Young University and ArtIreland of the NPS overcame the disadvantages ofkites and balloons and provided coverage of areas atsome distance from the operators. Although thesesmall planes cannot fly in air currents over 19.3 kmph(12 mph), coverage can easily be varied by adjustingthe altitude (optimally between 30.4 to 304 m [100 to1,000 ftn to obtain overviews of an area or closeupviews of specific features (Art Ireland, personalcommunication, 2004; J. Walker 1993). A full-sizedaircraft, however, is the most common platform;altitude can be varied and controlled, and photographscover large areas that can be analyzed for natural andcultural features. If ground control is set beforehand,the photographs can be combined into mosaics toobtain a regional perspective. They can also be usedto produce maps of different types. Table 1.1 lists

10 Chaco Project SynthesisFigure 1.5.1929 aerial photograph of small house site and unfinished great house (29S12384)excavated by Frank H. H. Roberts, lr. (Photograph from the Charles Lindberghcollection, Museum of New Mexico, no. 70.11151.)

--------- - --The NPS Chaco Project 11Table 1.1. Sets of aerial photographs of Chaco Canyon and selected outlying Chaco an sites.Source Date Scale TypeSoil Conservation Service 1930s 1:62,000 Black-and-whiteSoil Conservation Service 1930s 1:32,000 Black-and-whiteU.S. Geological Survey 1950s 1:32,000 Black-and-whiteU.S. Geological Survey 1971 1:3,000 Black-and-whiteKoogle and Pouls 1973 1:3,000 Black-and-whiteKoogle and Pouls 1975 1:3,000 Black-and-whiteKoogle and Pauls 1975 1:1,200 Black-and-whiteKoogIe and Pouls 1973 1:6,000 Color transparencyRemote Sensing Division 1974 35 mm oblique images Color infraredthen-available sets of aerial photographs for ChacoCanyon and selected outlying Chacoan sites by date,scale, and type.Different types of film have distinct advantages.Black-and-white panchromatic is best suited for mostpurposes; it is low in cost, readily available, easy touse, and non-grainy, and has overall good contrast andresolution. Black-and-white infrared is more sensitiveto vegetative differences and is less affected by haze.True color imagery is more expensive, but the subtlecolor changes make it easier to detect vegetationdifferences. False color infrared is most useful forplant detection (Lyons and Avery 1977). Potter andKelley (1980) analyzed color transparencies at a scaleof 1:6,000 to create an initial vegetative cover map ofthe canyon. Jacobson (1979; in Mathien 1991a:348)found that color transparencies at 1: 1200 were moreuseful than black-and-white images when mapping asmall site prior to excavation because color differencesare more easily distinguished by the human eye thanedges among shades of gray. Lyons and Hitchcock(1977b) used existing black-and-white photographs at1:3,000 and 1:32,000 to discover a number of roadalignments within Chaco Canyon and the local area;Obenauf (1980b, 1983b) expanded this analysis tocommunities in the San Juan Basin. Nials (1983:5-15to 5-16) emphasized the importance of the timing ofphotographs when looking for linear features. Thelow-sun-angle black-and-white photographs used inthe Bureau of Land Management roads projectrevealed alignments that were not seen in photographstaken later in the day.Aerial photographs serve many purposes.Because accuracy in site location is important,handheld 9x9 in prints are easy to carry and providepermanent records; data can be transferred to mastermaps in the laboratory. This proved useful during theChaco roads survey and a survey of the lower ChacoRiver (Loose and Lyons 1976a, 1976b). An analysisof 1 :6,000 photographs of features in the Kin Bineolavalley, particularly those relating to the prehispanicirrigation system (Lyons, Hitchcock and Pouls 1976),compared favorably with data obtained from thecomprehensive survey of the area by Hayes (1981). Ifground control is set up prior to photographY, it isrelatively simple, rapid, and economic to derivemeasurements for nonstandard contour intervals(Drager and Lyons 1985; Lyons and Avery 1977;Pouls et al. 1976). Orthophoto maps and photogrammetricmaps can be digitized and the data usedfor various purposes (Drager and Lyons 1985). Slopedetermination, volumetric measurements, or populationestimates can be obtained (Drager 1976b). AtPueblo Alto, photogrammetric maps before excavation,after wall stripping, and after the secondseason of excavation provided a permanent record ofsite condition. Detailed photogrammetric maps oflarge pueblos and digitization of their architectural

- - ----- -------------------------- --12 Chaco Project Synthesisfeatures allowed investigators to measure volumes andwall thicknesses, to add and subtract walls to createmaps of different construction stages, and to printmaps at any point during these manipulations (Dragerand Lyons 1985; Pouls et aI. 1976).Are these methods cost-effective? Ireland (1980)reported that for small sites the traditional methods areuseful and cost-effective, but when a site is large ormore than one site is to be mapped, photogrammetricor photo-interpretive mapping should be considered.Other /11Ulgery and Sensors. Experimentswith other imagery obtained above ground werecarried out. Loose (1976a) found that airborne taperecording provided excellent color imagery, but thatfilm resolution was not as good as that obtained fromaerial photographs. Data from a Bendix M 2 S multiscannerflown approximately 457 m (1,500 ft) aboveground over five pueblos in Chaco Canyon showedpromise in detecting agricultural fields, structures, andlinear alignments (Morain et aI. 1981). Satelliteimagery (ERTS and LANDSAT) provided repeatedbeam video and multispectral scans at several scales,including 1:250,OOO--the size of USGS topographicmaps. Depending on the scans combined into a composite,false color infrared or black-and-white imagescould be obtained and computer enhanced (Drager1983b). Schalk and Lyons (1976) stratified the SanJuan Basin into gross ecological zones, and determinedthat a clear division between the northeastern andsouthwestern parts of the basin existed. ChacoCanyon is an erosional feature situated on the contactof two ecotones; the resources in each one suggestedenvironmental determinants of settlement patterns thatmight be observed from such imagery. Vegetativecover type for the San Juan Basin (Camilli 1983;Drager 1983a) was plotted (Drager and Livingston1983) and compared with geology and precipitationmaps (Ireland 1983), and soils (Ireland and Drager1983) at the same scales as aides in predictingarchaeological site densities for unsurveyed areaswithin a study area (Drager 1983b; Drager and Ireland1983).One ethnographic study by Fanale (1982) usedboth LANDSAT and aerial photography to facilitateresearch on late-nineteenth- and early-twentiethcenturyNavajo land use in the San Juan Basin.Acetate overlays of 31 areas were prepared usingLANDSAT imagery. Cover type, land formations,vegetative associations, soil types, and rainfallpatterns were noted. This method quickly provideduseful information about the environment of each ofthe study areas (Fanale 1982:75-79). Armed withmaps depicting settlement features, legal land tenureinformation, and other information, as well as aerialphotographs, Fanale was able to quickly locatehousehold units and preplan routes to sites that wereoften difficult to find in open areas of the basin.During interviews, informants could mark places theyhad lived, zones used for herds, and mobility routes(Fanale 1982: 84-85).Three sensors that detect anomalies under groundwere evaluated. Refractive seismology was used toprobe the surface beneath the canyon floor todetermine depth to bedrock (Lewis and Shipman 1972;Ross 1978). However, transects across site 29SJ633by Phil Bandy (1980) were disappointing. Jacobson(1979; in Mathien 1991a:351) found that none of thepatterns could be interpreted as features. Protonmagnetometer measurements at 29SJ633 and PuebloAlto did detect a number of features (Bennett andWeymouth 1981, 1987:MF-29; Jacobson 1979; inMathien 1991a:353). Tests with subsurface radardetected masonry walls but not adobe walls (Vickersand Dolphin 1975; Vickers et al. 1976). Since theseexperiments were conducted, many improvementshave been made in equipment to provide better results.In conclusion, as Giardino and Thomas (2002)indicate that "By the early 1980's, there weresufficient accomplishments in the application ofremote sensing to anthropology and archaeology thata chapter on the subject was included in fundamentalremote sensing references (Ebert and Lyons 1983)."Many of these techniques have been further refinedand are now accepted practices in North America andEurope (Kvamme 2003). The remote sensing stafffulfilled the goals set forth in the Chaco Prospectus totest this new suite of sensors, as well as contributed tothe cultural research program (contributions areincluded in the remaining chapters as appropriate).Survey TechniquesPrevious site surveys either focused on Pueblosi tes along the bottom of the canyon (Pierson 1949) orwere limited to a specific area that included land

The NPS Chaco Project 13outside of the park (Gwinn Vivian 1960). A numberof different recording procedures led to the identificationof sites by either names or site numbers, orsome combinations thereof (Hayes 1981:Table 1).During the Chaco Project, the Smithsonian Institutionnumbering system was employed during three separatesurvey projects that were designed for differentpurposes and recorded different information (Hayes1981; Judge 1972; Van Dyke 2006a); the sites that arerecorded in more than one of these surveys retain onlyone number. These site numbers were then correlatedwith the New Mexico system to provide LA numbersunder which they are filed in the New MexicoCultural Resource Information System(NMCRIS)-the official database for the State of NewMexico Historic Preservation Division in Santa Fe.Because of the variability in recording formats andcorrelations made to enter the Chaco data into the statesystem, it is recommended that use of the databases belimited to exploratory propositions; more detailedanalyses of sites, their locations, features, dating, andother variables must be undertaken with theseconditions in mind. The evolution of these surveys,however, reflects changes in methodology that weredriven by government regulations mentioned above.Once excavations were under way, improvementsin artifact sampling technique during surveywere proposed to better understand use of a sitethrough time. Recording of pictographs and petroglyphsalso informed on use of the canyon. Somesurvey data were computerized; others were not. Thissection will elaborate on what Chaco Projectarchaeologists learned through surveys, and how whatthey learned reflected changes in archaeological theoryand method.Sample Transect Survey. In 1970, developingmethods for data-gathering and analysis of settlementlocations included sample survey, which could be usedto predict archaeological site locations and density(Judge 1972, 1981b), which is useful when estimatingtime, costs, and results for full inventory survey.Based on a systems theory approach in which cultureis one variable integrated into the system, Judge'sinitial transect survey was designed to obtain as muchinformation as possible about the range of archaeologicalsite types and their environmental contexts.Included were data relevant to research initiated by theSouthwest Archaeological Group (SARG), a consortiumof investigators whose goals were to distinguishenvironmental criteria that would be useful whenstratifying the survey area ecologically in anticipationof the next research stage (Judge 1971, 1972,1981b: 109-110). Although a total of 636 sites fromthe Chaco Project are also recorded in the SARGdatabase that is stored on tape at Arizona StateUniversity (Sylvia Gaines, personal communication,1999), they were not included in analyses derivedfrom that project. This study was one of the initialsteps in the evaluation of predictive modeling inarchaeology, especially for cultural resourcemanagers. Models could be derived through eithercorrelation of variables or deductive propositionsbased on theories from various fields (Judge andSebastian 1988).Inventory Survey. This survey was designedto obtain a complete inventory of sites within theboundaries of the park in order to provide managerswith a tool to meet their protection and interpretationgoals, to obtain information on the distribution of thepopUlations and cultures that used the area throughtime, to determine why people located their siteswhere they did, and to pose questions for futureresearch (Hayes 1981:2). A single form containinginformation pertinent to location, site type, probabledating, and other comments regarding materials at asite provided a standardized data-collection procedure;a sketch map could be drawn on the reverse side.Hayes transferred these data to library analysis cards,in which holes were punched according to a masterplan. Using a long pick, cards with specific variablescould be retrieved and numbers of sites counted.Later data from this survey were coded and enteredinto the San Juan Basin Regional Uranium Study(SJBRUS), a computerized database designed to assistin evaluation of the impact of uranium mining oncultural resources (Drager and Lyons 1983b; Wait1982). A subset of these data was placed in PARKMAN, a database that could be manipUlated andoverlain with data on soils, roads, and otherinformation (Judge 1983b; Mathien and Judge 1983;Mathien et al. 1982). Although the FORTRANprograms became obsolete, while operative, theseearly computerized databases did aid in analyses ofspecific projects (e.g., Gillespie and Powers 1983;Judge 1982).

14 Chaco Project SynthesisComparison of Sample Transect and InventorySurveys. Judge (1981b) compared data from the1971 transect survey with those from the 1972-1975inventory survey to determine how accurately thetransect survey estimated sample populationparameters. Within an area selected for this analysis,a predicted total of 632 sites was far less than the1,689 recorded. The reason for this discrepancy wasdetermined to be an error of measurement, particularlywith regard to site size, probably because theinventory crews spent more time evaluating andrecording sites than the transect survey crew did.Although the results of this comparative study pointedto problems with the technique as employed, Judgeconcluded that future carefully prepared researchdesigns would prove useful to both researchers andcultural resource managers once sufficient expertisewas gained.Judge continued to be involved in the evaluationof predictive models using site survey data. Duringthe mid-1980s, the Bureau of Land Managementfunded a project to evaluate its use by culturalresource managers (Judge and Sebastian 1988). Intheir final appraisal of this technique, Judge andMartin (1988) concluded that, although useful,predictive models based on a sample of survey sitesand an evaluation of their location against a number ofenvironmental variables could not replace fieldsurveys. Although there were numerous ways todefine and analyze the components of the modelbuildingprocess, no clear-cut approach was recommended;few standards for archaeological andenvironmental data-collection were proposed. Complexhuman behavior within an ecosystem requiredintegration of theories from anthropology and othersocial sciences into any model that could be proposed,based on both correlation and deductive reasoning.The focus on social aspects of human behavior inmodels began its return under the title of "PostProcessual Archaeology. "Additional Lands Survey. With the additionof 5050.7 ha (12,480 acres) and a change in statusfrom Chaco Canyon National Monument to ChacoCulture National Historical Park in 1980, surveys ofsites in four previously undocumented areas wereconducted in 1983 and 1984 under the direction ofR.Powers (Van Dyke 2006a). During the interim, siteexcavations (Appendix A:Table A.5) were underway,and it became apparent that "grab" sherd samplescollected during the inventory survey were notrepresentative of the occupational spans at both largeand small house sites (Windes 1982b). To correct thissampling deficiency, Windes initiated the practice ofcounting both sherds and lithics in transects laid acrossvarious features of the site. Transect surveys ofceramic and lithic materials were incorporated into theadditional lands survey. Recent government regulationsalso required more extensive documentation;e.g., the recording of information on site conditionand preservation that was desired by park managers.As a result, a more detailed analysis of survey datawas possible (see chapters in Van Dyke 2006a). Alldata were coded and entered into a computerizeddatabase, which has been upgraded and is available atthe NPS facility at UNM.In summary, three si te surveys recordedsomewhat different information. Both the 1971transect survey and the 1972-1975 inventory surveyrecorded 300 sites in two different formats. Theadditional lands survey of Chacra Mesa also coveredsome of the same area that was included in theinventory survey, but the amount of information isgreater. As a result of these differences in surveytechnique and recording, comparisons of data andresults among surveys in this synthesis are limited.The differences in purposes and methods reflectchanges in governmental regulations, methodologicalimprovements, and theoretical perspectives.Rock-art Survey. The recording of petroglyphs,pictographs, and other images on rock asanother tool for, or window into, deciphering culturaldevelopment came of age during the Chaco Project.Guided by the presence of pictographs or petro glyphsat sites recorded during the inventory survey, theArchaeological Society of New Mexico Rock ArtField School, under the direction of James G. Bain,spent seven years (1975 to 1981) recording data thatrepresented Archaic, Basketmaker, Pueblo, Navajo,Spanish, and Anglo-American use of the canyon. Themethods for recording were still being developed(Bain 1974; Crotty 2000; Kolber 2003). None of thedata were computerized. Although no formal analysisof the project was undertaken, one graphic recordappeared (Steed 1980), and several panels have beenincorporated into broader regional discussions(Schaafsma 1980,1984,2000). Brugge(l976, 1977,

The NPS Chaco Project 151978a, 1981a) reported how several panels aided indeciphering the historic occupation. Since this workwas completed, methods for recording and analysishave improved; management now recognizes the needto resurvey the area and reassess these features.Studies by Jane Kolber and Donna Yoder are underway (Kolber 2003).Surveys Beyond Chaco Canyon. OnceGwinn Vivian (1972) identified a number of roads andlinear features visible on aerial photographs andassociated with the Pueblo occupation, remote sensingarchaeologists re-examined extant photographs andground-checked linear segments that suggested thepresence of over 322 km (200 miles) of a road networkthat connected large pueblos in Chaco Canyonwith similar sites in both the northern and southernSan Juan Basin (Lyons 1973; Lyons and Hitchcock1977b; Lyons, Ebert and Hitchcock 1976; Obenauf1983a, 1983b). Because these roads extended wellbeyond NPS boundaries onto other public lands, theBureau of Land Management (BLM) continued suchstudies (Kincaid 1983; Nials et al. 1987). Links toother Chaco-like structures influenced the initiation oftwo reconnaissance surveys. The outlier surveysponsored by the NPS recorded sites in threecommunities (Bis sa'ani, Peach Springs, and Pierre's)in some detail, and examined 33 additional greathouses on the Chaco slope (R. Powers et al. 1983). Astudy of Anasazi communities sponsored by the PublicService Company of New Mexico focused on thesouthern periphery of the San Juan Basin (Marshall etal. 1979). Although models of a regional system hadalready been proposed (Altschul 1978; Grebinger1973, 1979), the number of sites with Chaco-likemasonry multiplied, and explanations for theirexistence proliferated (Ebert and Hitchcock 1980;Irwin-Williams 1980a, 1980b; Judge 1979, 1989,1991; Gwinn Vivian 1990). Irwin-Williams (1972)coined "The Chaco Phenomenon" to describe thisregional system, recognition of which led to thepassage of P.L. 96-550. Under this legislation, theboundaries of the monument were enlarged; its statuswas changed to a park; and 33 of the large puebloswere protected for posterity.Recognition of the extent of these Classic periodsites, several of which were in locations where earliercommunities of small sites existed, prompted ThomasC. Windes to survey several areas outside thepark-e.g., the Chaco East community (Windes et al.2000), a Pueblo I village south of the canyon,settlements around Pueblo Pintado, and the Casa delRio area (Windes 2006a)-in order to betterunderstand those earlier foundations. These and othersurveys outside the park demonstrated that growth andchange in Pueblo communities were neither identicalnor correlated throughout the San Juan Basin andbeyond. Movements of people were common in thePueblo world (Herr 2001; Kantner and Mahoney2000; Reed 2000; Wilshusen and Ortman 1999). Suchmobility is slowly being outlined for the Mesa Verdephase of Pueblo culture (e.g., Cameron 1995; Lekson1999b; Lekson and Cameron 1995; Roney 1996).ExcavationsOnce Hayes (1981) completed the inventorysurvey and tallied site types through time, it waspossible to select a sample for testing and excavation(Appendix A:Table A.5). Responsibilities for excavationswas divided into three major periods; those incharge would integrate data from survey, excavation,and analysis. Preceramic period sites were excavatedunder the direction of Thomas W. Mathews andThomas R. Lyons; Pueblo sites under Alden C.Hayes, W. James Judge, and Thomas C. Windes; andNavajo and Historic period occupations under DavidM. Brugge. Nothing was known about the Preceramicperiod; therefore, baseline data were sought. For thePueblo occupation, tighter chronological control of thedata was obtained and correlated with othervariables-e.g., rainfall patterns-to help explainchange. Judge (1976b, 1977a, 1979) would developthe Chaco Project model of a complex culturalecosystem in the Chaco Basin that would be expandedand updated (Judge 1983a, 1989, 1991). Toward theend of the project, in addition to the sites selectedunder the Chaco Project, personnel assisted parkmanagers with excavations at 29SJ597 (a Pueblo Isite); 29SJ626 (a Pueblo I to Early Pueblo II site);Una Vida (a Pueblo II great house); and Kin Nahasbas(a Pueblo II great kiva located downslope from a greathouse). Data from these excavations were included insome of the analyses. Only investigators workingwith the Navajo Historic period would be able toutilize written records to help explain their data.Thus, those in charge of each major research periodtook a slightly different approach to research in thefollowing chapters.

16 Chaco Project SynthesisDuring excavation, two improvements in datagatheringwere initiated. During the first few years ofthe excavation program, screening of material waslimited; by the mid-1970s, use of 'A-in screens wasstandard practice. In special circumstances, 1fB-inscreens were used to ensure the recovery of smalleritems. Prior to the 1970s, collection of samples foridentification of pollen and macrobotanical remainsfound during flotation procedures was uncommon.Under the direction of Loren B. Potter of the UNMbiology department, Anne Cully and Mollie B.Struever Toll collaborated to evaluate methods forproper sampling of various features in archaeologicalsites. They devised a grid sampling technique forfloors and features (A. Cully and Potter 1976;Struever 1977a, 1977b) that was applied initially in1975 during excavations at 29SJ627. They learnedthat undisturbed room features tended to provide moreinformation than floors or floor contact. Bothinvestigators concluded that composite pinch samplesfrom numerous spots on a room floor would yield amore representative sample than a few individualsamples taken at discrete locations. They focused ondelineating the differences between these two types ofbotanical remains and the information gained fromeach. Modem pollen rain contaminates opened areaswithin 12 hours or less (A. Cully and Potter 1976:49);therefore, pollen analysis provides more informationon the general climatic background and itsmanipulation by man. In contrast, seeds are morelikely to indicate human or rodent activity within sites(Struever 1977b: 147). Both analytical techniquesincluded a few taxa that suggested slightly wetterconditions during the A.D. 1000s than exist presently.Their combined research expanded our knowledge ofdomesticated and wild plant foods and fuels (A. Cully1985b; M. Toll 1985). The increased evidence collectedby the implementation of these two techniquesfacilitated a more detailed picture of the Puebloadaptation.Analytical TechniquesStudies of different chronometric techniques,methods for sourcing materials, and computerizationchanged dramatically in the late twentieth century.This section will discuss several new techniques thatwere implemented and evaluated by Chaco Projectstaff. Some have become standard tools; others stillneed refinements.Chronometric Studies. Although dendrochronologicalstudies, which are the mainstay inSouthwestern archaeology, were expanded andrefined, the addition of other chronometric techniquesprovided finer grained intersite and intrasitechronological control. Archaeomagnetic, thermoluminescence,and obsidian hydration dating methodswere tested. Ceramic descriptions of the Cibola WhiteWare series were refined.Dendrochronology: Sites in Chaco Canyonhave contributed to studies in dendrochronology sincethe 1920s and 1930s (Hawley 1934). The resamplingand reanalysis of wood from Chetro Ketl (Dean andWarren 1983) not only confirmed Hawley'Sconstruction phases at this great house (Lekson1983c), but also provided information on speciesselected, season of cutting, wood modification, andwood use, and an estimate of the number of treesneeded to build this and other large pueblos (Dean andWarren 1983). What became apparent were theprobable locus of sources and distance of import fornonlocal species (Betancourt et al. 1986). Continuedsampling of extant wood specimens in all abovegroundstructures has resulted in reinterpretation ofthe earliest construction phases at Pueblo Bonito, withrecognition of reuse of wood by early Pueblo peopleand the stabilization crews (Windes and C. Ford 1996;Windes and D. Ford 1996). Based on a study ofcutting and trimming practices, Windes and McKenna(2001) reviewed the labor involved in the constructionof large pueblos and its implications for socialorganization.Archaeomagnetic Dating: Initial tests of thistechnique developed by Robert DuBois of theUniversity of Oklahoma were carried out in ChacoCanyon (Nichols 1975). Windes (1987[1]) quicklymastered the procedures, designed a field andequipment manual, and taught many of his colleagueshow to take samples. By 1980, 238 samples had beencollected from the canyon. To assess the reliability ofarchaeomagnetic dating, at Pueblo Alto 123 dates werecompared with tree-ring dates. Although archaeomagneticdating provided consistent results, somedates differed by 50 to 100 years from either tree-ringdates or ceramic indicators. The archaeomagneticcurve established by DuBois for the eleventh andtwelfth centuries needed refinement (Windes 1980,1987[I]). Although Dan Wolfman revised the curve,

- -- - ----~----The NPS Chaco Project 17some disagreement still remains (Windes 1993:297-304). Some discrepancies could be specific to ChacoCanyon (e.g., a local magnetic distortion or unusualsoil chemistry), because samples from other sitesaround the San Juan Basin do not exhibit thesedeviations (Windes 1980).Other New Chronometric Techniques. Inhis evaluation of dating techniques, Windes (1987[I))found that radiocarbon dates may be affected byfluctuations in the atmosphere; some that should datearound A.D. 1000 were recorded as A.D. 1500, whilesome that should be from A.D. 1250 registered aroundA.D. 400 and 900. A pilot study of eight sherdssubmitted for thermoluminescence dating providedresults that suggested that this method had potentialfor future use. Before obsidian hydration providesgood results, sources of obsidian must be determined.Ceramic Chronology. Past studies of Chacoceramics resulted in two different descriptive series(Hawley 1934, 1936, 1939; Roberts 1927), whichwere later merged by Gordon Vivian (1959, 1965).As noted above, several problems remained, especiallythe place of McElmo Black-on-white in the Chacoceramic series. Windes (1985) recognized that someceramic types in the Chaco series of Cibola WhiteWares were probably made in the canyon, but mostceramic types (including non-Cibolan types that werepart of the assemblage) were produced elsewhere. Hepaid particular attention to Chaco-McElmo Black-onwhiteceramics, a type that has a short temporal spanand reflects affinity with Black Mesa, Sosi, Toadlena,Nava, and McElmo black-on-white types. By usingKYST, a multidimensional scaling software program,he was able to obtain finer temporal placement for theceramic types at Pueblo Alto (Windes 1987[I]:253-269) and 29SJ629 (Windes 1993:333). Based oninitial studies of temper materials by A. HeleneWarren (1976, 1977), and through the analyses ofWindes, Peter J. McKenna, and H. Wolcott Toll, wenow have a well-dated sequence of pottery types withmore detailed descriptions for the Chaco series (H.Toll and McKenna 1997:Appendix A; Windes andMcKenna 1989).These chronometric studies allow colleaguesworking throughout the region to better understandtheir advantages and disadvantages. The results ofthese and the refined ceramic descriptions have beenused to compare data among other communities andevaluate links between communities and events inmore recent models of social organization (e.g.,Marshall et al. 1979; Powers et al. 1983). Tables inAppendix B correlate the various chronologicalschemes used by Chaco Project personnel.Sourcing of Materials. Objects obtained fromlong distances indicate interaction between groups orsharing of resource areas. By the 1970s, sourcing ofsome artifact types involved cooperation withgeologists, chemists, and other technicians who weredeveloping methods, such as trace element studies.This section will discuss a number of such studies andindicate their potential value.Geologists identified a number of source areasfor lithic materials throughout New Mexico. Warrendeveloped a standard four-digit code for materials shecollected (Warren 1967, 1979). D. Love (1997a,1997b) updated and expanded on this code forsilicified materials in and around the Chaco area.Warren's analysis of ceramics, which includedpetrographic studies (Warren 1976, 1977, 1980),identified rock inclusions from a number of sources.Because Warren had worked on a number of projectsfor the Laboratory of Anthropology of the Museum ofNew Mexico and the Office of Contract Archeology atthe University of New Mexico, the adoption of hercoding system by a number of analysts made itpossible to compare percentages of imports at varioussites and during different periods to monitor changesin the transport of these materials across space andthrough time. During the Chaco Project, Warren'scodes were used in the classification of material typesduring studies of ceramics (H. Toll and McKenna1997); chipped stone (Cameron 1997b); andornaments (Mathien 1997). It was possible todetermine that interaction among Pueblo peoples wasstrongest to the south during the Early Bonito phaseand was most heavily tied to the Chuska Mountainsduring the Classic Bonito phase, and that it shiftedtoward the northern San Juan region during the LateBonito phase (Cameron 1997b; H. Toll and McKenna1997).T race element studies carried out using a numberof techniques became part of the analytical tool kit andadded to the more rigorous scientific approach inarchaeology at that time. X-ray fluorescence of 665

18 Chaco Project Synthesisobsidian pieces from 20 excavated sites revealed that12 distinct source areas in New Mexico, Colorado,Arizona, Utah, and northern Mexico provided chippedstone to the Chacoans (Cameron and Sappington1984). A decade later, results were refined whenWindes (1993:304-307) resubmitted some artifacts aspart of a different analysis. Some specimensoriginally identified as coming from the Polvaderasource in the Jemez Mountains were later identified ascoming from the Grants Ridge source near MountTaylor.Attempts to source turquoise, however, have notbeen as satisfying. A small number of artifactsanalyzed using arc emission spectrography (Sigleo1970) suggested several possible sources in threedifferent states. Neutron activation by Weigand et al.(1977) linked one artifact from Chetro Ketl to theCerrillos Mining District south of Santa Fe, NewMexico, and additional studies of 150 artifactsreported a relative homogeneity with regard toconsistent copper values, although the source was notidentified (Bishop 1979:4-5; Mathien 1981b). Morerecently, Harbottle and Weigand (1987, 1992;Weigand and Harbottle 1993) matched Chaco artifactswith artifacts from other sites in the Rio GrandeValley and the Southwest to propose two differenttrade networks extending southward. Their mapsindicate that turquoise recovered in Chaco Canyonmay have come from several sources besides Cerrillos;e.g., Colorado and Nevada. Hans Ruppert (1982,1983) used an electron microprobe to analyze samplesand artifacts from sites in both North and SouthAmerica. Although successful in linking artifacts tosources in South America, his data for North Americawere difficult to interpret. Tables that included 462source samples and 80 Chacoan artifacts did not fallinto discrete clusters; e.g., 63 source samples fromCerrillos fell into 15 separate clusters. Artifacts from29SJ629 and 29SJ423 in Chaco Canyon were groupedin clusters with source material from Cerrillos, NewMexico; Mineral Park, Arizona; the CourtlandGleeson area of Arizona; and the King Mine inColorado. Thus, although it seems likely thatturquoise was imported from several sources,additional research is needed to clarify present results.In summary, the trace element studies ofobsidian and turquoise provided clues as to areas ofinteraction among various Southwestern popUlations,but they will benefit from improvements as methodsare perfected and sample sizes increase.Concurrent Studies. Dendroclimatic studiescontributed much to the Chaco Project. Investigatorsbegan to evaluate the variability that was apparent inthe specimens throughout the Southwest (Dean andRobinson 1977), which led to reconstruction ofpaleoenvironment (Dean 1988, ] 992; Rose et al.1982) and its effects on population dynamics (Dean1996; Dean 1994, 1995). These contributions wouldaid in the development and testing of new models forgrowth and development of the Pueblo culture (seeChapter 2).SummaryPrior to the 1970s, researchers relied onethnographic analogy to interpret their data. Thepractitioners of "New Archaeology" (Willey andSabloff 1980) wanted to use larger databases and newtechnology to examine propositions derived throughdeductive reasoning. In ]969, this would not be astraightforward path to success for the Chaco Project.For example, fewer than 400 sites had been recordedfor Chaco Canyon in the UNM system (Bc sitenumbers), and many excavations were either notreported or the existing documentation did not lenditself to detailed analysis. There was little understandingabout selection of site locations or shifts insettlements through time. Gathering of data to addressthose problems would play an important role not justin the initial surveys but also throughout the ChacoProject.I feel that the deductive approach simplycannot be implemented effectively insurvey archeology, even in an area as wellknownarcheologically as Chaco. Anactual survey involves the expenditure ofconsiderable time and effort and thus, Ifeel, must be inductively-oriented in orderto maximize the information gained. Thisdoes not preclude the concept of specificproblem formation to be tested with thesurvey data, but it does relegate such anorientation to a place second in importanceto the maximization of the capabilities ofinductive research. (Judge 1972:9)

The NPS Chaco Project 19A combination of deductive reasoning and use of datato inform on theory remained a practice throughoutthe project.Organiwtion of this VolumeThis volume is organized around four topics:studies of natural resources and the environment, thePreceramic period, the Pueblo use, and the Historicperiod. Because our understanding of the Preceramicperiod is limited (Chapter 3), we can only assumecontinuity between those who relied on hunting andgathering with some horticulture and later Puebloagriculturalists. If movement of people throughout alarger area occurred, there may have been periodswhen Chaco Canyon or at least some of its sites werenot used. How societies marked or shared thelandscape has not yet been deciphered. Thus, muchmore work on methods to discern continuity isneeded, not just to link these two major periods, butalso to link them within the Pueblo occupation.Chapters 4 through 9 discuss the Pueblo occupation.After some period of disuse, Navajo moved into thearea. They remain there today, sharing the landscapewith Euro-Americans. Chapter 10 presents theirhistory, and evaluates how Euro-American culturesaffected their herding adaptation. In Chapter 11, Ifocus on recent broad-based frames of reference thatplace this Southwestern case study within a worldwideframe of reference.In summary, the Chaco Project is unique withinNPS history and the history of archaeology. AsWilshusen and Hamilton (2005) note, it was one of thelargest cultural resource management programs everundertaken by the National Park Service. Its scopewas immense, and a project of similar scope has notyet been implemented by this agency. It occurredduring the period when "New Archaeology, " with itsmore rigorous methods and deductive logic, wascombined with systems theory and cultural ecology.Its staff included investigators trained in Southwesternarchaeology during the 1930s, as well as a number ofyoung students who availed themselves of many newtools to analyze previous models and propose newones. As my colleague Marcia L. Truell (personalcommunication, 1982) remarked, "it is only at the endof a project that we begin to ask new questions."Scholars continue to pursue answers to newerquestions (Mills 2002), but their database for ChacoCanyon still remains much the same-the datacollected by the Chaco Project-for their evaluation ofnew theories, some of which will be included in thechapters that follow.

Chapter TwoThe Environment and Natural Resources of the Chaco AreaScrub cedars, very thinly scattered, were to be seen on the heights; and the artemisia characterizedthe flora. Some patches of good gramma [sic] grass could occasionally be seen along the RioChaco. The country, as usual, on account, doubtless, of constant drought presented one wideexpanse of barren waste. Frequently, since we left the Puerco, the soil has given indications ofcontaining all the earthy elements of fertility, but the refreshing shower has been wanting to makeit productive. The Rio Chaco, near our camp, has a width of eight feet, and a depth of one and ahalf. Its waters, which are of a rich clay color, can only be relied upon with certainty during thewet season. (Simpson 1850:37)Simpson was not alone in describing the Chacoarea as bleak in appearance. Visitors and scholarsalike often wonder how past populations coped withthis semiarid setting, let alone created the many sitesthat provide testimony to a flourishing lifestyle duringthe eleventh century (Brand 1937c:45; Hewett 1905;Kidder 1924:54; Gordon Vivian and Mathews1965: 1). Water remains the key variable. Thischapter underscores the role that water played in thecreation of the area, and describes the water resourcesthemselves, and where those resources are located.The amount of water available to plants affects speciesdiversity, the size of their range, and their density. Intum, these affect animal species that depend on plantsfor nourishment. Studies of the behavior of plants andanimals in the current environment provide clues towhat may have happened in the past if the climate wassimilar to that of today.Some changes have occurred since the end of thePleistocene, but for several thousand years the climatehas been similar to that of today. Yet the amount ofprecipitation did vary slightly through time. Thesevariations in amount or timing of precipitation eventswould have placed some restrictions on humanpopulations who lived in this setting. Humans alsowould have brought changes to the local environment,especially once they settled into an agriculturaladaptation or became pastoralists. This chapterprovides a backdrop for the cultural ecology andsystems theory approach taken by the Chaco Project inthe chapters that follow.The Historic SettingThe eight-mile-long Chaco Canyon (Figure 1.3)is a unique feature in the approximate center of thesemiarid San Juan Basin (Figure 1.1); surrounding itare mostly open spaces with only slight topographicvariation until the mountain ranges that encircle thebasin are reached (Gwinn Vivian 1990). UsingLANDSAT imagery, Schalk and Lyons (1976:Figure2) were able to delineate gross ecological zones in theSan Juan Basin and reported that its sandstone mesasand canyons are not identical in the northeast andsouthwest sections. This erosional feature is locatedat the contact zone between northern terrestrialdeposits and southern marine deposits; thus, soils andtheir water-retention properties differ in these twolarge areas. Sandy soils in the northeast should retainmoisture for longer periods of time than the clayeysoils of the southwest, which are characterized bymore rapid runoff and poorer water retention. It is inthe latter area, therefore, that Schalk and Lyonsproposed that water control features would have beenmore useful to agriculturalists and would affect socialorganization when adopted.

22 Chaco Project SynthesisGeologyStudies of the bedrock geology and paleontologyof the Upper Cretaceous (Siemers and King 1974)expand on Schalk and Lyons's description of ChacoCanyon as a contact zone. Upper Cretaceous marinesediments are found in the walls of the canyon, andalso to the north, where are found the Allison Member(shales); the Mesaverde group (which contains PointLookout Sandstone, the Menefee Formation, and CliffHouse Sandstone); Lewis Shale; Pictured CliffSandstone; Fruitland Shales; and the Ojo Alamo andPuerco formations. Badlands, which have littlevegetation, appear in shale deposits. Brand (1937c:55-63) reported that barite, gypsum, aragonite,siderite, and petrified wood are associated withKirtland Shale. Silicified wood, pebbles of redjaspery quartz, brown and gray chert, vein quartz,pink and white quartzite, rhyolite, andesite, felsite,porphyrite, granite, gneiss, schist, and obsidian werefound in the Ojo Alamo Shales. This formation alsocontains limonitic and manganese concretions. Calcitecrystals are present in the Puerco Formation, and theTorrejon Formation contains chert pebbles and quartz.There is a wealth of stone that could be used forconstruction and tool manufacture, as well as forfashioning ornaments and grinding pigments. Alsowithin the Fruitland Formation, various Dinosauria,Chelonia, and Pices fossils occur (Brand 1937c:40-41).In the canyon, Cliff House Sandstone is thepredominant stratum that forms the north wall. Fossilremains in the walls include species belonging to theclasses Gastropoda, Pelecypoda, and Cephalopoda,especially Inoceramus barabini and sharks' teeth(Brand 1937c:40-41; Vann 1931,1942). On the northside of the canyon, the cliff wall rises approximately20 to 30 m to a bench containing shale before risingagain to full height of 85 to 95 m above the canyonbottom (Siemers and King 1974). Several re-entrantscut the cliff and funnel water into the canyon duringinfrequent rain storms. Water from the top of theNorth Mesa, however, flows toward the EscavadaWash. On the south side of the canyon, Chacra Mesais from 91.5 to 152.4 m high, dips to the north, andis broken by several gaps (e.g., Vicente Wash, whichenters the Chaco near Fajada Butte and South Gap).These shallow drainage systems move alluviumintermittently toward the Chaco Wash. This combinationof runoff from re-entrants from the northerncliff walls and the southern washes brings additionalwater to the canyon bottom that helps alleviate someconstraints in an environment that is covered withsparse vegetation and receives minimal rainfall foragricultural production (Gillespie 1985; R. Powers etal. 1983; Schelberg 1982a; Gwinn Vivian 1990).Four species of fossils recorded by Siemers andKing (1974; see also Vann 1931, 1942) indicate minorregressions and transgressions of the UpperCretaceous shoreline in Chaco Canyon. Some fossilsare bivalves found today in depths of marine waters;others are found only in shallow marine environments;a few represent intertidal zones. The several freshwaterand brackish-water gastropods suggestproximity to a m~or fresh-water influx and estuarineconditions. Siemers and King interpreted this torepresent changes in the shoreline of an ancient lake.They concluded that the Cliff House Sandstone wasprobably a one-time barrier beach front during ashoreline standstill before it migrated farther south.Siemers and King (1974:270) also examined theclay mineralogy of the Menefee Formation, CliffHouse Sandstone, Lewis Shale, and Pictured CliffsSandstone. Clay from the Lewis Shale contains calcareousconcretions; the minerals are predominantly aNa-montmorillonite, with some illite, a mixed layer ofillite-montmorillonite, and a little kaolinite. Concretionsin the Menefee Formation include siderite andcaIcite- and barite-bearing materials. D. Love(1977b:Table 11; 1980) would use these data tocharacterize soil composition that originates in theupper wash versus that from side washes draining intothe canyon. Understanding the Chaco Basin, therefore,is relevant to understanding Chaco Canyon.To initiate studies of the Chaco Basin,DeAngelis (1971, 1972) assessed the availableliterature and found that 18 studies were morepertinent for a regional overview than specific to theregion. He divided the Chaco Basin into 19 subbasins(Figure 2.1) and examined the drainage pattern on alarge scale. He found no true dendritic pattern aswould be expected in a hasin developed on nearly flatlying,sedimentary rocks. Instead, there is considerableevidence for structural control, and threeanomalies become apparent:

-- --------------------- --------Environment and Natural Resources 23-,--------------------,--: COLORADO·• .JI,/f•I•I •I •I11•I•J•I14.,•Ii1•I •I0 20SCALd 'MILES NiFigure 2.1.Map of the 19 subbasins of the Chaco Basin. 1) Pajarito-Dead Man's Wash; 2) Coal Wash;3) Cottonwood Arroyo; 4) Pinabete Arroyo; 5) Sanostee-Tocito Wash; 6) Theodore Wash;7) Captain Tom-Tuntsa Wash; 8) Brimhall Wash; 9) Hunter Wash; 10) Sheep Spring Wash;11) Coyote Wash; 12) Indian Wash; 13) De-na-zin Wash; 14) Kimenola Wash; 15)Escavada Wash; 16) Gallo Wash; 17) Fajada Wash; 18) Canada Alemita Wash; and 19)Canada Alamos-Corrales. (Taken from DeAngelis 1972:Figure 6.)

~--------------------- --24 Chaco Project SynthesisFirst, the Chaco Wash is not a true subsequentstream. Although it may have developed along thestrike of a nonresistant bed, the present wash was mostlikely imposed upon more resistant formations.Second, stream capture for several tributarieswas unusual. Based on the extent of the subbasins andangular junctions of the Coyote (draining 2,281 km 2or 881 mi 2 ), Escavada (draining 587 km 2 or 227 mi2),and Fajada (draining 523 km 2 or 202 mi 2 ) washes,they may represent three actual headwaters that werecaptured into a single wash through time. At eachjunction, the Chaco Wash makes a nearly 90-degreechange in course, whereas the tributary wash appearsto represent a natural headward extension of the mainChaco channel. D. Love (1977b: 12) also questionedwhether the Escavada or the Chaco was the masterstream for the Chaco River, and he recommendedfurther study to determine the reasons forentrenchment of the Chaco-Escavada junction intobedrock. At the time, the implications of changes atthis junction were not understood, but recent studiesby Force et al. (2002) propose that breaching of a sanddune dam during the Pueblo adaptation would haveaffected ground water levels and water availability inthe lower canyon.Third, although the longitudinal profile of theChaco Wash is typical of an ephemeral stream, astream gradient anomaly occurs in Chaco Canyonbetween 1,859 and 1,920 m (6,100 and 6,300 ft)contours. Within a distance of 22 km (13.7 mi)between these contours (the main canyon, where manylarge Pueblo sites are located), the stream gradientaverages 4.48 mper 1.6 km (14.7 ft per mi), which isconsistent with gradients farther upstream anddownstream. The gradient of the uncut alluvial floorin that distance, however, averages 5.79 m per 1.6 km(19 ft per mi). The 0.91 to 1.2 m per 1.6 km (3 to 4ft per mi) difference in gradients was thought to reflectthe effects of alluviation in the canyon between A.D.1300 and 1860. The significance of this anomalycould be understood through review of processes ofarroyo formation. Whether this anomaly holds truefor earlier periods was not known. Knowing thecauses of alluviation and the periods when such eventsoccurred affects interpretations of human use of thecanyon.That the Chaco provided evidence for more thanone series of erosional and depositional events waspreviously documented (Bryan 1941, 1954; Dodge1920; Jackson 1878). Based on Bryan's more detailedstudies of the strata that contained early Pueblosherds, he suggested three periods of dissection andalluviation in the canyon, with the last depositionoccurring in the twelfth century. He thought thatthese occurrences were not unique to this locality, butrather could be correlated with evidence from otherstream localities in the northern Southwest. Bryanalso postulated that the abandonment of the canyon byPueblo ancestors may have been due to progressiveupstream erosion of the wash due to climatic change;e.g., slightly decreased rainfall that led to arroyoformation. If erosional and depositional events werecontemporaneous over the larger region, they wouldhave affected the population throughout the San JuanBasin in a similar manner during each period. Each ofthese concepts was re-examined during the ChacoProject.Bryan (1941, 1954) suggested that the oldestperiod of deposition was probably Pleistocene in agedue to the presence of extinct faunal remains in thealluvial fill; it would have had no effect on humanoccupation. The first period of erosion was very long;Bryan thought it indicated climatic change, but it wasdifficult to date. Although there was very littleevidence to suggest human occupation during thisperiod, silt from one of the horizons was thought tocorrelate with the Archaic period or the Cochiseculture. The second depositional period was not welldated. It might represent two episodes separated by aninterval of erosion; and sherds present in the fillranged from around A.D. 300 through 1250. Thenext erosional episode in Chaco Canyon was thoughtto occur after A.D. 1167 but prior to about A.D.1250. Sherds in the fill of other streams indicate thatdeposition began before or shortly after A.D. 1400.The present erosional cycle was dated around A.D.1860 to 1890, depending on the area. Although therewas a lack of more exact dating in seven dispersedareas, Bryan concluded that these cutting and fillingepisodes were widespread rather than canyon-specific.The restricted area where DeAngelis noted the0.91 to 1.22 m per 1.60 km difference in gradients

Environment and Natural Resources 25that exists today contrasts with the lower area of theChaco Wash, which is more open and more remotefrom sources of silt and clay. To understandvariability among streams, DeAngelis assisted Hodges(1974), who studied 17 variables in 31 drainage basinsto devise two models for arroyo and washdevelopment in northwestern New Mexico andnortheastern Arizona. The first model predicted themagnitude of channel development at a selected site.The second aided in classifying the form of channeldevelopment. Hodges found that the geomorphicprocess responsible for creating and maintaining adrainage is dependent on the interactions and changesthat occur among several variables. Each basin isdifferent and has a unique history; therefore, causesfor drainage development may differ betweenneighboring basins. Thus, Bryan's correlation oferosional and depositional events across the regionwas not supported.The 0.91 to 1.2 mper 1.6 km gradient differencebetween the Chaco Wash and the uncut valley floorwould not be evident in the lower wash because coarsesands would not be able to maintain as great a slope.In the canyon between 1860 and 1925, whenovergrazing, aridity, and the increasing gradientexceeded the threshold necessary for arroyo-cutting,the Chaco Wash became entrenched. Vertical erosioncontinued to deepen the arroyo until a stable gradientwas achieved. Once entrenchment achieved a morestable condition, soil piping (water erosion in a layerof subsoil that results in the formation of tunnels andcaving) created incipient tributaries. Since 1925,lateral erosion or widening of the arroyo has beenmore dominant over vertical erosion (DeAngelis1972). After 1970, sedimentation is thought to be thecause of erosion (Brad Shattuck, personal communication,2003).Within the canyon, initial experiments withseismic refraction by Lewis and Shipman (1972) werenot successful in determining the depth of the bedrocksurface beneath the fill sediments, but Ross (1978)defined three seismic horizons that correlated fairlywell with data obtained from two core test holes. Anupper surface alluvium varied from 5.79 to 16.15 m(19 to 53 ft) with an average of 12.49 m (41 ft).Beneath this was a water-saturated alluvium, whichalso varied from 3.96 to 25.3 m (13 to 83 ft), with anaverage of slightly over 15 m (52 ft). Suballuvialbedrock (the Menefee Formation) varied from 17.06to 35.36 m (56 to 116 ft), with an average of27 .86 m(91.4 ft). The water table sloped to the west from 1 to5 degrees.The canyon floor is relative flat in cross-section,with some downcutting on the north side (Ross 1978).Gravels, sand, silt, and clays characterize the complexalluvial fill. Two depositional environments (analluvial fan and a meandering arroyo environment)were delineated. The presence of well-crystallizedkaolinite suggests alluvial fill from the sandstone wallsof the canyon; poorly crystallized illites and montmorillonitesare probably derived from the headwatersof the Chaco drainage basin. In the meandering environment,Ross defined five facies: 1) backwater-tochannelmargin, 2) mid-channel climbing ripple, 3)flat-bedded channel sand, 4) modified climbing ripple,and 5) channel lag deposits. These represent a rangeof water-flow regimes and load-carrying capacities.These facies also suggested more complex stratigraphythan the seismic data could discern.Research on Quaternary deposits in the canyonundertaken by D. Love (1980) provided a moredetailed analysis of events. Initially, Love (1974)reported a date of approximately 4,000 years B.P. onburned wood exposed in the bank of a collapsed wallin the wash just above its confluence with the GalloWash. Because the arroyo had filled 4.5 m above thelowest entrenchment level when the bum occurred andfilled at least 2 m above it, this fill represented apreviously unknown cycle of cut and fill. Because ithad occurred prior to major human use of the canyon,Love thought this degradation and aggradation mustbe explained by climatic fluctuations rather thanenvironmental degradation by canyon occupants. Ifso, later cycles were perhaps also climatically induced.Thus, he focused on the relationships between climateand geomorphic and sedimentologic conditions in theupper Chaco Basin (D. Love 1974, 1977a, 1977b,1983a, 1983b).After reviewing data on semiarid drainage basinsand considering the deposits and processes that wouldhave affected the upper Chaco Drainage Basin, D.Love (1977a, 1977b, 1980) indicated that the majorvariables that affect a geomorphic system include thephysical geography, bedrock geology, soils, vegetation,and climate. He also found that all runoff from

26 Chaco Project Synthesisthe headwaters and/or side washes does not enter theChaco at the same time. During a rainstorm, watersfrom the local side channels often run earlier thanthose of the headwaters, if the latter runs at all.Because the timing of the appearance of such watersdiffered, during a major storm there was often no realincrease in discharge into the Chaco arroyo. Downcuttingseemed to be associated with an increase indischarge and stream power on readily erodiblematerial, and it seemed to end when the discharge wasadequately handled by the newly developed hydraulicgeometry of the new channel (Leopold and Miller1956). Love confirmed Hodges's (1974) opinion thatthere are a number of complex geomorphic variablesthat affected the Chaco Wash.Characteristics of sedimentary structures, color,grain size, grain mineralogy, clay mineralogy, andsoluble cations were studied to differentiate localenvironments. By incorporating Siemers's data, D.Love (1980) was able to distinguish clays from theMenefee Formation, Cliff House Sandstone, LewisShale, and Pictured Cliffs Sandstone by examinationof clay mineralogy. Unfortunately, after sediment istransported into the canyon, Love could not assign itto these specific types. He could, however, distinguishmost local deposits from headwater depositsbased on mineralogy and color (D. Love 1977b,1980).When he mapped and described the modemgeomorphic features of the Chaco Wash, D. Love(1983a, 1983b) listed the following: 1) bench, slope,and cliff topography on either side of the canyon floorrising up to 180 m above the canyon; 2) shortpediment talus fans at the base of the cliffs; 3)individual large rock falls; 4) side canyons cut into thecliffs on either side of the main canyon, which tend toparallel the regional jointing trend to the northeast,and which tend to be long on the southwest side andshort on the northwest side of the canyon; 5) alluvialfans at the mouths of side canyons and re-entrantsalong the main canyon; 6) sand dunes on tops of cliffsand mesas and in some of the side canyons; 7) silt-claydunes on the canyon floor; 8) flat canyon floor; 9)yazoo channels parallel to the main arroyo and sidearroyos; and 10) the Chaco arroyo (Figure 2.2).Piping is also present.Because his work was carried out between 1973and 1975, D. Love (1977a, 1977b, 1980) was able toprovide an in-depth description of the Chaco arroyoprior to and after major floods. These observations,combined with his other studies, suggested an outlinefor three scales of geomorphic adjustments in theChaco arroyo (D. Love 1979, 1983a). At each scale,changes in stream flow are involved.First, minor changes in precipitation werecorrelated with small-scale changes. These includeadjustments made within the past 140 years and arelimited to the inner channel and inner floodplain. Itwas evident on aerial photographs that the channel hadwidened extensively between 1900 and 1934, possiblydue to excess sediments or a sediment change. Withthe exception of a moist period from July 1940through December 1941 during which ThreateningRock fell on Pueblo Bonito, a decrease in moistureoccurred that lasted until the mid-1950s. Based on alongitudinal profile of the canyon floor, which wasnot broken by steep reaches, Love found no axial fansspread down the canyon floor. The arroyo meanders,with some loops pointing up canyon, indicating thatthe channel had been established on the floor prior todowncutting of the Chaco arroyo. This evidence didnot support Bryan's (1954) model, in which hepostulated that the arroyo formed by headward cuttingof a previously unchanneled alluvial canyon floor.There were several possible reasons why the channelchanged from a braided one to an inner channel andfloodplain. The adjustments are due in part to changesin precipitation, land management, and the inherentfluvial system. D. Love (1983a: 199) preferred toexplain channel development based on "changes indischarge, sediment load, and subsequent internaladjustments related to a period of less precipitationregionally. " The timing of the initial channel cut,however, was not as clear. Review of written reportsand interviews with local inhabitants suggested threepossibilities: 1) a pre-1849 date for the initial channelcut and partial fill; 2) an initial cut, partial fill, and reentrenchmentbetween 1849 and 1877; and 3) aninitial cut prior to 1877, with the presence of analluvial terrace from 1877 through the late 1880s, andthen re-entrenchment in the 1890s, with arroyowideningand removal of most of the alluvial terracebetween 1905 and the 1930s. Love favored the last,

Environment and Natural Resources 27CHACO CANYONTERRAC£ INN£R F'LOOOPl.AIN INNER CHANNEl.. INNER F'lOOOPl,AINFigure 2.2. Geomorphic features of the Chaco arroyo. (Taken from Love 1979:Figure 3.)because it best fit the data. Thus, the smallest scaleadjustments took place within this one channel withina century and a half.Second, intermediate-scale fluvial adjustmentswere those that involved the aggradation of canyon filland cycles of channel cut and fill in three stages: a flatfloor, channel entrenchment, and channel fill until aflat floor was again present. When the floor is flat,alluvial fans from the canyon margin continue toaggrade and lenses of sand and clay spread across thefloor. Also, headwaters could spread from margin tomargin in narrow parts of the canyon during a floodthat ran at a rate of 125 m 2 per sec. To D. Love, thethinness of the deposits suggested that 1) either thecanyon commonly had a channel that confined theheadwater sediments; 2) a somewhat steady state oftransport of sediment through the canyon was achievedwhen no confining channel was present; or 3) largeflood events were rare, particularly when there was noconfining channel. Dating was least precise for theintermediate-scale changes, which encompass theperiod that includes the prehistoric use of ChacoCanyon, but several archaeornagnetic dates fell withinthis period (Nichols 1975). Three sets of archaeomagneticsamples from an upper laminated clay layerin the Chetro Ketl field suggested a date of A.D.1250. Twelve samples from two test trenches in ameander scar provided eight possible dates. Theuppermost sample, taken at 15.24 cm (6 in) below thesurface, suggested deposition around A.D. 1850.Four samples taken at depths from 38.1 to 68.5 cm

------- --Environment and Natural Resources 29swNE10200 100 OmFigure 2.3.Schematic cross-section of alluvial fill in the Chaco Wash (levels 7-9). Remnants of earlierfill are located along the margins of the canyon and are partially buried by modernalluvium. Horizontal lines indicate widespread inundation of the canyon floor by sedimentsfrom the headwaters and are connected with filled-in entrenched channels, laminatedswales, and yazoo channels. A) remnant gravel deposit of level 7 with blocks of alluvialfill; overlain by soils. B) sandy soil containing pottery. C) Gravel reworked into laterchannel. D) Broad swale filled by laminated clay derived from the headwaters, overlainby canyon floor deposits. E) Swale filled with laminated clay associated with 3,700-yearoldfill in buried channel to right. G) Small water-control feature. H) Deeply buriedlaminated silty clay with soil developed on top of deposit. I) At least 38 m of fill abovebedrock floor of canyon (level 9); water table at 12 m. J) Complex arroyo cut and fillabout 3,700 years old. K) Pottery-bearing channel 3 to 4 m deep filled to present surfaceof canyon floor. L) Modern Chaco arroyo wall. M) Modern inner Chaco channel. N)Modern inner floodplain aggraded after 1934. 0) Indented terrace (former floodplain priorto 1896). P) Stone slabs associated with pithouse. Q) Canyon floor sediments derivedpredominantly from the headwaters. R) Buried channel(s) with pottery and rocks at base.S) Undated buried channel filled with sandy sediment with no backwater facies. T)Shallow channel. U) Thin wedge-shaped headwater-derived deposits pinch out againstdeposits from the canyon margin. V) Undated buried channel. W) Relict sediments ofprevious episode of canyon fill with well-developed reddish-brown soil, truncated at topby Holocene (6,000 yrs) sediments. X) Buried tributary channel containing pottery. Y)Sediments from canyon margins predominate. (Taken from Love 1983:Figure 4.)

~~~--~~~~ --30 Chaco Project SynthesisTable 2.1. Five alluvial units identified by Hall. aAlluvial UnitFajada UnitComment:Comment:Gallo UnitChaco UnitDescription- Late Pleistocene.- Found in two main locations: a) gravel pit approximately 0.8 km southwest of visitor center and b) as a terracealong the base of the sandstone cliff 3 to 5 m above alluvial valley of Chaco Wash northeast of its junction with theEscavada Wash.- Composed mainly of cross-bedded sand and gravel, plus shale, quartz, quartzite, chert, jasper, agate petrifiedwood, and dark reddish-brown sandstone.Red paleosol on top of Fajada gravels probably Early Holocene in age.Early Holocene alluvial deposits not documented (Hall 1990:325). Gap in pollen sample record from 9,700 to7,OOOB.P.- 7,000 to 2,400 P.B. (End date estimated)- Up to 4 m thick. Found in Gallo Wash above Fajada Unit and below Post-Bonito alluvium. Similar materialidentified in Mockingbird Canyon Arroyo, south of Chetro Ketl, also 500 m upstream from eastern boundary ofpark.- Composed of un bedded, blocky, yellowish-brown silt; occasional clay beds and lenses of sandy gravel.Approximately 4 m thick. (Some material from small tributaries and reentrants are local alluvium. In axis ofcanyon gray-brown, silty, fine alluvium of upstream origin. )- Haynes (1968:612) noted an absence of radiocarbon-dated deposits between 5,800 to 7,100 B.P. in alluvium ofthe southwest. Hall's data fill in this gap.- 2,200 (estimated) to 1,000 or 850 B. P. (A.D. 1100 or 860, respectively). Both beginning and end datesestimated.- Principal valley fill; in central part of valley extends to unknown depth.- Composed of pale brown clayey silt, largely without regular bedding; upstream origin. Pueblo pottery describedby Bryan (1954:30-32,37) found in two distinct zones represents late and early pottery types.Post-Bonito UnitHistoric Unit- 600 B.P. to A.D. 1860. Dating of the channel-cutting is uncertain. Last building construction at Pueblo Bonitodated ca. A.D. 1100-1130; therefore, erosion thought to have begun around A.D. 1100. Filling of channel is lesscertain.- In channel cut in older sediments, ca I m thick in central part of canyon, especially near Pueblo del Arroyo- Composed of clayey silt and sand.Abraded pottery fragments similar to types recovered at Pueblo Bonito.- Bryan (1941 :231, Table 1) correlated fill in this unit with similar fill found in northeastern Arizona and northcentralNew Mexico prior to A.D. 1400. There is no good evidence with which to date the horizons in this unit.- 1935 to present.- In Chaco Wash arroyo, about 2 m.- Clay, silt, and sand, probably resulting from planting of willow, tamarisk, wild plum and cottonwood for erosioncontrol of Chaco Wash. Institution of checkdams, cable-willow-rock jetties during 1949 and 1950s .• Taken from Hall (1977, 1988, 1990) and supplemented by (D. Love 1980).that arroyo-cutting occurs with a transition from aridto less arid climate (or increased precipitation), thatarroyo-cutting does not occur during a transition to amore arid environment, and that erosion is notcontinuous during a period of aridity.In summary, the intermediate-scale adjustmentsalso can encompass the small -scale changes to an innerchannel that is affected by minor changes inprecipitation. Understanding more recent changes instream development, however, is complicated byconservation projects initiated during the 1930s.Several investigators considered these issues. WhenDeAngelis (1972) rechecked Bryan's 1920s measurementsof several sections of the arroyo, it was aboutthe same depth. In 1924-1925, the flat-floor, braidedgully existed; in 1972, the active channel wasentrenched as much as 3 m (10 ft) below the arroyofloor. Using 1934 photographs, DeAngelis determinedthat the arroyo had widened considerably by

Environment and Natural Resources 31approximately 5.08 to 15.24 cm (2 to 6 in) per yearbetween 1934 and 1972-a period when grazing withinthe park was eliminated and agriculture was notpracticed. However, planting of vegetation during the1930s may have trapped sediments eroding from thearroyo walls and could be interpreted as alluviationafter the 1920s (DeAngelis 1972), but Dean (personalcommunication, 2000) indicates that in other areaswhere no vegetation was planted the same eventsoccurred. The vegetation did slow the stream flowsand encourage sediment deposition; it indirectlyretarded vertical erosion, because water had lessvelocity to scour or undercut the vertical banks.Recently, Kirk Vincent from USGS (Brad Shattuck,personal communication, 2002) suggested that thearroyo was not deeper but rather went from a sand-bedchannel with a vertical arroyo wall to a vegetativeplain with an inner channel. The former sand channelbecame a new floodplain.Other documentation of changes in the recentfloodplain exists in photographs taken by Chauvenet(1935) and Malde in 1972; Malde (2001) continues toupdate this photographic record. Malde's 1970sinvestigation established transects selected to representvegetational types defined in Loren Potter's (1974)studies, as well as provide data on soil erosionaccumulation and bank-cutting studies. To accomplishthe latter, scour chains and erosion pins were installedand monitored (Simons, Li & Associates 1982).Although relatively little net change occurred over aperiod of four years, there were differences betweenwashes. For example, Fajada Wash showed thehighest net aggradation (35 cm) while the Gallo Washhad an 8 cm net degradation over a five-year period.Rates of surface lowering ranged between 1 to 4mm/yr. At the higher elevated canyon floor nearFajada Butte, the rate was 0.2 mm/yr; in contrast, therate was 9 mm/yr where transect B3 crossed an area ofactive gullying and piping adjacent to Fajada Wash.When the Chaco erosion rates were compared to thosefrom other semiarid and badland areas, the resultswere relatively similar (Simons, Li & Associates1982:3.43-3.45).In summary, human actions alone cannot be themajor cause for changes described in the Chaco Wash.DeAngelis (1972) proposed that overgrazing andclimatic fluctuations were complementary, rather thanmutually exclusive, causes for arroyo formation. Ifarroyo-cutting occurs when the gradient of the alluvialfill of a restricted valley increases until it is no longerstable and channel trenching begins when the criticalangle is reached, overgrazing, aridity, and climaticfactors must interact to lower the critical anglenecessary for arroyo-cutting. Even small-scaleclimatic changes would affect the level of fill withinthe Chaco Wash; intermediate-scale changes wouldalter the character of the canyon bottom such that theremight be a flat floor or an entrenched arroyo. Duringany short period, Pueblo inhabitants would haveencountered somewhat different conditions than theirancestors or descendants did. The construction of amasonry dam across the Chaco Wash at its confluencewith the Escavada Wash, probably in the mid-eleventhcentury, would have raised the water table in thecanyon (Force et a1. 2002) and brought advantages tothe agriculturalists. Archaeologists have not yet hadtime to evaluate this information, but future researchon this topic will enhance our understanding of Pueblouse of the canyon. Until recently, researchers weredependent on climatic data to guide their interpretationsof this cultural period.ClimateThe last major climatic change occurred at theend of the Pleistocene as a warming trend began. Butwithin the Holocene, how much change and preciselywhen it occurred have been topics of research fornumerous scholars. In early studies of the Puebloadaptation in Chaco, rainfall was considered a keyvariable that affects the diminution of plant cover anderosion of soils (e.g., Bryan 1954; Fisher 1934;Hawley 1934; Hewett 1936; Judd 1954, 1964).Beginning in 1932, a weather station was set up atPueblo Bonito, but data collected included only theamount of precipitation and maximum and minimumtemperatures.In an initial evaluation of climate, Fisher (1934)used data from these and other stations in the San JuanBasin to suggest that killing frosts ended the secondweek of May and began around the first week inOctober; he estimated a ISO-day growing season.Fisher realized that data on fluctuations in rainfall inChaco Canyon were unavailable, but that new treeringstudies would provide approximate precipitationvalues by year.

32 Chaco Project SynthesisA few years later, Brand (1937c:43-45) acceptedFisher's estimated number of frost-free days andlengths of growing season. He also reported that thepeak rainy season occurred in July, August, andSeptember (46 percent of total annual rainfall).Variation in annual precipitation ranged from less than15.24 cm (6 in) in the western areas of the canyon tomore than 38.10 cm (15 in) in higher southern andeastern areas. Annual precipitation could vary asmuch as 50 percent from the mean. Temperature andwinds shifted diurnally. Comparison of Chaco datawith Koeppen's system indicated that Chaco wasconsidered during normal years to be a cold desertbordering on steppe. With an average increase of only2.54 cm (1 in) more rain per year, the canyon wouldbe considered a steppe environment.Gordon Vivian and Mathews (1965:8-11) had 32years of temperature and precipitation figures toexamine. The highest temperature recorded was 106degrees F; the lowest was minus 38 degrees F. Therewere also large daily variations during the summermonths, but the estimated frost-free period remainedat 150 days. There was a wide fluctuation inprecipitation from year to year (8.5 to 45.8 cm [3.35to 18.02 in]), and there seemed to be a pattern of twoto four or five years of below mean precipitation (22.1cm [8.71 in]) separated by a single year above themean. They inferred that there would be several yearswith only 12.7 to 17.8 cm (5 to 7 in) of rainfallfollowed by a year with destructive rainfall. Theyrecognized the effects of precipitation and frost-freeperiods on agricultural production. When they comparedthe available data from Chaco with Hack's(1942) observations on the Hopi, they recognized thatrecent precipitation in Chaco was slightly more thanhalf of what was needed. Extensive water collectionand conservation systems would thus have been anecessity during the height of the Pueblo agriculturaladaptation. Although the weather station at PuebloBonito was in a cold desert, Chacra Mesa (at around2,113 m, or 7,000 ft) enjoyed a steppe climate wherepiiion, juniper, and sagebrush provided ground cover.Because the weather station was moved in 1960(Gillespie 1985: 19), it was important to re-evaluateboth the data available prior to the inception of theChaco Project (e.g., Brand et al. 1937; Fisher 1934;Toulouse 1937; Gordon Vivian and Mathews 1965)and data gathered by scholars during the past fewdecades to expand our understanding of the role ofclimate on the Chaco. Gillespie (1983, 1985) examinedclimatologic data for Chaco Canyon and theSan Juan Basin, which are characterized by somewhatcool, semiarid environments. There is considerablefluctuation in both daily and yearly temperatures, andthere is generally low and variable precipitation. Therainfall tends to be seasonal, falling in two peakperiods separated by droughts in the months of Juneand November. The higher summer peak is from lateJuly through September, and the lower peak is in thewinter and early spring. Humidity tends to be low,and there are occasional strong winds. The San JuanBasin is in a sensitive transitional location where thereare fluctuations between a relatively winter-dominantpattern of precipitation to the north and a summerdominantpattern to the south. Depending on latitude,elevation, and geographic location in relation toatmospheric circulation features and surroundingorographic barriers, precipitation values and seasonaldistribution vary.Precipitation comes into the area from varioussources due to different circulation features. Winterprecipitation comes from two sources. Moisture fromthe northern Pacific brings cyclonic storms thatusually pass north of the Four Comers area butsometimes dip into the Southwest. Tropical Pacificlow-pressure systems also occasionally enter theSouthwest, but these are rare in the San Juan Basin.The summer precipitation peak is caused by thesummer monsoonal circulation pattern, which bringsthe western edge of moisture from the Gulf of Mexicoand tropical Pacific adjacent to Central America to thehighlands of the Colorado Plateau by mid-July. Itsnortherly boundary seems to be a line across southeasternUtah and northwestern Colorado, and into theGreat Plains. Because the San Juan Basin is on thenorthwestern edge of this monsoonal flow pattern,there is less moisture than in the central areas, and itarrives later and departs earlier in the season. Thereis a distinct gradient in the percentage of rainfalloccurring in the summer, it is heavier in the southernpart of the San Juan Basin (38 to 40 percent) than inthe north (about 20 percent in the Mesa Verde).Rainfall is also heavier in the east than it is in thewest. Because Chaco is on the leeward side of theChuska Mountains, less precipitation is available inthe canyon. It drops approximately 15 mm/lOO m(0.18 in/10 ft) in the lower parts of the basin. Ireland

Environment and Natural Resources 33LaPlsta Mta."'" "'~.1AS1N",CCPCfUION COftfOUasJuanChuaksMta.Mta.Nt40Iun20 mil ..Zuni Mta.Mt. TaylorFigure 2.4. Precipitation contours for the San Juan Basin. (Taken from Windes 1993:Figure 2.3.(1983:Plate IV) mapped the precipitation contours forthe San Juan Basin; these are presented here as Figure2.4.Data on temperature and precipitation in the SanJuan Basin are generally limited to the past century.During this recent time, temperatures rose until thelate 1960s and then declined (Gillespie 1985). Therewas a similar trend in increased rainfall during Julyand August, but the correlations between these twotrends are weak. Both rising trends occurred whenglobal temperatures were cooling and there weregenerally weak westerly circulation patterns. Thesedata do not fit the model presented by Bryson andBaerries (1968), who suggested reduced July rainfallwhen westerlies are slightly expanded. Whenevaluated against the models of Euler et al. (1979),and Rose et al. (1982), who proposed either summerorwinter-dominant precipitation, the data show nonegative correlation over the past 40 years betweenamounts of summer and winter precipitation, both ofwhich peaked in the 1960s (Gillespie 1985).

------------------------.34 Chaco Project SynthesisGillespie (1985) reported that during the 1960sand 1970s the average annual precipitation in Chacowas 220 mm (8.5 in), but there was considerablevariation from year to year. The lowest amount was8.5 cm (3.35 in); the highest 35.0 cm (13.75 in). Inslightly over half the years, the median was lower thanthe mean. Characteristically in Chaco Canyon,August is the wettest month with 35 mm (1.37 in) ofrain. In July, September, and October, Chacoreceives approximately 25 mm (1 in). The driestmonth, June, receives approximately 10 mm (0.38 in)of rain. Because precipitation in Chaco Canyon variesspatially, the key constraint is the location of raingauges. Thomas Windes currently monitors raingauges throughout the canyon.Temperatures in the canyon vary diurnally, butthe average temperature is 9.9 degrees C (49.8 degreesF). The highest average temperature occurs in July(22.9 degrees C [73.2 degrees F]) and the lowestoccurs in January (minus 1. 7 degrees C [29.0 degreesF]). Since 1960, the frost-free period has spannedmore than 100 days, with half of the years betweenthen and now having fewer than 100 days. Otherpublished figures are somewhat higher, but these arebased on data collected prior to the changes in weatherstation location in 1960. The growing season can bemeasured in two ways: dates with freezing temperatures,and the number of frost-free days. Furtherevaluation is needed to determine which data set ismore representative (see discussion in Windes1993:36-43). There also has been a change in theregional climatic pattern, with recent years havingshorter frost-free periods. Additionally, one must askwhat is being evaluated. If a killing frost occurs atminus 1. 1 degrees C (30 degrees F) rather than 0degrees C (32 degrees F), the growing season is 13days longer. Gillespie (1985) asked how critical thisdifference is, especially if prehistoric peoples used afast-maturing com; he suggested that we consider thisa potential limitation on agriculture rather than abarrier to it.HydrologyThe amount of water available at anyone time,its flow rate, and its quality would have affected anypeople living in the canyon. Based on seven years ofdata, Fisher (1934) calculated that the Chaco Riveraveraged 379,926 acre ft/year and 30,751 ha (75,985acres) of land could be watered. He thereforesuggested that about 10,000 people dependent onagriculture could exist in Chaco Canyon.Recently, Kernodle (1996) provided generalinformation on 12 hydrostratigraphic units that arepart of the San Juan Basin water system. As measuredin its lower reaches, the Chaco River has a water flowfrom 0.283 to 0.849 m 3 /s (10 to 30 ft3/ S during nonstormflowperiods. Springs were considered theprobable major contributors to this flow. Until a deepwell was drilled into the Gallup Sandstone in 1973,water from the Menefee Formation supplementedwater from shallow alluvial deposits to provide waterfor domestic use and livestock for Chaco CultureNational Historical Park and the surrounding area(Kernodle 1996:40). Kernodle reported that mostwells have a low, but steady, flow because water rateis limited by leakage of water from shales and silt inthe lenses of sandstone sitting above (i.e., the CliffHouse Sandstone in Chaco Canyon). Stone et al.(1983:33) suggested a transmissivity of about 1858cm 2 /day (2 fe/day) in areas where sandstone is lessthan 60.96 m (200 ft) thick. Kirk Vincent (BradShattuck, personal communication, 2002) is currentlyreviewing data on ground water levels and the historyof their drop.Simons, Li & Associates (1982:Tables 4.15-4.20) documented the results of a computer simulationof storm events and their results for the Gallo Wash.Total water runoff ranged from 20.9 a/ft for two-yearstorms to 578.1 a/ft for over-lOO-year events. Theamount of runoff and the peak discharges wereconsidered small for the type of storm and size ofwatershed, probably because a large percentage of thewatershed is overlain by soils having high permeabilitythat can rapidly infiltrate rainfall. If thearea contained a higher percentage of less permeablesoils, the magnitude and peak rate of the runoff wouldgreatly increase. Also, the watershed is fairly largeand the probability of a thunderstorm covering theentire area with intense rainfall is small (Simons, Li &Associates 1982:4.31). Suspended sediment concentrationswere thought to be large, ranging from 9,600ppm for a two-year event to 113,000 ppm for an over-100-year event.Extrapolating from these data for the entireupper Chaco Basin, Simons, Li & Associates (1982:

Environment and Natural Resources 35Figure 4.4) divided it into 11 subwatersheds. Volumeof runoff, grouping of watersheds into connectionunits, and peak discharges for connection units wereprovided (Simons, Li & Associates 1982:Tables 4.22through 4.24). Peak discharge rates at four pointswere then presented for 2-year, 5-year, 10-year, 25-year, 50-year, and 100-year storms (Simons, Li &Associates 1982:Table 4.28). The lowest rate was 910a/ft for a 2-year storm; the highest was 23,800 a/ft fora 100-year storm (e.g., covering the area from arroyorim to rim).To understand how these storms would affectagriculturalists with water control systems, this modelwas applied to two prehistoric systems (Lagasse et al.1984). During a typical rainstorm at Rincon 4 in thePenasco Blanco canal and head gate system used duringthe Pueblo adaptation, peak flow was estimated at0.09 em/so Discharge at the gate was 0.8 cm/s; therefore,it was capable of handling flow from a typicalsummer storm and smaller events. For longer storms,no peak higher than 0.08 cm/s is shown, with a peaktime between 30 and 50 minutes (Lagasse et al. 1984:Figure 11). At a second location in Werito's Rincon,a large reservoir was studied. It could collect waterand sediment from smaller storms without breaching,but larger storms would have brought too muchsediment, and water would have breached the walls.Would runoff from storms have been sufficientto water agricultural plots? Figures reported by H.Toil et al. (1985) and Lagasse et al. (1984) were usedby Gwinn Vivian (1992:52) to determine whetherPueblo gridded gardens would have been sufficientlywatered. His analysis suggested that current data onrunoff are insufficient to do more than allowspecUlation on the amount of water impounded byPueblo period water control systems. Their presence,however, testifies to a role within the subsistencesystem. Hopefully, Vivian will provide additionalinsights in his forthcoming evaluation of water controlfeatures in Chaco Canyon (in preparation, personalcommunication, 2003).Other water resources are available. On theplateau south of Chaco Canyon, Brand (1937c)documented a number of ponds; a spring (a reliableone on top of Chacra Mesa), seeps (located where theMenefee and Cliff House sandstones meet and clayprovides an impervious layer so that water flowslaterally); tinajas (holes or small basins); and charcos(puddles). Scour holes, located primarily in sidecanyons, also provide water. Waterholes on the mesabenches on the north would have filled during seasonalrains. Springs fed by seepage through the sandstonewould provide water on a more reliable basis.Historic white settlers found no permanent water tablein the canyon away from the underflow in theriverbed. There are a number of artesian basins southof the canyon, but seeps above the Mancos Shale wereprobably the most likely source of water. Some wellsproduced water that is hard and often quite salty(Brand 1937c:39-49).Windes (1987[I]:Table 2.3) summarized discharge-ratedata collected during 1985 and 1987 atseeps near Pueblo Alto and the precipitation ratescovering this period. These resources were probablyavailable prehistorically. He concluded that therewould have been a sufficient supply of water for anestimated population of about 100 to 200 people, butthat the water in the Gambler's Spring site (29S11971)was high in mineral and salts (Windes 1987[1]:37-42).One spring on Chacra Mesa has a good flow; it wasused historically by Navajo.An early study of water quality is reported byJudd (1964:10-12), who tested the water in the wellused by the National Geographic Society crew;floodwaters; Rafael's Well; and surface water nearKin Bineola. Results indicated that high percentagesof sodium were found, which suggests that the waterswould not easily penetrate the soils. The sample fromRafael's Well differed from the ones from the ChacoWash in that it contained a higher proportion ofcalcium. The water from Kin Bineola also containeda high proportion of calcium and was considered hardwater and usable for irrigation.Recent studies in the area indicate that specificconductance, which measures water quality, commonlyexceeds 2,000 "mhos (considered to be freshwater) but higher values (4,000 "mhos) are commonlyfound in the lower reaches. Stone et al. (1983:22)indicated that water with less than 1,000 "mhosnormally has sodium and sulphate as major constituents.Dam (1995) sampled water twice from wellno. 2 located in Chaco Canyon, somewhat near thevisitor center. In 1986 and 1987, the dissolved solidswere measured at 1,799 and 2,000 mg/L; these

36 Chaco Project Synthesismeasurements are within the range reported by Lyford(1979:Figure 9), who stated that the dissolved solidsin Chaco were within the 1,000 to 4,000 mg/L range.The National Park Service Water ResourcesDivision (1997) compiled available data from sixexisting databases into a report that presents baselinewater quality data on Chaco Canyon and its immediatesurrounding area (4.8 km [3 m] downstream and 1.6km [1 mil upstream from the current park units:Chaco Culture National Historical Park, the KinBineola unit, the Pueblo Pintado unit, and the KinYa'a unit). Results of pH (measured 345 times at 38monitoring stations; only 325 observations used incriteria analysis) indicated that 12 observations atseven stations were outside the pH range of 6.5 to 9.0standard units, criteria for freshwater aquatic life.Eleven observations (10 from Kin-me-ni-oli Wash)were greater than or equal to 9.0. There are still insufficientdata to make definitive statements on recentwater quality. It is likely that human activities (e.g.,those related to oil and gas exploration and development,uranium and coal mining, atmospheric deposition,livestock operations, recreational use) haveimpacted the study area. Although the criteria enteredinto the database may be flawed due to field,laboratory, or recording techniques, at present thewater does not meet the Environmental ProtectionAgency's standards for drinking water for 13 of the 18parameters or for protection of freshwater aquatic lifefor 10 of the 18 parameters as measured byinstantaneous concentration values. The reportstresses that these observations were based on recentsamples.SoilsThe soils in Chaco Canyon are affected by thealluvial material brought in through both the mainwash and its tributaries. The soil content, therefore,is not uniform across the canyon bottom. Brand(1937c:39-49) had characterized the soils in thecanyon as desert gray soils derived from local sandstonesand shales. Potash, phosphates, and nitrates arepractically lacking, but iron, sulphur, gypsum(calcium carbonate), white alkalis (sodium chlorideand sodium sulphate), and black alkali (sodiumcarbonate) are present in varying amounts. Data onsoils in general can be obtained from maps publishedby Keetch (1980: Sheets 20 and 21), but these maps aregeneral in nature and provide little detail on specificareas of the park.During the 1920s, Judd (1964:230-231) analyzed11 soil samples taken from test pit 3, located south ofPueblo Bonito between the site and his field camp.This test pit was placed in the banks of one of thepost-Bonito channels, and the samples did not comefrom cultivated fields; he indicated that they representtransported alluvium from upstream. The soils wereimpervious to water; they contained an excess ofsodium and a scarcity of soluble calcium (based on areport by J. F. Breazeale of the Office of WesternIrrigation Agriculture) and were not conducive toagricultural practices. In another study, M. Bradfield(1971:58-59) collected one sample from the floor ofChaco Canyon and 15 samples from the Hopi villages.The one from Chaco Canyon is much more saline thanthe worst one from the Hopi fields. Recent soilsurvey data by the Natural Resources Conservation isimminent (Brad Shattuck, personal communication,2003) and should provide additional information.Based on the presence of montmorillonite in thesoils that wash down the Chaco in headwaters duringmajor flood episodes, Love (1980) was not surprisedby the alkalinity reported for the soils on the canyonfloor (Judd 1954, 1959, 1964). Because of the presenceof high sodium and low soil permeability, Juddhad suggested that farmers probably used side drainagesfor growing crops, where the alluvium thatoriginated from the side canyons would have providedbetter soils for farming (D. Love 1980). Based ontheir experimental com plots, H. Toll et al. (1985)suggested that study of the south side of the canyonmay indicate this area was more reliable for agricultureover longer periods. We also need to knowmore about the chemical tolerances of the varioustypes of com and other crops that were grown(Gillespie 1985; D. Love 1977b:228). During theexperiment involving com plots that were located inseveral types of soils, corn did grow in the "blackalkali" location near Chetro Ketl. Even in the two dryyears, plants did well in relation to plants in otherlocations during the same season. H. Toll et al.(1985: 115) suggested that the fine-grained sedimentmay hold moisture better, so as to promote plantgrowth, but they also noted that the plants would havemore difficulty extracting the moisture because ofreduced permeability and increased ionic attraction.

Environment and Natural Resources 37R. Powers et al. (1983:8-9, 288-290) used datafrom the Soil Conservation Service and by Maker,Bullock, and Anderson (1974) to examine six landclasses in the San Juan Basin. Although the areascovered by a single land class were often larger thanthe area probably farmed during the Pueblo adaptation,the land in Chaco Canyon fell into classes 3 and4, which were thought to be moderately to severelylimited for irrigation. Class 1 and class 2 landsexisted around the perimeter; e.g., in the San JuanValley, the Chuska Valley, and drainages around thenorth and south perimeters of Lobo Mesa. Powers etal. (1983:289) recognized that the land-class ratingsdefined only general differences and that variability inprecipitation may have been more important than soiland hydrological factors in determining the location ofthe Chacoan structures in their study sample. Theonly Chacoan structures not located on class 1 or class2 soils were in the canyon and Kin Bineola. Both ofthese locations have evidence for water controlfeatures (Lyons, Inglis, and Hitchcock 1972; Lyons,Hitchcock, and Pouls 1976; Gwinn Vivian 1974b,1990).FloraBrand (1937c:46-47) characterized the canyonfloor as a Great Basin microphyll desert. During the1930s, sparse vegetation near site Bc 50 consisted of"chico or black greasewood (Sarcobatus venniculatus),tumble weed or Russian thistle (Salsola pestijer),crownbeard or smelling sunflower (Verbesinaenceliodes exauriculata), and scattered grasses.Herbaceous forms dominate; there is no tree growth;and the chico is the only shrub in the immediate area"(Brand 1937c:39). On the alluvial flats, sagebrush(Artemisia) was the dominant shrub; but greasewood(Sarcobatus vermiculatus) , bunch grasses(Sporobolus), rubberweed (Hymenoxys), tumble weed(Salsola pestijer), salt bushes (Atriplex), rabbit brush(Chrysothamnus) , blue grama (Bouteloua gracilus),galleta grass (Hilaria jamesii), feather grass (Stipa),poverty grass (Aristida), crownbeard (Verbesina), andothers were present. Yuccas and cacti were found ontalus slopes, rocky ledges, and other mesa and valleysurfaces. On sandstone ridges and mesas wereJuniperus (also known as cedars), pinon (Pinusedulis), and sagebrush (Artemisia). Steppe grassesappeared in parklike openings in these settings. Invegetated areas between the mesa levels weresagebrush, rubberweed, blue grama grass, pricklypear, and cane cacti (Opuntia). Joint fir (Ephedra)and redtop grass (Agrostis) were found in very sandysoils; around ponds and lakes in the area are foundcarrizo (Phragmites phragmites), rushes (Juncus) ,bullrushes (Scripus), and sedges (Carex).Brand (1937c:53-55) identified species that wereused for food, medicine, dyes, fibers, matting, andbaskets. Later, Elmore (1943) conducted ethnobotanicalstudies of the Navajo and began collectionsfor a herbarium. By 1965, Gordon Vivian andMathews (1965:23-24) were able to expand thedescription of available flora. Although there is nogreat abundance or wide diversification of plants, thevegetation was characterized as predominantly UpperSonoran with some remnants of the Transitional inmore sheltered coves, and re-entrants. They listedspecies by the general areas in which they were found(canyon floor, exposed soils at outwashes from fromside entrants, and at junctures of the Chaco andEscavada, arroyo bottom, mesa tops, and other higherelevations). Vivian and Mathews (1965) recognizedthat the lists were incomplete, especially for higherand more remote areas on Chacra Mesa. It was theirimpression that erosion control measures taken duringthe 1930s resulted in an increase of black greasewoodand larger shrubs on the canyon bottom. It was in theintermediate zone between the mesa tops and canyonfloor, however, that they noted the greatest variationin vegetation and the largest number of species.By 1969, the wash contained a few trees plantedduring an erosion control program; today, there issome natural recivitment. Species introduced by theSoil Conservation Service during a three-year period(1933 to 1936) include tamarisk (Tamarix); willow(Salix); broad leaf cottonwood (Populus wislizeni);narrow leaf cottonwood (P. angustijolia); wild plum(Prunus americana); Parosela shrubs; western wheatgrass, or bluestem (Argopyron smithii); sacaton (Sporobolus);and sand bunchgrass (Oryzopsis hymenoides)(Brand1937c:47 Footnote 12; Gordon Vivianand Mathews 1965:5). Relict stands of pine trees anda few Douglas-firs existed along Chacra Mesa. In thecentral canyon, relict individual Pinus ponderosa werecut down for firewood. In the 1990s, Windes (personalcommunication, 2003) noted a few individualsupcanyon near the Chaco East community. Healthypopulations are found in higher elevations, toward

38 Chaco Project SynthesisLybrook, Cuba, and Pueblo Pintado. Healthy Pinuspinon are found on Chacra Mesa and Southwest Mesa.Understanding the vegetative cover and diversitywas one goal of the Chaco Project. One of the firststudies to sample by transects was that of Jones(1970), whose lines crossed six physiographic areas(plains, rock outcrop, cliff, alluvium, canyon floor,and arroyo); he also classified vegetation into fourgroups (forbs and grasses, half-shrubs, shrubs, andtrees). Scientific and common names were providedfor various species (seven grasses, 11 forbs, one tree,and 11 shrubs); three unidentified plants and manyothers were noted to be present in the area. Jonescommented that for all plant associations, the plantdiversity was lower than expected. The four-wingsaltbush/greasewood association had the least speciesdiversity and was more sensitive to manmade disturbances."Based upon casual observations made duringthis project, it appears that all of the associations areecologically frail. The minor amount of visitationfrom our investigations is quite evident at eachsampling unit, and in a few cases minor erosion can beseen due to our activities" (Jones 1972:71). Thisobservation was reiterated one year later, when Jonescontinued research on small rodents (Potter 1974:115). The census of small animals in each unit isdiscussed below.On a broader scale, aerial photography andground-based studies were employed to prepare avegetative map and description of vegetative types forthe area encompassed within the former Chaco CanyonNational Monument. Using color transparencies takenat 1:6000 in 1973 and black-and-white photographstaken at 1:3000 in 1974, plus information fromJones's (1970) vegetational survey, a preliminaryvegetative map was prepared by N. Edmund Kelley.Vegetative data were correlated with relief and otherfeatures within 1 m units. Due to the scale of thephotography, it was not possible to recognize thespecies of grasses, but two types of grasslands weredesignated. It was also possible to detect areas wherethere had been watershed treatments or previouslycultivated fields. The resulting map (Figure 2.5) anddescription of the vegetative types (E. Kelley andPotter 1974; Potter and Kelley 1980) illustrated thezones, coded for either the dominant plant species orcombination of species, or physiographic area, asfollows:HB: Hilaria-Bouteloua grassland. This grasslandtype is found in the upland plateau where soils are thinand composed of silt and sand. Depending on thetexture and depth of soils, the associations of plantsvary. Galleta grass (Hilaria jamesii) is found inheavier soils. Blue grama grass (Bouteloua gracilis)is greater where soils are intermediate in texture;where soils tend to be sandier, sand drop seed(Sporobolus cryptadrus) and Indian ricegrass(Orozopsis hymenoides) increase. Other commonspecies include winterfat (Eurotia lanata), the exoticRussian thistle (Salsola kali), and a desert hiddenflower(Cryptantha angustifolia). In areas where therehad been sand dunes, there is an increase in Indianricegrass and four-wing saltbush; this was subdividedas HB(A). HB(J) denotes scattered junipers located inthis soil with fractured sandstone.Sp-Si: Special grassland dominated by alkalinesacaton (Sporobolus airoides) and bottlebrush squirreltailgrass (Sitanion hystrix). Only two small areaswhere there are low, level, clay soils with highalkalinity were placed in this category. During moistsummers, tansy mustard (Descurainia) is expected;other species include grasses and weedy speciesindicative of disturbed soils.AOS: Atriplex-Oryzopsis-Sporobolus. Whenfour-wing saltbush (Atriplex canescens) is co-dominantwith Indian ricegrass (Oryzopsis hymenoides) and sanddropseed (Sporobolus cryptandrus), the designationAOS was given. This zone is commonly associatedwith deep sandy soils that were once dunes; it is alsofound at the base of cliffs where outwash is relativelycoarse. On the lower slopes, where brush increases,it blends with the upper limits of black greasewood(Sarcobatus vermiculatis). Also appearing are avariety of grasses, forbs, and shrubs.AS: Atriplex-Sarcobatus. This code marks azone of transition from upper to lower slopes, sandyto clayey soil, high to low alkalinity, and greater tolesser depth of the water table. Four-wing saltbush(A trip lex canescens) and greasewood (Sarcobatusvermiculatus) extend from the banks of the ChacoWash to the intermediate and lower slopes of thecentral canyon, where they dominate the vegetativecover. Other species present include several grasses,shrubs, and forbs.

Environment and Natural Resources 39LEIIENI)Branlolld~ H!!ono - BO\lftJollll' (Alnpm)~ Hilorlll- ElclJfelolia (J~lIip.ru.lISPOrObO\\lI.Sillll\\On.3Itrlllt-urll"Ip .~Atrlplu·OrY1CP'I'-Sp"robolli'Q~ Atripll .. -$tntoblllhitl!!J SaftObohl,Spc(obohol'mWood~Pill~OIl·J!iniplrI Ripo.nan,'

40 Chaco Project Synthesis

Environment and Natural Resources 41I'SS: Sarcobatus vermiculatus-Sporobolus airoides.At the eastern end of the park, from where theChaco and Gallo washes cross the boundary to theroad that crosses the Chaco Wash from the south exitto the visitor center, are stands of black greasewood(Sarcobatus vermiculatus). Here the soils are characteristicallyalkaline silt and clay. Also in this areaare rubber rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus nauseosus),several species of wheatgrasses (Agropyron), alkalisacaton (Sporobolus airoides), and spiny or shadscalesaltbush (Atriplex confertifolia).PJ: Pinon-juniper. This woodland zone, foundonly on Chacra Mesa at the southeastern edge of thepark, is dominated by one-seed juniper (Juniperusmonosperma), with pinon (Pinus edulis) below 2,133m (7,000 ft). Shrubs include true mountain mahogany(Cerocarpus montanus) and black sagebrush(Artemesia nova), plus a large variety of grasses andforbs that have no indicator value.RW: Riparian woody vegetation. The entirestream of the Chaco Wash was characterized as riparian,and woody, to correspond with soil piping anderosional studies being conducted by Malde. Severalspecies of rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus spp.), greasewood(Sarcobatus sp.), coyote willow (Salix exigua),four-wing saltbush (Atriplex canescens), Fremont'scottonwood (Populus fremontii), and the exotictamarisk (Tamarix pentandra) are present.D: Dune area. Da: dune area-active. Dv: dunearea-vegetated. Rubber rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnusnauseosus) and sand sagebrush (Artemisiafilifolia) arethe dominant species present. Also present are severalherbs and grasses.BR: Bare rock.Wt: Watershed treatment. Manmade zone.Of: Old field succession. Manmade zone.Potter and Kelley (1980: 103) indicated thatchanges in vegetation could be linked to relativelyminor changes in environmental conditions. Manyspecies in the area, especially the annuals, fluctuategreatly in density and coverage due to changes inannual precipitation. There is also a close link tofeatures of geology, physiography, and soils. Insummary, a coarse vegetative classification map, witha detailed description of the different vegetative zones,was completed, and reasons for some changes invegetation were noted. A. Cully (1985a:Appendix A)published a comprehensive plant list based on existingcollections in the park and supplemented by thosefrom Ron Bronitsky in 1972 and those that she andMollie Struever Toll collected in association withpollen and flotation studies during the Chaco Project.After the monument became a park in 1980, theadditional lands were surveyed by Floyd-Hanna andHanna (1995) and Floyd-Hanna et al. (1993). Thevegetative map by Kelley and Potter was digitized,and inventory transects provided data, indicating that13 distinct vegetation types can be defined andaggregated into eight visually distinct vegetationcommunities. These include the riparian wash,Artemesia tridetatalChrysothamnus nauseosus, Sarcobatusassociations, pinon/juniper associations, Artemesianova-J.monosperma-C. visiiflorus, A. novaGutierrezia sarothrae-C. greenei, Sporobolus airoidesassociations, and Hilaria jamesii-Sarcobatus vermiculatus-Boutelouagracilis-Orozopsis hymenoides, aswell as the distinct formations of sandstone cliffs andactive dunes.Scott (1980) confirmed the variability in plantresponse to available moisture and supported observationsand explanations proposed by Potter (1974)regarding the annual variability in plant species due todifferences in rainfall. From 1975 through 1977,rainfall in Chaco was below normal (215 mm). In1975, it was 68 percent of average; in 1976, 62percent; and in 1977, 87 percent. When monthlyobservations on the phenology of plants in samplingareas were compared, seven of 11 observed species ofperennial plants reproduced during 1976, while 10 of11 reproduced in 1977. The flowering period (Aprilto October) contained two peaks: May-June, andAugust-October. Norman and Duke (section 2 of"Phenology of the Perennial Plants") recorded differingflowering dates for various species, some of whichflowered twice; e.g., gall eta grass (Hilaria james;;)and muhly (Muhlenbergia sp.). Scott (section 7 on"Perennial Plant Coverage") noted that some perennialspartially or completely died (e.g., snakeweed[Gutierrezia sp.]), depending on available moisture,while others (e. g. , Indian ricegrass [Oryzopsishymenoides], ephedra [Ephedra torreyi]) , blue gramagrass [Boutelous gracilis J, cactus [Opuntia polya-

- -~~------~- --- - ---------------42 Chaco Project Synthesiscantha] and winterfat [Ceratoides lanata]) were relativelyunchanged by the drought. Differences in plantpopUlations were noted in an area where thereformerly had been a blacktailed prairie dog (Cynomysludovicianus) town.Transects placed across vegetative communitiesdesignated by Potter (E. Kelley and Potter 1974;Potter 1974; Potter and Kelley 1980) were used tostudy numbers of plant species in Chaco Canyon. Thehabitats included the bench, the pinon-juniperwoodland, two floodplain areas (Casa Chiquita andPueblo Bonito), the wash, the shrub grassland atPueblo Alto, and a similar vegetative community inWerito's Rincon. A. Cully and Cully (1985:Table 2)reported that 12 species of plants (Table 2.2) wereimportant in discriminating among habitats. All butfalse terragon (Artemesia dracunculoides) were dominantswithin habitats. The wash, floodplain, bench,and mesa tops were distinct habitats that could bedistinguished either by species unique to the habitat orby a greater dominance of a particular species. Therewere definite similarities between the study areas atCasa Chiquita and Pueblo Bonito, and the bench andpinon-juniper woodlands were also similar. Withregard to species diversity, the bench had the secondhighest richness, the highest diversity, and the lowestcover. The two floodplain sites, Casa Chiquita andPueblo Bonito, had lower plant diversity than thebench; Casa Chiquita had similar cover, but at PuebloBonito the cover was slightly higher. Plant speciesand biomass varied by year; the plant species werehigher during 1979, when several storms occurred tobring additional precipitation. Biomass differenceswere attributed to species composition and soilconditions, but water availability was most influential.A. Cully and Cully's (1985) results differedslightly from those reported by Potter (1974) andJones (1972), probably because the methods employedin each study were different and because there wereactual changes in the abundance of perennial plants(also noted by Jones [1972] and documented by Scott[1980]). All three studies point to variability inannual plant production, which correlated withprecipitation.The major conclusion to be drawn fromthis study is that both annual and perennialplant species vary between habitats andTable 2.2. Plants important for discriminatinghabitats. aCommon nameBroadscaleFourwing saltbushSagebrushBigelow rabbitbrushGreasewoodJuniperGalleta grassIndian ricegrassFalse terragonCoyote willowTamariskJoint-firSpeciesAtriplex obovataAtriples canescensArtemisia bigeloviiChrysothamnusnauseosusSarcobatus vermiculatusJuniperus monospermaHilaria jamesiiOryzopsis hymenoidesArtemisia dracunculoidesSalix exiguaTamarix pentandraEphedra viridisa Taken from A. Cully and Cully (1985:Table 2).that resources may be available duringdifferent years in different habitats. Thesecond conclusion is that those habitatswith the highest alpha diversity may be thepoorest in terms of food production, andthat the variety of species present isaccompanied by low biomass. (A. Cullyand Cully 1985b:73)Plants are also affected by human disturbancesand may provide useful information for the archaeologist.Young and Potter (1974; Potter and Young1983) selected three sites on mesas and in valleys fromeach of four periods (Basketmaker III, with two mesasites; Pueblo I; Pueblo II; and Late Pueblo III). Theyalso examined several sections of prehistoric roadwaysand three isolated great kivas. Based on specific waterand soil requirements, most plant species providedclues to the type of structure, but they did not provideclues to help date the sites. Nine plant species were'I

Environment and Natural Resources 43considered possible site indicators (Young and Potter1975:Table 4); the best indicators wV}re Western tansymustard (Descurainia pinnata), greasewood (Sarcobatusvermiculatus), winterfat (Eurotia lanata), alkalisacaton (Sporobolus airoides), and wolfberry (Lyciumpalladium).In summary, in the contemporary environment ofChaco Canyon, the amount of rainfall and the timingof precipitation events are crucial to the growth andproduction of many plants. Even minor variationsaffect the successful maturation of com plants, and, byinference, other plants that would have supplementedan agricultural diet or have been important to huntergathererpopulations.FaunaBy combining evidence from archaeological andhistorical studies, Brand (1937c:47) concluded thatthere were few, if any, mammalian species presenttoday that were not there prehistorically. The converse,however, was not true. Antelope had not beenseen for at least 50 years. Mule deer and elk weremissing for at least one generation. Brand postulatedthat these mostly herbivorous animals left due tohunting and the introduction of domesticated grazinganimals (Historic period). He also proposed that thecarnivores, or Felidae, that preyed upon these herbivoresprobably moved out at about the same time. Asa result, smaller animals, especially rodents, movedinto the empty niche. After the monument boundarieswere fenced (beginning in the 1930s and completed in1948 [Brugge 1980)), vegetation slowly recovered.Gordon Vivian and Mathews (1965: 16) indicated thatwithin the next few decades mule deer popUlations hadbecome more common. Wapiti or elk reappeared.Vivian and Mathews doubted, however, ifbison, bear,and mountain sheep were ever part of the local scene.(Pronghorn were last sighted moving through the parkin the late 1980s.) Over the years, park personnelcompiled lists of other animal species. Scurlock(1969) realized that his list of birds was not comprehensive,and that baseline biological inventorieswere lacking. More detailed studies were needed tounderstand the movements of various animal speciesacross the landscape.Initial baseline studies began in 1968, whenKirtland L. Jones initiated the first structured study ofherpetofauna of the area (Jones 1970). After establishingtransects across six physiographic areas, he founddifferences in herpetofauna associations. For example,there were no reptiles or amphibians associatedwith rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus nauseosus) in anarea where water stands for long periods. Toads wererecorded in riparian and four-wing saltbush/greasewood(Atriplex canescens-Sarcobatus vermiculatus)associations, but not in the mixed grassland, mixedshrub, or pinon-juniper associations. Jones concludedthat herpetofauna were distributed according tophysiographic areas in which there was a distinctcomplement of plants. Within the physiographicareas, the herpetofauna were segregated by nicherequirements. For lizards, the niche distribution wasby substrate; for snakes, there was no nichedistribution, but species segregated, in part, byactivity periods and feeding habits.During his two-year study of small rodents,Jones recorded 163 species. Those areas that had ahigher plant diversity also had higher numbers andgreater diversity of small rodents (Potter 1974). Withfew exceptions, the number and species recoveredduring the second year were similar to those trappedduring the first year. In one sampling unit (PuebloAlto South), however, no grasshopper mice werepresent during the second year, although they comprisedthe majority of the species in the previous year.Instead, kangaroo rats and pocket mice, species notpresent a year earlier, were found. When Potter(1974: 114) reviewed data from both years, hesuggested that the density of small rodents was approximately1192.9 m 2 (1/1,000 fe), with the highestdensity (2/92.9 m 2 [2/1,000 feD associated withmixed grasslands and the lowest (0.2/92.9 m 2[0.2/1,000 fe)) with rabbitbrush. There had been adecline in the number of Northern grasshopper miceand an increase in other small mice. These studiessuggest how minor changes in vegetation affect smallmammalbehavior; the differences between years alsoindicates the ease with which populations moved aboutin their environment.Research reported in Scott (1980) evaluated thebehavior of insectivorous bird populations, rodentpopulations, and seed-harvesting ant popUlations tounderstand their effects on perennial plant coverage.Rodents demonstrated differences in population duringthree years of study. The pocket mouse (Perogllathus

44 Chaco Project Synthesisflavescens) was most common, followed by the deermouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), and then by thegrasshopper mouse (Onychomys leucogaster), andanother pocket mouse (Perognathusflavus). In 1976,populations peaked in June and August; in contrast,the numbers were highest in the fall months during1975 and 1977. On sampling plots, rodent populationsrecovered from one month to the next. In anexperiment with desert seeds that are part of therodent's natural diet, the seeds proved not to be agood food for these animals; a more balanced diet wasneeded to sustain them. For the foraging ant populations,both species of Pogonomyrmex (P. rugosus andP. occidentalis), activity depended on temperature.The ants foraged between May and October; activitywas highest in August and September. Plant partsutilized included seeds, leaves of Mormon tea(Ephedra torryeana), and twigs. P. occidentalis enjoyedthe fruits of Chenopodium freemontii andOryzopsis hymenoides. P. raguosus also gatheredthese species, plus considerable numbers of Hilariajamesii fruits. Several of these species of plants havebeen recovered in archaeological sites; no studiesindicate the effect of competition between the humanand animal species.Jack Cully (1985a, 1985b) examined bird androdent communities in five areas: the bench, thepinon-juniper woodland, two floodplain areas (CasaChiquita and Puelo Bonito), and the wash. Data werecompared to determine differences among the numbersof animals and species. He recognized that birds arehighly mobile and that changes in their communitiesmay reflect changes in larger areas; e.g., the entirepark or areas outside of the park. Rodents, on theother hand, do not migrate, and therefore react to localconditions. Any changes in their populations probablyrelate to events within the park.Results of the trapping of mammalian speciesindicated that there were three conununities ofmanunals. The pinon-juniper woodland was composedpredominantly of cricetines and sciurids. Itconsistently had the highest number and diversity ofspecies. It also had several species not found in otherhabitats. The rock grasslands along the bench containedthe fewest species and had the lowestpopulations. It acted as a sink for excess productionin other areas. The wash complex, which includedboth floodplain areas, exhibited a mix of heteromyid,cricetine, and sciurid rodents.For birds, J. Cully (1985a) listed 132 speciesthat either he identified or were recorded in park files.Descriptions included whether the birds were residentsor migrants, and breeding species or not. The majoritywere migrants. Due to the presence of trees in theChaco Wash, he thought that the wash functioned asan oasis for migrants crossing the San Juan Basin.The lower diversity of breeding birds along the ChacoWash, when compared with either the San Juan Riveror the Gila River, was probably due to the limitedamounts of water in the intermittent stream (see alsoJ. Cully 1984a, 1984b). When he eliminated birdspecies that live only in deciduous riparian habitats,the results of his study were similar to those reportedfor similar habitats. They were also similar to resultsof the Chaco floodplain habitats in terms of diversityof species.Within the vegetative habits he studied in thecanyon, J. Cully (l985b:281) found that higherdiversity occurred during breeding season. The twofloodplain sites were similar in number of species(45). The pinon-juniper woodland had slightly fewerspecies (41). It also had the second highest diversityduring the breeding season and was low during wintermonths. The bench, with 12 species observed, had thelowest diversity in both winter and summer and wasunique when compared to the other habitation sites.When evaluating the results of bird and mammalstudies, J. Cully noted that bird populations andmammal popUlations could be both assigned to threehabitat-related communities: wash-floodplain, pinon/juniper woodland, and rock grassland of the bench.The diversity index that allowed him to distinguishamong bird popUlations did not work well for mammals.For the latter, a major within-habitat popUlationchange followed tremendous plant production in 1979.The bird popUlations were lower than the mammals,and the mammals were more closely tied to place.The high variance in popUlations of manunals,however, was not easily monitored in the two-yearstudy; long-term studies were needed to understandchanges in the ecology of this diverse area.The results of these studies suggest that speciesmay have been available to earlier inhabitants of thecanyon during different seasons and that variations in

Environment and Natural Resources 45rainfall that affected the vegetative production alsoaffected the location and abundance of speciesavailable to hunters. Studies of the deer mouse (Peromyscusmaniculatus), a generalist forager, provideddata to examine the vegetative diversity model (thathunters and gatherers would utilize habitats whereecological diversity is greatest). J. Cully (1984b)reported that deer mice respond to between-habitatdiversity and young disperse into a variety of habitats.Deer mice populations are least stable in habitats withhigh plant diversity and most stable where diversity islow but cover type is high. Although these correlationswere not considered significant (J. Cully1984b:216), Cully suggested that the deer mice betterfit the strategy of living in an area that was near to agreat variety of resources that would be available atdifferent times (J. Cully 1984:221). This concept underliesthe mini-max theory, but without the assumptionsof the vegetative diversity model (used whereecological diversity is greatest). Based on this work,he predicted that in Chaco Canyon, Archaic huntergatherercamps would be located in the bench habitatbetween the floodplain and the shrub-grassland mesatop where a variety of resources would be availablefor harvesting during different seasons of the year.SummaryThe studies presented above indicate how climateaffects major aspects of the natural setting, yet evensmall changes in precipitation (the single largestfactor) can bring about changes in the fluvial system,as well as in the numbers and diversity of plant andanimal species. As little precipitation as 2.54 cm (1in) can bring discernible changes to the canyonlandscape. Reconstruction of past environments todetermine how much change and when would providearchaeologists with a framework within which toexamine and interpret human adaptations during thePreceramic, Pueblo, and Historic periods. Gillespie(1983, 1985) indicated the transitional positionbetween the northern and southern weather zones thataffects Chaco Canyon and the San Juan Basin. Thenext section will explore several reconstructions of thepast environment that were evaluated by Gillespie.Paleoenvironmental ReconstructionsSeveral investigators examined data from theirdisciplines to retrodict earlier conditions and suggestreasons why human adaptations changed through time.Each field of study, however, imposes certain parameterson the inferences that can be made. Geologicstudies usually discern changes in broad time scales,which can be hundreds, thousands, or millions ofyears. In contrast, dendroclimatic studies can discerndifferences in precipitation during different seasons ofa year; the resolution span for pollen data is approximately100 years. Pollen is carried in the air for longdistances or can be washed downstream for manymiles. Evidence from macrobotanical remains recoveredduring studies of pack rat middens tells usabout what was growing only in a limited area,usually one that is less than one hectare (ha) from themidden itself (Betancourt 1990:260). As a result,conclusions drawn by investigators from these fieldswill be reviewed before presenting Gillespie's (1983,1985; Gillespie and Powers 1983) climatic model,which was used by the Chaco Project to correlateenvironmental reconstruction with the early agriculturaladaptation between ca. A.D. 500 and 1300.Geomorphological ReconstructionD. Love's (1980) studies of sedimentarygeomorphology encompassed events at the largestscales discussed herein. His division of stream behaviorinto three categories, separated by thousands ofyears, indicated that only one period of fluvialgeomorphic adjustments-the intermediate-is pertinentto Archaic and Pueblo adaptations in the Chacoarea. An exact beginning date for this period was notspecified. Love (1977b:232, 1979:294, 1983b) suggested,however, that there were no major changes inthe climate or vegetation in Chaco Canyon forthousands of years. Several channels in the valleyfloor are up to 12 m deep; these formed during thelong period in which channel cutting and fillingresulted in several episodes that alternate between aflat valley floor and channel entrenchment (D. Love1979:293-296). Kirk Vincent of the USGS is currentlyrevisiting this research (Brad Shattuck, personalcommunication, 2002).D. Love (1983b:192-193) faced several problemswhen trying to determine the dates of the variouschannel cuts (Figure 2.3). He found a positive correlationbetween his data on one channel and Hall's(1975, 1977) Gallo unit (dated ca. 6,000 to 7,000B.P., see below). There was one major buried chan-

46 Chaco Project Synthesisnel present at 3,700 B.P. and one at 2,400 B.P. Loverecognized that pit structures are present 2 to 4 mbelow the present surface and suggested that thechannel was entrenched at the time of their constructionand use. Judd (1964) documented severalold channels south of Pueblo Bonito between A.D.900 and 1127. Love (1977b:215) cited 29SJ550, a. Pueblo II field house with cored masonry betweenWijiji and Shabik'eshchee at a depth of 2 to 3 m, aspossibly having been constructed on the banks of aburied channel. South of Pueblo del Arroyo is an oldchannel containing walls with late masonry styles thatdate post-A.D. 1050. These data suggest the possibilityof more than one channel. Laminated gray claylayers, which Nichols (1975) dated at A.D. 1250,were found in the stratigraphy near Chetro Ked.Similar layers were found in Senter's (1937) postA.D. 1050 strata. They suggest flooding of the canyonfloor; there probably was no channel at that time.Thus, the record for the past 1,000 years suggestsseveral cut and fill episodes, not all of which were 12m deep, but they do indicate alternate periods ofentrenchment and filling of the Chaco arroyo, probablyto different heights during different times (Figure2.3).Although the presence of trees on the valleyfloor during the early Pueblo occupation has beendebated, D. Love (1977b:232-234) found no indicationof large trees. Each tree species has specificrequirements. For example, Love (l977b) reportedthat ponderosa pine requires 355.6 cm (14 in) ofrain,but precipitation only averages about 222.5 cm inChaco. Judd (1964:18) documented a small stand ofpines at the head of Chaco Canyon and four dead pinesin Werito's Rincon in the 1920s, plus the remains ofone rotted pine in the West Court of Pueblo Bonito.Windes et al. (2000) recorded several individualponderosas on Chacra Mesa near the Chaco Eastcommunity. Judd (1954:10) cited Jackson (1878),who indicated that willows and cottonwoods werenumerous in 1877; by the 1920s there were stillseveral on the south side of the canyon. These speciesgrow shallow roots, and a decrease in the water tablecould cause their disappearance. Shattuck (personalcommunication, 2003) indicates some seep populusremain even during the recent five-year droughtperiod. The presence of a prehistoric forest isdoubted; but the presence of some species duringtimes when a high water table was present is likely.Palynological ReconstructionHall (1975,1977) accepted Bryan's (1954) geomorphologicalresults, in which the latter indicatedthat two periods of erosion and sedimentation in theChaco arroyo served as a baseline. Hall's initialanalysis of 18 radiocarbon dates (Hall 1977:Table 1)and alluvial pollen samples from four locations in theChaco Wash, two in the Gallo Wash, and sevensurface pollen stations (Hall 1977:Figure 1) provideddata that allowed him to describe five alluvial unitsand their relative dates, as well as shifts in thedominant arboreal vegetation over a period of 7,000years (Hall 1975, 1977, 1983).Hall assumed that the major source of pollen insurface material is upstream. "If the conclusion isaccepted that pollen in alluvium comes from sheeterosion of surface materials and that the surface pollenis a mixture of many years of accumulation, thenfluctuations in climate and in plant communities ofless than many years duration will likely beundetected" (Hall 1975:39-40). Theperiodsmeasuredwould fall within 100 years, at best. D. Love (1980)realized that Hall did not recognize the differentsources of alluvial fill (headwater and local) of thedifferent facies within the fill at the time of his earlypublication. Because it is necessary to understandconditions that affect the formation of each unit(where the material came from and how long it took toform the unit), Love suggested that Hall's sequencewas the result of alternating different kinds ofdeposits, and that it therefore may not be climaticallyaccurate. Later work by Hall recognized this problem(Hall 1990:325).Hall (1977:Figure 13) divided his data into threepollen zones and seven sub zones. These subzonesmay be more specific to Chaco than they are to theregion (Hall 1977:1609). The climatic history in theChaco area fit the broad regional pattern of "coolerand more moist conditions during glacial times, amoderately warm and dry early postglacial period, amid-postglacial interval of greater dryness andwarmth, and a late postglacial reverse in climate tomoderately warm and dry conditions" (Hall 1977:1613). The details for Chaco, however, differed; Hallnoted an abrupt onset of arid conditions around 5,800years ago. The period of greatest aridity fell between5,600 to 2,400 B.P. rather than 7,500 to 4,000 years

Environment and Natural Resources 47ago as Antevs (1955) suggested. Instead of a gradualchange from one climatic regime to another (e.g., the1,000 years proposed by Antevs [1948]), the changewas much more rapid, perhaps within 200 years.Differences in vegetation at both high and lowelevations did not correspond with today's patterns;the rate of changes in vegetation between the twoelevations were not identical-one could change morethan another during the same period.Hall (1988) later examined the pollen content ofpack rat middens studied by Betancourt and VanDevender (1980) from Atlatl Cave and elsewhere inthe canyon. He re-evaluated these data as anindependent check of pollen and plant macrofossil dataand expanded his interpretations of the vegetation andenvironment of Chaco Canyon and the San Juan Basin(Hall 1988; 1990). He concluded that the alluvialrecord presented earlier (Hall 1977) was correct.Figure 2.6 illustrates the stratigraphy and processes asthey relate to the archaeology, climate, and vegetationof the area. A summary follows.Throughout the Holocene (since 10,600 yearsago), Chaco has been a shrub grassland. Althoughgrasses dominate the alluvial floor, today's vegetationincludes saltbush (Atriplex) and greasewood (Sarcobatusvermiculatum). In the uplands, sagebrush(Artemisia) and Mormon tea (Ephedra) are thepredominant shrubs. Single junipers are present onthe slopes. On Chacra Mesa, pinon is more prevalenton the eastern end and juniper on the western end. Inthe mountains that surround the San Juan Basin arepine forests (P. Ponderosa), oak (Quercus), Douglasfir(Pseudotsuga) , spruce (Picae), and fir (Abies).Because the sediment samples were dominated bychenopods and pine in different amounts over theQuaternary period, Hall thought that the modem andprehistoric environments were much the same; theyjust varied in proportions at different times.During the late Pleistocene, when the sedimentsexhibit a thick cross-bedded Fajada gravel, a ponderosapine forest was probably present on Chacra Mesa;pinons probably grew in lower elevations of the Chacodrainage. Today, these areas contain only grasses andoccasional shrubs. Hall (1988:589) suggested thattemperatures during the Late Pleistocence-EarlyHolocene were slightly lower than today, and thatprecipitation was possibly slightly higher. The exactnature of the climate during the soil formationprocesses represented by the red paleosol is unknown.Prior to 6,700 B.P., erosion and re-entrenchment ofthe canyon floor had occurred.Between approximately 5,800 and 2,400 B.P.(Hall's Middle Holocence period) was the period ofgreatest aridity. At the onset of this arid period, lakesbegan to dry up. Pinon woodlands and ponderosaforests rapidly retreated to higher elevations and werediminished in size. There was deep trenching ofalluvial valleys. Hall (1988:589) admitted that therecord for Chaco is incomplete and needs much morestudy.Around 2,400 B.P., a period of erosion began;it ended by approximately 2,200 B.P. At this timesediments began to accumulate in the canyon andrunoff spread over the flat valley floor. The climatewas warmer and slightly drier than at present. Hall(1990:326) suggested that the Chaco Unit alluvium,deposited between 2,200 and 1,000 B.P., is almostentirely upstream in origin. About 1,000 years ago,there was a change to moister conditions, such as existtoday. Not until ca. A.D. 1100 was there an increasein rainfall and runoff sufficient to erode the postBonito channel. Snail remains analyzed by Hall(1980) indicate that there were pools of shallow waterthat supported Stagnicola cockerelli in the main valleyfill from Basketmaker through Pueblo occupations.He proposed that this aquatic snail was eliminatedwhen its habitat was destroyed-when the post-Bonitochannel eroded. Hall (1980:61) suggested that betweenA.D. 600 and 1200, there was no deep arroyochannel like the one present today and that runofffrom storms spread across the valley floor.Sometime between A.D. 1300 and 1400, thepost-Bonito channel began to fill. During this periodthe pinon woodlands again expanded, reaching theirpresent abundance and range. Hall thought the climatewas similar to that of today. He also thought theponderosa forest in the mountains nearby may havereached its present abundance only within the past 100years. The modem arroyo began to erode in 1860;erosion was halted after 1935 when measures weretaken to stabilize the wash to protect the archaeologicalsites (Hall 1977:1617).

-------48 Chaco Project SynthesisYIIS a.1! EOUAH EOLIAII.1,000STRATIGRAPliY PROCESSES0- locol _EOU .. II UillT l~#poIIII,..'"'"../I- $OilI-I11"./0",..'"2- iI"bl/l~,,/I"nUI'Pf:~ PALEOSOLAI.l.UVIALSTRATIGRAPHY!'OST-IOilITOClt"COfl.UVIALPROC£SSESollU'IIilllfl 01hmw"I",' .;g;"C/l41111~ trmcllillgARCHAEOLOGYICAVA.IO""lILO I. II, litIASKETWAKEIICLIMATEZIltaCCNTURYOilY Wt;T..~.:VEGETATION~ OCUIIT-Ia-z3-.. - UNIT(Ol.l""25-1- I7-dflne*POlili."dUll'ULLO..".,--------le.I'flJlw;vm ofloctll OIlgl.til/wi"'" 01It"dWt:ll.,., ~ig;nci.n..",ARCHAIC.. -3;! ..~ :}: ..-4:::: 11SHRUI..~~Ii ..;;:l: -$.:: oS- - -6-7a-.,oili/lztllIOllGIIASSLIoIiD-8soU,- .. ... d .... I_,... ,, '"«:,OWER PALEOSOL10- 1'10" fQoioeatOOn do InAa.;, , , ... ...F!,~"OA PAL(OSOLcS4ild",./opmH'oPALEO-INOIAHEFG-910Figure 2.6.Environmental changes in Chaco Canyon: A) stratigraphy of dunes and soils of ChacoDune field; B) processes affecting dune field; C) stratigraphy of alluvium at Chaco Canyon;D) processes affecting Chaco Canyon alluvial record, channel trenching coincides withincreased rainfall; E) archaeology of San Juan Basin; F) paleoclimate based onreconstruction of vegetation from pollen and plant macrofossil data; and G) vegetationreconstruction from pollen and plant macrofossil data for basin area below 2,000 m.(Taken from Hall 1990:Figure 7.)Evidence from Pack Rat MiddensDuring the analysis of material excavated fromAtlatl Cave, Earl Neller (1975) recognized the valueof studying pack rat middens to aid in thereconstruction of the paleoenvironment. Thomas R.Van Devender and Julio L. Betancourt of the geosciencesdepartment at the University of Arizonacollected and analyzed macrofossils from 22 pack ratmiddens from four different locations on the northside of the canyon and one in Werito's Rincon on thesouth side. Radiocarbon dates were obtained(Betancourt and Van Devender 1980, 1981). Theresults of the macrobotanical analysis provided clues

Environment and Natural Resources 49CULTURALSEQUENCE.------r-H~'S T-OR-'C-' N-'V-AJO 7~ ~~~ n 7 i 7~ ~I' ~II j !;,.Ii iIFigure 2.7.Environmental reconstruction based on study of macrobotanical remains recovered frompack rat middens. (Taken from Betancourt and Van Devender 1981 :Figure 1.)to changes in the environment during the past 11,000years. Figure 2.7 summarizes the data, which wereinterpreted as follows:Late Pleistocene: The area probably was coveredby a subalpine forest consisting mainly of limberpine (Pinus cf. jlexilis) , Douglas-fir (Pseudotsugamenziesii), and spruce (Picea sp.).Early Holocene (or Paleoindian, 11, 000 to 9,000B.P.): Mixed conifer communities were dominated byDouglas-fir, Rocky Mountain juniper (Juniperusscopulorum), and limber pine. There was only oneexample of spruce. It was inferred that the plantcommunities in Chaco Canyon were relicts of anextensive Late Pleistocene forest dominated byDouglas-fir, limber pine, and spruce. The weather

50 Chaco Project Synthesiswas probably cooler than it is today; precipitation fellmostly in winter and was probably twice as heavy(440 mm).Between 9,460 and 5,550 B.P., there was a gapin the data due to inadequate sampling of the pack ratmiddens in the canyon.Middle Holocene (or Early Archaic, 6,000 to4,000 B.P.): This period was thought to represent ashift from a mixed conifer forest to a well-developedpifion-juniperwoodland around 8,000 B.P. Summerswould have been slightly wetter than they are today.Although plant communities were dominated by pinonand juniper, small amounts of Douglas-fir and ponderosapine in one sample suggest that there was asubstantial decrease in effective moisture, probablystarting at the beginning of the Middle Holocene.Also appearing for the first time were several herbsthat respond to summer precipitation.Betancourt and Van Devender (1980:52) notedthat Hall (1977) suggested greater aridity during theperiod from 5,600 to 2,400 B.P., which resulted inmaximum reduction of the pinon-juniper woodlandsand ponderosa pine forests in northwestern NewMexico. However, they indicated that the piiionjuniperwoodland persisted well into the LateHolocene on the xeric exposures where pinon andjuniper are most vulnerable to increased aridity.Late Holocene (or Late Archaic, 3,940 to 1,230B.P.): A persistent pinon-juniper woodland wasinferred. In contrast with 87 percent found incontemporary middens that were examined, only 40percent of the perennial species recovered frommidden remains are found in the area today.Betancourt and Van Devender suggested that theunderstory was more like the modem desert scrubcommunities than the understory of the Chacra Mesawoodlands. There probably were limited stands ofponderosa pine in favorable sites on the south side ofthe canyon and on Chacra Mesa, but this possibilitycould not be inferred from the data. On the northside, a patchwork of desert scrub and grasslands withscattered junipers on exposed hillsides and piiionjuniperstands on cliff sides and sandy outcrops weredescribed.Anasazi (1,230 to 460 B.P.): There was a localreduction of piiion-juniper woodlands; Betancourt andVan Devender suggested that stands were slow toreproduce and that woodcutting by the prehistoricinhabitants eventually caused the disappearance ofthese species in the canyon.Recent (after 460 B.P.): No piiion or junipermacrofossils were recovered. The material that wasrecovered closely resembles the modem flora.Modern: Modem pack rat dens, located in closeproximity to the middens, revealed small traces ofjuniper in middens only in areas where isolated treesare present. There was no piiion in any of the modemdeposits. For the perennial species, 87 percent foundin the midden occurred within 30 m of the site. Todaythere are still isolated examples of Douglas-fir foundon Chacra Mesa, 20 to 25 km east of the main area ofthe canyon. Rocky Mountainjuniper are not found inthe lowlands of the San Juan Basin; they only occur inareas where annual precipitation is from 381 to 631mm annually. That range is above the 220 mmaverage that occurs in Chaco Canyon. Limber pine isfound only in the San Juan Mountains, approximately180 km to the northeast.The reduction in pinon-juniper after 1,230 B.P.was most difficult to understand. Because the regionalclimatic variability after 1,230 B.P. was probablywithin the range that occurred between 5,550 and1,230 B.P., Betancourt and Van Devender could notattribute it to climatic change alone. Instead, theysuggested that it resulted from an interaction betweenhumans and their resources, particularly the use offuel for fires, and the slow reproductive rate of thestands. To examine this proposal, Samuels andBetancourt (1982) used computer software designed todetermine fuel-harvesting impacts on a pinon-juniperwoodland; they compared the model and data fromChaco Canyon. To obtain the most generous estimatespossible, their figures overestimated the woodlandparameters (13,000 ha) and were conservativeregarding the amount of fuelwood/firewood procuredby the early Pueblo people (14.8 cords/ha/yr). Theyinitialized their model in A.D. 250 with a populationof 48 individuals reproducing at a 0.6 percent growthrate. Within the-200-year period between A.D. 950

Environment and Natural Resources 51and 1150, the woodlands would have been completelydepleted.In 1982 Betancourt had the opportunity toparticipate in the study of Sheep Camp Shelter just tothe east of the park (from which four pack rat middenswere sampled) and Ashislepah Shelter located to thenorthwest of the monument. To fill in gaps in theinitial sequence (9,460 to 5,550 B.P.) obtained fromChaco Canyon, Betancourt also collected materialfrom 50 additional middens in the canyon, 35 ofwhich were dated. His interpretations and conclusions(Betancourt 1984) did not change, but he was able torefine his paleoecological reconstruction. An uncalibratedsample from a midden in Atlatl Cave dated8290 ± 150 B.P. contained abundant ponderosa,Douglas-fir, and piiion, with only a small amount ofRocky Mountain juniper lLnd one-se.ed juniper. Onerose microfossil was present. None of the last threeoccurred in later specimens (post-5,550 B.P.) and onlya few of the junipers occur today on Chacra Mesa.This supported his interpretation of the transitionbetween the Late Pleistocene and Early Holoceneenvironments. With regard to the existence of a hot,dry Altithermal period, the data were less clear. Noneof the assemblages dating prior to 5,000 B.P. weremore xeric than those dating later. The presence ofponderosa pine andlor Douglas-fir with pinon-juniperwould support a wetter period from 8,300 to 2,300B.P. than post-2,300 B.P., but there were no data tocontrol for site differences. Betancourt had notcollected samples younger than 2,830 B.P., either.The only middens in which ponderosa were found arenear Pueblo Pintado, where it grows today. Thus,there was no evidence to support a local origin formost ponderosa used to build the Chaco towns.All middens that had no evidence for piiion wereyounger than 500 B.P.; the youngest was the one eastofthe Gallo Wash that dated to 1,230 B.P. These datasupported the interpretation that the reduction in pinonwoodlands took place during the Anasazi occupation.Betancourt (1984: 185) suggested "The late Holocenewoodland in the Monument was likely restricted tocliffsides, further reducing the total cordage availableas fuelwood." This was not the case for Chacra Mesa,and although the Anasazi probably harvested ChacraMesa later in time and the impact was devastating, thevegetation was able to recover. It would have beenused later by the Navajo.Comparison of Pollen and Pack Rat MiddenResultsThe paleoenvironmental reconstructions thatresulted from analysis of pollen and pack rat middenmacrobotanical remains differ. The packat middenmaterial seems to indicate that both ponderosa andpiiion were expanding their ranges during the EarlyHolocene (10,000 to 7,000 B.P.), while spruce andlimber pine remained only as relict species from thePleistocene (Betancourt 1984; Betancourt and VanDevender 1981). Hall (1977), on the other hand,indicated that pollen analysis from the same middensshows that presence of ponderosa and pinon pine wassimilar to that seen today. Fredlund (1984: 187) evaluatedthe assumption that comparisons can be madebetween the alluvial and pack rat midden pollenassemblages and recognized that there are strengthsand weaknesses associated with these two complementarytechniques. Differences in pollen frequenciescan be due to to pollen production, transportation,preservation, recovery, and identification.The occurrence of high pine pollen percentagesin sediment samples taken from avery localized zone of woodland hasimportant implications. Hall (1977, 1981,1982) interprets variations in pine pollen inhis alluvial record as indicating regional,rather than local, vegetation change.Evidence from packrat middens, on theother hand, has documented the decimationof local woodlands at Chaco Canyonduring the height of the Anasazioccupation (Pueblo II and III) (Betancourtand Van Devender 1981: Samuels andBetancourt 1982; Betancourt, this volume).This apparent discrepancy has been blamedon the lack of sensititity of alluvial pollenrecords to local vegetation change(Betancourt and Van Devender 1981;Betancourt, this volume). This may becorrect, but for the wrong reasons.Alluvial pollen samples are overlysensitive to the local vegetation on thevalley floor. Evidence for changes inscarp woodlands of the area could beobscured by the over-representation offloodplain pollen taxa (Solomon et al.

52 Chaco Project Synthesis1981 [sic]). Change in local woodlandswould be better seen in pollen recordsfrom the escarpments, which would havesupported these woodlands. Such locallysensitive pollen records could be obtainedfrom caves or rockshelters where aeoliansediments and scree have accumulated.(Fredlund 1984:191)After reviewing the variation among thevariables that could affect the palynological data andinterpretations of them, plus his own analysis ofmaterial from Sheep Camp and Ashislepah shelters,Fredland (1984:205) concluded that palynological dataprovide good evidence for regional environmentalreconstructions. Unfortunately, the records from theLate Holocene (after 1,200 B.P.) were obscure, andpreclude useful additions to the interpretationsavailable. For Late Pleistocene and Early Holocenevegetation, interpretations were constrained by twomajor problems: the identification of Pinus species,and the ability to distinguish local pollen sources fromregional pollen rain, especially for samples taken fromshelters along escarpments. As a result, reconstructionof Late Pleistocene vegetation from pollendata in Chaco Canyon is difficult. Fredland indicatedthat the Mid-Holocene (5,800 to 2,200 B.P.) was aperiod of sustained aridity, an explanation that isinternally consistent with all data and conformsexternally with published results by Hall (1977). Hesuggested that the ponderosa and pinon woodlandswere significantly larger at the beginning of thisperiod than they are today, but decreased thereafter.Relict stands of pinon and juniper remained until2,200 B.P., at which time they began to recover.Fredlund (1984:209) acknowledged that the period ofaridity proposed is too broad in scope, but that thelack of understanding of climatic records makes itdifficult to appreciate pollen data with regard tospecific environments, such as that in Chaco Canyon.There seem to be differences in events by area.Dendroclimatological ReconstructionThe NPS was a major sponsor of the SouthwestPaleoclimate Project, which was funded by contractsfrom 1967 to 1971 and again from 1974 to 1976, toconstruct a network of climate-sensitive tree-ringchronologies based on archaeological materials andsamples from living trees. One result of this studywas a series of maps that indicated the relativevariation in tree-ring growth in space and time, as wellas fluctuations in rainfall and temperatures (Dean andRobinson 1977). A second project, jointly sponsoredby the Chaco Center (NPS), the Dolores Project(BLM), and the Puerco Project (ENMU), studied thedendrochronology of the Southwest Plateau in andaround Chaco Canyon (Rose 1979; Rose et al. 1982).Building on earlier work, Rose et a1. (1982; and Rose1979) used tree-ring data to reconstruct theenvironment from A.D. 900 through 1970. See Roseet al. (1982:Table 1, Figure 1.2) for locations used toconstruct expanded tree-ring chronologies.Rose et al. (1982) acknowledged that there werea number of methodological problems that could beaddressed by using statistical tests to determine therepresentativeness of the tree-ring chronologies fromseven different prehistoric and historic locations.They incorporated the assumptions that characterize alldendroclimatic work (e.g., no long-distance transportof wood used in archaeological sites, uniformitarianismin climatic factors, chronological accuracy,ability to incorporate different species of trees, andhistoric and prehistoric sample populations possesssimilar time and frequency domain characteristics).Using monthly temperature and precipitation data,they reconstructed regional precipitation and temperaturevalues, as well as calculated the Palmer DroughtSeverity Index (PDSI). This is an index of meteorologicaldrought-"an anomaly characterized by a prolongedabnormal moisture deficiency, with its severitydepending on the duration and magnitude of theabnormality" (Rose et al. 1982: 109). This meteorologicalmeasure was used rather than agriculturaldrought or hydrological drought to avoid the problemsthat must be considered when other variables comeinto play; e.g., the economic factors in the localcommunity and responses available to agriculturaliststo overcome them, or the engineering problems thatthe disciplines of hydrology, geology, and geophysicsaddress. Rose et al. (1982) selected the July PDSIbecause it was the period when most demands onwater supply are high and when droughts tend to peak,thus having the greatest stress affects on tree growth.Table 2.3 indicates the values used to determinedrought severity.

Environment and Natural Resources 53Table 2.3. PDSI values. aPDSI ValuesClass~ 4.00 Extreme drought3.00 to 3.99 Very wet2.00 to 2.99 Moderately wet1.00 to 1.99 Slightly wet.50 to .99 Incipient wet spell.49 to -.49 Near normal-.50 to -.99 Incipient drought-1.00 to -1.99 Mild drought-2.00 to -2.99 ~.1oderate drought-3.00 to -3.99 Severe drought

901to925950to9751001to10251050to10751101to11251150to11751201to12251250to12751301to13251876to19001926to1950YEARS-A.D.Figure 2.8. PDSI plotted in 25-year increments from A.D. 901 through 1325. (Taken from Windes 1987[I]:Figure 2.2.)

Environment and Natural Resources 55rainfall was proportionally (and most likelyabsolutely) less than at present. Whilemore mesic than now, the San Juan Basinwas probably colder and more arid thanareas further south and east where evidenceof successful Paleoindian adaptations ISmore abundant. (Gillespie 1985:27)The Middle Holocene (8,000 to 4,00012,000B.P.) probably had temperatures that were generallyhigher than any time before or since. The debate overspecific characteristics-e.g., whether there was a hot,dry period as described by Antevs (1955) or arelatively mesic period with more summer rainfall asdescribed by Paul Schultz Martin (1963)-wasunresolved. Macrobotanical data indicated the developmentof pinon and juniper woodlands to replaceearlier, more mesic conifers (Betancourt and VanDevender 1980,1981; Betancourt 1984; Betancourtetal. 1983). Palynological evidence indicated reducedpine pollen between 5,500 and 2,999 B.P. andprobably less regional woodland coverage (Hall 1981and Fredlund 1984). Petersen (1981) and Pippin(1979) attributed lower pine pollen counts to moremesic conditions; Petersen saw increased pinon woodlandsaround 4,000 to 3,000 B.P. Faunal remainsfrom around 5,000 B.P. indicated a fauna similar thatfound today, but with several nonlocal smallvertebrates that are found in better developedgrasslands. Gillespie (1985:30) suggested that thegrasslands respond to increased summer rainfall.Geological data (e.g., Wells et al. 1983) suggestedthat the period was more arid than at present. Theclimatic reason for the shift from more montane mixedconifers to pinon and juniper on these soils and fromcold desert scrub to desert grassland in open habitatswas thought to be a m~or shift in the seasonality ofprecipitation, with increased summer precipitation dueto strong monsoonal circulation during the thermalmaximum. Trees such as pinon and ponderosa thatdepend on adequate summer moisture were replacedby species that were better adapted to winter-dominantprecipitation. By ca. 5,500 B.P., the change to morexeric conditions began and these lasted until about2,000 B. P. -a period that may have been the most aridtime in the entire post-glacial period.During the past 2,000 years, there has been anincrease in pine pollen, which Hall (1977) interpretedas representing more mesic conditions. Gillespie(1985) indicated that studies of pollen for theBasketmaker III through Pueblo III period (Euler et al.1979; Schoenwetter and Dittert 1968) suggest favorableclimatic conditions. Samuels and Betancourt(1982) suggested that the need for fuel andconstruction materials caused the removal of localpinon-juniper growth. Even though Judd (1954) andothers assumed that the few relict pines indicated thepresence of forests i..'"1 the area, ponderosa and othermontane conifers had always been rare in the canyon.Palynologists (Hall 1977; Euler et al. 1979; andPetersen 1981) differed in interpreting their data. Hallfavored a period of more aridity until A.D. 1100,when there was an increase in pine pollen; Euler et al.(1979), and Petersen (1981) thought the periodbetween A.D. 950 and 1150 was more mesic. Thetree-ring data (Rose et al. 1982) provided the bestinformation on small-scale climatic fluctuations; thesepointed out the drought between A.D. 1130 and 1180.An extended period of cool arid summers thenpersisted from ca. A.D. 1300 until the 1800s.Geological evidence was equivocal; Bryan (1954) andHall (1977) both thought the arroyo formed ca. A.D.1100. Bryan attributed it to drought, while Hallthought it was due to increased precipitation thatcaused arroyo-cutting. D. Love (1983b) indicatedthere were numerous buried channels during thisperiod.Regional pollen sequences (Euler et al.1979; Petersen 1981) suggest that fromabout A.D. 950 to mid-HOOs relativelywarm temperatures with generally highsummer precipitation characterized thesoutheastern Colorado Plateau. Anasaziculture development at Chaco Canyonflourished during this period, in partbecause of favorable conditions foragricultural production. The decline ofChaco Anasazi is well correlated with aperiod of low summer rainfall in themiddle of the twelfth century. This periodof drought may have been a majordestabilizing factor in the apparent declinein the Chaco-based regional economicsystem. (GiIIespie 1985:35)That data from these different scales are difficultto correlate, especially when used to interpret pastenvironments, is not surprising. Dean (1988) ex-

56 Chaco Project Synthesisamined the dendroclimatological data for variables thatcould be compared to those derived frompalynological and alluvial data to determine whetherthe proposed alluviation correlated with arid periods(Bryan 1954; Karlstrom 1983) or wet periods (Love1980; and Hall 1977). He had more success with theformer. but noted that much more research is neededbefore this problem can be solved.Depending on the period under consideration.inhabitants of the Chaco area would have relied ondifferent resources that would affect their subsistencestrategies and social organization (Gillespie 1985). Ifthe mixed conifer woodland and open steppe habitatdominated by sagebrush in the Chaco area wasprobably relatively unproductive during thePaleoindian period. it is expected that the earliestpeople would have used areas farther south and eastwhere there was greater precipitation and mildertemperatures that would favor more biodiversity thanthe San Juan Basin. The Four Comers area of theSouthwest would have a smaller and more variablepopulation of large game animals and a paucity ofusable floral resources (Gillespie 1985:26). Gillespiethought that the archaeological evidence agreed wellwith this.The Middle Holocene. with its initial moistsummer conditions, was probably favorable forhunters and gatherers of the Early Archaic (Jay-Bajadaperiods). Plant and animal resources would haveincreased with enhanced summer rainfall, and pinonnuts would have been abundant for the first time.Bison may have peaked. Yet the more favorable areasto the southeast, where greater numbers of sites havebeen found, would have been preferred to the San JuanBasin. During the Late Archaic (San Jose and Armjioperiods), cooler and less mesic conditions probably ledto decreased resource availability. Because Archaicevidence from the Chaco area peaked around 3,000B.P. and cultivars are present in the sites, Gillespie(1985:32) suggested that populations responded moreto social, demographic, or other non-environmentalconditions.During the past 2,000 years, Gillespie (1985:35)suggested that the relatively warm temperatures andhigh summer precipitation from about A.D. 950 to themid-l100s would have allowed cultural developmentin Chaco Canyon to flourish. The agriculturalconditions would have been favorable. The onset ofa period of low summer rainfall in the mid-twelfthcentury may have destabilized the economic system.Gillespie and Powers (1983) examined settlementpatterns throughout the entire San Juan Basin todetermine whether changes were related to limitationsimposed by climatic parameters; e.g., elevation range,temperature, precipitation, and length of frost-freeseason. For example, the high, cool-season precipitationin the north is more evenly distributedthroughout the year. In the south, the summer peak ismore evident, with an average of 35 percent fallingbetween July and August in the Red Mesa Valley andZuni. This is 10 percent more than that recorded forthe northern San Juan Basin during this period. Ingeneral, precipitation correlates with elevation, asdoes the frost-free season.Based on their knowledge about the arid SanJuan Basin and its topography and variable rainfallpatterns, and knowing that going in almost anydirection from Chaco would improve conditions foragriculture, Gillespie and Powers made the followingpredictions:It is suggested that the relative aridity ofthe basin greatly restricts the potential fordry farming. Instead, the mid-summermoisture peak and overall aridity suggestmore reliance on cultivation in sedimentswatered by summer runoff. Anasazi farmingtechniques and field locations wereundoubtedly highly varied, but givenpresent hydrologic and geomorphologicconditions, it is believed the overallagricultural potential of the basin isdirectly related to summer rainfall. Extendedperiods of high summer precipitationin prehistoric times should correspondto use of a greater variety ofagricultural techniques in a variety oftopographic situations.In reviewing modem temperature andprecipitation parameters and their relationto accepted criteria for optimal farming,several inferences can be made. First, it isprobable that in many areas of the San JuanBasin, there exists a potential risk of

Environment and Natural Resources 57occasional crop failure from unfavorablemeteorological conditions-in particular,frost-free seasons and inadequate precipitation.At the same time, it would be easyto overemphasize the marginality of thesituation. For example, by some standards(e.g., [E.] Adams 1979), the short, frostfreeseasons at Chaco Canyon wouldindicate "prohibitive" risks. Yet, the richarcheological record from there suggeststhat prehistoric farming was successfulover an extended period of time. On thisbasis, it would be difficult not to considerChaco to be closer to the optimal end of anoptimal-margin continuum or risks of yearto-yearsubsistence stress. Consideringother environmental variables in additionto meteorological characteristics, it seemslikely that Chaco was something of an"oasis" in the San Juan Basin, as suggestedby [Gwinn] Vivian (1970a). This in tumbrings into question the reliability ofassessing marginality or suitability forfarming on the basis of modem climaticdata. In particular, the accuracy of suchwidely cited criteria as minimum growingseason requirements needs to be betterestablished before their implications ofprehistoric adaptations can be wellunderstood. (Gillespie and Powers 1983:8)These investigators used data from the San JuanBasin Regional Uranium Study (SJBRUS) database toevaluate a model that predicts use of changing relativefrequencies of sites through time, depending on thegeology, elevation, and retrodicted temperature andprecipitation levels. With increased summer precipitation,expansion of settlements was expected.Between A.D. 900 and 1100, for example, there wasincreased site expansion at both high and lowelevations in the San Juan Basin, which occurs withincreased summer precipitation; during the mid A.D.IlOOs, growth halted when a 50-year period ofdecreased moisture impacted the San Juan Basin.Although settlements continued in limited areasaround the margins of the basin, the central areacollapsed. In the northern river basins, floodwaterfarming would have been an option; in the southeasthighlands, dry farming would have been possible.SummaryThere is little support for major climatic changeafter the transition from the Late Pleistocene to EarlyHolocene. There were no major changes in theenvironment during the Holocene. However, therehad been minor shifts in temperatures andprecipitation. The change to a more arid environmentduring the Middle Holocene brought with it a changein the species of trees available; except for isolatedstands, the ponderosa pine forest had disappeared fromChacra Mesa by 7,000 B.P. (Hall 1977). Dense pineforests were not present in the canyon, but someremnant forests did outcrop on the higher mesas, witha few trees appearing at higher elevations along theupper walls of the canyons.Pine, fir. and spruce were not abundant in thecanyon for construction purposes. During the Pueblooccupation, it was unlikely that the ponderosa pinelogs used in the construction of the great house sitescould have been obtained locally; rather, they wereprobably imported from some distance, where speciesgrew at high elevations; e.g., Mount Taylor, MountPowell, the Chuska Mountains, or the Cuba area (Hall1975:57, 1977). The studies of Betancourt and VanDevender (1980) and Samuels and Betancourt (1982)indicate that fir and spruce would have been importedfrom long distances, but that ponderosa pine wouldhave been available in scattered stands in favorablehabitats. Dense ponderosa stands were more distant,probably 40 km from Chaco Canyon. Because mostconstruction beams attributable to this species are 35em-plUS in diameter, it is unlikely that tree harvestingwould have destroyed these stands. The removal ofthe larger-sized, slow-growing specimens, however,would have forced the Pueblo people to travel fartherto obtain logs of appropriate size for construction(Betancourt et al. 1986:373). Samuels and Betancourt(1982) modeled the effects of timber-cutting, whichwould have deforested the area by A.D. 900.Harvesting of pinon and juniper in the canyon,however, probably caused their disappearance by thatdate.Rather than simple lists of plant and animalspecies, we now have a record of which ones occur inspecific zones. We know something about thedensities of some species and how they respond toeven small fluctuations in rainfall by season or

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --58 Chaco Project Synthesisannually. Assuming that the environment was similarover the past 2,000 years, there would have beenfluctuations in resource availability during thedifferent periods when it was either more mesic ormore xeric; and these changes would have had someeffect on human adaptations. Gillespie (1985;Gillespie and Powers 1983) has outlined what some of.these responses would have been. Jones (1972:71)and Potter (1974: 115) indicate the frailty of thevegetation in several ecological zones. Simplytrapping fauna led to disturbances in the samplingunits. Human use of the canyon would have alteredits vegetative pattern.The Chaco arroyo provided evidence of anumber of cut and fill episodes during the period ofPueblo occupation. Unfortunately, we cannot date allthe sequences. How deep the various cuts were andwhether the channel filled across the entire bottom atspecific times still need further research. If the washdegrades in sections where the angle of the fill exceedsa certain measure, then we must re-evaluate some ofthe older models for prehistoric behavior, such as thecause of abandonment of Chaco being related to slowand progressive upstream downcutting of the watersupply for both vegetation that holds down the soiland for a supply of irrigation water.DeAngelis (1972) was the first to note thelimited success of the 1930s conservation projects toretard channelization of the Chaco arroyo. The use ofdikes was more successful than some other methods.He indicated the need to better understand theinterrelationships among variables such as climate,soils, vegetation, structure and topography, drainagebasin size, stream gradient, and grazing pressure, aswell as qualitative and quantitative data, before wecould fully realize the contributions of each to theprocess. According to Hodges (1974:116-118), theconservation efforts begun in the 1930s by the SoilConservation Service were only partially successful.Planting trees in the wash and constructing dikes,checkdams, and other structures confined the water toa channel but there was further entrenching in thefloor (see Simons, Li & Associates 1982 for furtherevaluation ofthe various erosion control mechanisms).Humans would not have destroyed these forests,as Bryan (1954), Fisher (1934), Hawley (1934), Judd(1964), and others have suggested. D. Love (1979:298) also found no evidence that the inhabitants ofChaco caused arroyo formation. Although they usedsmall canals and rock quarries, possibly had smallagricultural plots on the margins of the canyon floor(Loose and Lyons 1976a), and used the arroyo as arefuse dump (Judd 1954, 1964), the data wereconsidered inadequate to demonstrate which, if any, ofthese extrinsic causes contributed to degradation of thearroyo. There was also no evidence that the downcuttingof arroyos caused the abandonment of the area.The condition of vegetation cover, although altered byhumans, affects runoff only after basic elements innature that are conductive to erosion have beenestablished. Overgrazing during the past centurywould have been a trigger for events that were aboutto occur as a function of climate (DeAngelis 1972;Hodges 1974). Deforestation and agricultural misusesof land may have been factors, but climatic factorsdetermine the amount of rainfall and its availability asrunoff.The quality of the water today is poor. Wecannot be sure what it was like in the past. Recently,park personnel have initiated a number of studies onwater quality and hydrology that may shed light onthis topic. For human consumption, the amount ofwater available in different areas of the park isunknown. Windes has initiated the placement ofseveral water gauges throughout the park; results ofhis study will provide a better understanding of thevarying amounts by season and location and the rangeof variability in the fluctuation that may have occurredover a period of years.Conflicting thoughts about the productivity ofthe soils washed in from upstream (the gray lenses)indicate a need for additional studies on com and otherplant species that were used by prehistoric farmers.Whether they were growing their own com hasrecently been questioned by Benson et al. (2003); theysuggest that much was imported from the peripheriesof the San Juan Basin.Experiments in growing com in 1977, 1978, and1979 provide some idea of what effects the variabilityin location and precipitation within Chaco Canyonmay have had. H. Tolletal. (1985:104) reported thatalthough the germination rates in all three years were

Environment and Natural Resources 59similar, the survival rate and size of the cobs weremuch different. With watering, some improvementwas noted, but adequate natural precipitation wasneeded. The regime or scheduling of this precipitationwas also critical, especially during the months ofMarch through August. Even in the plot located alongan irrigation ditch, the water flowing through the ditchcame too late in the season to be of use. Theseresearchers concluded that Chaco definitely was amarginal environment for growing com; even inproven locations, farming was risky. The effects ofeven small changes in rainfall on plant and animaldensities during recent times as recorded by Potter andKelley (1980: 103), Scott (1980), and A. Cully andCully (1985b), and discussed above, are similar tothose reported by H. Toll et al. (1985).Yet environmental factors alone cannot beconsidered sufficient to explain human behavior.Dean (1984, 1988, 1992; Dean et al. 1985, 1994) andhis colleagues have been investigating the interrelationshipsof environmental, population, and behavioralvariables in the archaeological record from a regionalperspective. On the southern Colorado plateaus ofArizona, they studied low- and high-frequencyenvironmental variability and attempted to evaluatehuman responses (mobility, shift in settlement, subsistencemix, exchange, ceremonialism, agriculturalintensification, and territoriality).No longer can a single measure ofenvironmental variability, such as rainfallbe involved to "explain" behavioralchange. It is essential that both high andlow frequency processes be documentedand that their interaction with one anotherbe understood. In addition, the behavioralimplications of temporal and spatial environmentalvariability must be accountedfor in understanding adaptive processes.Finally, because so many environmental,behavioral, and demographic variablesinteract in different ,vays to producedifferent adaptive systems, each periodunder investigation is likely to be unique.Generalization, therefore, is difficult.Clearly, retrodicting past environments insufficient detail to understand the culturenatureinteraction is an extraordinarilydifficult task. (Dean et aI. 1985:550)In conclusion, although we have learned muchabout the environment and natural resources, there ismuch work to be done before we can explicitly modelhuman adaptations to the Chaco area. The followingchapters incorporate data and models available duringthe Chaco Project and comment on new informationavailable since that time.

-----------------------------

Chapter ThreeThe Preceramic Period in Chaco CanyonTnere has been no investigation of non-ceramic sites in the general Chaco area. Such sites do exist. Theyare confined to high, sandy ridges on the Chacra Mesa and east of the Monument. They occur as hearthareas and slab hearths eroding out of the sand; the hearths are accompanied by abundant flint chips. Thetypes of points or blades from which these were derived are unknown and the sites have received onlypassing attention from the senior author. They mayor may not have any direct connection with thefollowing long and imperfectly understood period. (Gordon Vivian and Mathews 1965:28)Although several sites indicated a preceramicpresence around the basin's peripheries (Agogino1960; Agogino and Hester 1953, 1956; Alexander andReiter 1935; Bryan and Toulouse 1943; Campbell andEllis 1952; Mohr and Sample 1959; Reinhart 1967;and Renaud 1942), in 1969, very little was knownabout the Preceramic period, not just in Chaco Canyonbut throughout the San Juan Basin. Dittert et al.(1961) recorded several sites in the Navajo Reservoirarea and Cynthia Irwin-Williams was conducting theAnasazi Origins Project (1964 to 1969) along theArroyo Cuervo in the Rio Puerco drainage specificallyto learn more about the Archaic adaptation (IrwinWilliams 1994:571-572). TheChacoProspectus(NPS1969:4) stated that itA survey specifically orientedtoward recovery of preceramic information ismandatory. The establishment of typology and criteriafor cultural subdivisions, if any, is necessary.This survey should include all physiographicsituations. It is suggested that the survey be extendedbeyond the canyon environment, especially to the eastin the Chacra Mesa area. II The need to reconstruct thePreceramic ecosystem by determining the vegetationthen present was emphasized.Since that time, cultural resource managementstudies in this section of northwestern New Mexicohave contributed a comparative wealth of informationon surface sites, plus limited data from three rockshelters in the Chaco Canyon area. Much of thisinformation has been summarized by others (e.g.,Elliott 1986; Vierra 1994; Gwinn Vivian 1990). Thischapter will outline the models available for interpretingthe Paleoindian and Archaic periods, presentthe results of Chaco Project survey and excavation,and suggest how these data fit within currentknowledge of the Preceramic adaptation in the SanJuan Basin.Models for the Preceramic AdaptationAs the Chaco Project was under way, severalmodels for a Paleoindian and Archaic adaptation innorthern New Mexico provided a framework foranalysis and for comparative studies. Environmentalchange was the major variable considered by IrwinWilliams (1973), Judge (1971, published in 1973),Reinhart (1968), and Lyons (1969), but culturalvariables were not excluded.Irwin-Williams outlined changes that occurred inthe Southwest from Paleoindian through Archaicperiods (Irwin-Williams 1967, 1968a, 1968b) andreported on excavation of the En Medio rockshelterthat was part of her Anasazi Origins Project (IrwinWilliams and Tompkins 1968). She proposed that thePaleoindians who utilized the San Juan Basin prior to8,500 B. C. were part of a plains-based hunting culturecharacterized by specific fluted point types (e.g.,Clovis around 9,300 B. C., and Folsom from 8,500 to7,500 B.C.). With the last Paleoindian occupationidentified as makers of Cody points about 6,000 B. C.,changes in the environment brought about an eastwardshift in large faunal species and a movement of hunters

62 Chaco Project Synthesisto the Southern Plains. Southwestern and northernMexican cultures that had mixed or locally specializedeconomies were then free to move into the San JuanBasin. By 3,000 B.C., Picosa (the ElementarySouthwestern culture) covered southern California, allof Arizona, the western half of New Mexico, parts ofsoutheastern Utah, and southwestern and south-centralColorado, as well as northern Mexico (Irwin-Williams1967). This elementary Southwestern culture lasteduntil about A.D. 1, and could be divided into threeareas that often blurred at their edges. The PintoAmargosa complexes covered California, southernNevada, and western Arizona. The Cochise includedthe Chiricahua and San Pedro phases of southeasternArizona and southwestern New Mexico. Less wellknown materials from northwestern New Mexico,northeastern Arizona, southeastern Utah, and centraland southwestern Colorado were given the nameOshara, and were considered to be ancestral to theAnasazi (Irwin Williams 1967). In a more detaileddescription of the Oshara tradition, Irwin-Williamsplaced her data from the Arroyo Cuervo region ofNew Mexico into six temporally ordered phases andprovided illustrations of the lithic technology for eachperiod (Irwin-Williams 1973:Figures 2 through 7).Jay phase (5,500 to 4,800 B.C.). This phaserepresents a broadly mixed gathering and huntingeconomy. Sites are located on cliff tops in canyonheads, near ephemeral ponds or low mesas. Site sizeis less than 50 m2, but some represent repeated use ofthe same area. Tool kits include large, slightly shoulderedprojectile points, well-made lanceolate bifacialknives. and very well made side scrapers. No toolsfor breaking or pulverizing seeds or nuts are present.Data suggest a mixed spectrum of subsistenceactivities, and year-round exploitation of local resourceswhose maximum concentration was accessiblefrom permanent water resources.Bajada phase (A.D. 4,800t03,200B.C.). Thisphase occurred during a period of decreased moisture,and was divided into early and late parts (IrwinWilliams and Haynes 1970). It is thought to representan increasingly effective adaptation to a broadspectrumsubsistence base. Sites are located at canyonheads, with special activities taking place on adjacentsloping mesas and along canyon rims. Site sizeremains small (less than 50 ~). The tool kit duringthe early part of this phase includes points with longparallel-sided stems and basal indentation andthinning; those with shorter stems, well-definedshoulders, and decreased overall lengths are assignedto the later part of the phase. Bifacial knives are rare,and side-scrapers range from well made to poorlymade. Overall the quality of the stone tool technologydeclines. There is an increase in ground stone; e.g.large chopping tools. Small cobble-filled hearths andearth ovens appear, suggesting changes in foodprocessing. Continuity and change reflected in theartifacts probably represent an annual cycle that wasnot strongly seasonal but did have some scheduledactivities.San Jose phase (3,000 to 1,800 B.C.). Duringthis phase, there was an increase in effective moisture,dune stabilization, and soil formation that resulted inan increased reliability of springs, and an improvedquantity of reliable flora and fauna. The number ofsites increased, and the average size of a camp alsoincreased (100 to 150 m 2 ). The presence of postholessuggests the construction of temporary shelters;extensive refuse suggests repeated occupation. Thereis a decline in workmanship of chipped stone tools.Chipped and ground stone artifacts indicate shiftstoward mixed foraging as the subsistence strategy.Cooking in large subsurface or surface ovens linedwith cobbles was introduced. Irwin-Williams (1973:9) thought that this phase represents localized adaptationsthat exploited regional microenvironmentsduring a somewhat systematic annual cycle.Armijo phase (1,800 to 800 B.C.). At this timethe environment was slightly less moist; the majorchange is the addition of maize to the subsistence base.Even though maize was only a minor component, itprovided a localized and temporary seasonal surplus.A new type of site, the rockshelter, is added to thesettlements along cliff tops of canyon heads. Sitesnear ephemeral ponds are now rare. Tools in theArmijo rockshelter represent a wider range of classes,including some objects considered representative ofideological significance. Irwin-Williams (1973: 11)interpreted this period as one in which seasonalaggregation developed, possibly involving groups of30 to 50 individuals. They would have had greateropportunities for social and ceremonial activities whileliving together than during the rest of the year whenthey splintered into smaller groups.

The Preceramic Period 63En Medio phase (800 B.C. to 400 A.D.). Thisphase represents continuity and change in the BasketmakerII adaptation of the Anasazi sequence. By 800to 600 B.C., Irwin-Williams (1973: 12) suggested thatthere was an increase in regional population growth,which peaked in the early centuries of the ChristianEra. Slab-lined storage pits are present, and there isan increasing emphasis on ground stone tools. Troughand flat metates and long manos also appear near theend of this period. In addition to the canyon-headcliff-base sites, settlements on dune ridges appear;these are thought to represent sites utilized during theseasonal round during which a number of wild plantscould be gathered between April and September.Trujillo phase (A.D. 400 to 600). This isthought to be a continuation of the En Medio phase; itis distinguished by the introduction of the bow andarrow, as well as ceramics. It represents a BasketmakerIII adaptation.Concurrently, studies of the Paleoindian andArchaic adaptations east of the San Juan Basin wereunder way. Judge (1973) focused on the Paleoindianadaptation in the central Rio Grande Valley, where heevaluated four cultures (Clovis, Folsom, Belen, andCody complex) that differed distinctly from Archaiccultures. Hafting of projectile points to the foreshaftof the atIatl dart during the Paleoindian period involvedgrinding the base of the projectile to fit into abone foreshaft. In contrast, Archaic points wererigidly affixed to a wooden foreshaft with a sinewbinding. Judge (1973:325) considered the formerbetter suited for hunting large animals and the latterfor smaller game. Differences in scraper types, lithicdebitage, and lithic raw materials between theseperiods were noted (Judge 1973:56-57). Judge (1973:301), however, saw a cultural continuum betweenCody and the subsequent Early Archaic (Jay) periods.The Archaic adaptation in the Rio Grande wasaddressed by Reinhart (1968), who surveyed andexcavated eight sites (including one cave). He outlinedculture changes from the previously definedAtrisco phase (pre-WOO B.C.) through his newlynamed Rio Rancho phase (1000 to 1 B.C.) andAlameda phase (1 B.C. to A.D. 500). Both Reinhartand Judge attributed changes in these cultures initiallyto environmental shifts; as moisture decreased, thetypes of fauna and flora changed and the localpopulations adjusted to these new subsistenceresources. Cultural factors also played a role in theshifts from big game hunting to hunting and gatheringand from hunting and gathering to horticulture.Chaco Project StudiesGillespie'S (1985) analysis of thepaleoenvironment suggested that the Chaco area wasprobably relatively unproductive for people livingduring the Paleoindian period. He predicted that theFour Comers area and land to the south and eastwould have had greater precipitation and mildertemperatures than the central San Juan Basin. As aresult, in those areas there would have morebiodiversity to support large game animals and usablefloral resources. One would expect) therefore, fewerPaleoindian sites in and around Chaco Canyon than inareas surrounding the central San Juan Basin.During the Archaic, or Middle Holocene, whichcorrelates with the Jay-Bajada periods, moist summerswould have provided a greater abundance of plant andanimal resources. Pinon nuts would have been availablefor the first time, and bison populations wouldhave achieved their peak population sizes in the SanJuan Basin (Gillespie 1985). These conditions, whilemuch better suited for hunter-gatherer populations,would not be as good in and around Chaco Canyon asthey would have been in the Arroyo Cuervo area tothe south and east (Irwin-Williams 1973).During the Late Archaic (Irwin-Williams's SanJose and Armijo phases), Gillespie (1985) suggesteda change to less mesic, but cooler, conditions. As aresult, exploitable resources would have been lessabundant. It is during the Armijo phase (1800 to 800B.C.) that Irwin-Williams noted the introduction ofmaize in the Arroyo Cuervo area, the use of rockshelters,and a probable seasonal aggregation of peopleinto larger social units.In summary, there should be differences in thedensity of popUlations (as represented by the numberof types and sites) in Chaco Canyon versus the ArroyoCuervo area. Gillespie (1985) suggested similaritiesin adaptive patterns in these two areas.

64 Chaco Project SynthesisTable 3.1. Evidence for Paleoindian use of the Chaco area.Survey Evidence Reference(s)Transect survey Folsom point from site 0.5 mile northeast of the monument Judge (1972a:31)Inventory surveyPreform on a Late Pueblo II house moundPossible Plainview base from a lithic scatter (29SJJ43 1)Hayes (1981 :23)Additional lands survey Agate Basin-style base from lithic scatter (29SJ3848) Cameron and Young (1986);Powers and McKenna (1985)Total Paleoindian Points 51 Plainview-style base from isolated occurrence 140Survey DataPaleoindian Evidence. Only five Paleoindianprojectile points have been documented during surveysin Chaco Canyon (Table 3.1). One Folsom site justoutside and northeast of the park was noted by Judge(1972:31), who suggested that it may indicate continuityof use of the area starting 10,000 years ago.Hayes (1981:23) added two other early points-apreform found on a Late Pueblo II house mound, anda base, possibly Plainview, from a lithic site(29SJ1431)-to confirm the presence of big gamehunters in the Chaco area. Two additional projectilepoint bases (both from Chacra Mesa) complete theartifact inventory. An Agate Basin-style point basewas found on a lithic scatter (29SJ2848), which alsohas a Navajo component (Powers and McKenna1985:22); Young (Cameron and Young 1986:50, PlatelA) described this base as made from fossiliferouschert. The second Paleoindian artifact (10140, foundon the trail to 29MC431), is a Plainview-style pointbase made from chalcedony (Cameron and Young1986:50, Plate IB; Powers and McKenna 1985).These few points suggest that early hunters usedChacra Mesa, the North Mesa near Cly's Canyon, andan area north of the park.The Archaic Adaptation. Judge (1981b:115)defined five temporal categories, based on the types ofprojectile points (or fragments) recovered (Table 3.2).The Early Archaic (Middle and Late Jay points) haslong-stemmed dart points, often made from basalt; theLate Jay points have indented bases. The MiddleArchaic includes stemmed Pinto Basin points. TheLate Archaic includes stemmed San Jose points.Basketmaker II points are corner-notched and wellmade (Judge 1972a:31). Definitions correspond withthose presented by Irwin-Williams (1967, 1973).Table 3.2. Breakdown of presedentary sitesrecorded during transect survey.·Temporal Classification Number of FrequencySites of SitesMiddle Jay 0.3Late Jay 0.3Middle Archaic 7 2.3Late Archaic 7 2.3Basketmaker II ..1 UTotals 20 6.5a Taken from Judge (1972a:30).Preceramic sites were not confined to ChacraMesa on the east. Sites were located on ridge tops,mesa and canyon edges, and structural benches onboth the north and south sides of the canyon (Judge1972:45)-locations that correlated well (71.4 percent)with the Cliff House Formation. Judge suggestedthat elevated site locations probably providedaccess to more abundant vegetation and faunalresources, while edge locations were in proximity toboth water and vegetal resources. Four sites were alsorecorded on the hottomlands (Hayes 1981:Figure 11;Figure 3.1). In the additions survey, 11 Archaic

iNParkBOlJndory°t. - =~~.I'E=-iilr-~2 I = _ Mileso I 2 Kilometers.~Figure 3.1.Archaic and Basketmaker II sites recorded during the inventory survey. (Based on Hayes 1981:Figure 11.)

66 Chaco Project SynthesisTable 3.3. Archaic and unknown component types by survey area examined after additionallands were added to the park. aKin KinComponent Type Klizhin BineolaChaeraMesaSouthAdditionTotalsCommentsHearth2ooo2Baking pitLithic scatter4oo2o26OtherTotals...Q7...Qo.J.4o11UnknownLedge roomo24o6 Probably not ArchaiC, ? NavajoHearth468899 Possibly Anasazi, possibly ArchaicBaking pitWater controlo10119173133 Possibly Anasazi, possibly Archaic19 Probably not ? NavajoCist/storageLithic scatterRoad/trail.Rock artStair2oooo0000168542oo2o20 Possibly Anasazi, possibly Archaic8 Possibly Anasazi, possibly Archaic5 Not characteristic of Archaic7Other222o25Unknown-1-1i.J.Totals102529910344a Taken from Sebastian and Altschul (1986:Table SP.35).Shading covers components that probably are not Archaic.components were recorded; none were in the KinBineola or South Addition sections (Sebastian andAltschul 1986:Table SP.35). Hall (1977) exposednine charcoal deposits, two of which dated at around5500 B.C. and A.D. 5, while studying alluvial stratigraphyof the Chaco Wash. Hall (1975:Table la) alsodated a hearth (1-70916290.± 115; 5300-5500 B.C.)and a baking pit (1-7248, 2110.±. 85; 145 B.C.) in thecanyon to confirm the long occupation of the area byArchaic people. Thus, Hayes (1981) was cognizant ofthe effects of erosion and alluviation on the archaeologist'sability to discern site locations. He was notcertain that all Preceramic sites in the canyon had beenrecorded.Archaic evidence from the additions survey(Table 3.3), as defined by the presence of diagnosticprojectile points, ground stone (basin metates, onehandmanos), and an absence of ceramics, suggestedthat 75 percent of the components represented camps

The Preceramic Period 67Table 3.4. Lithic assemblages from Archaic sites in four areas added to the park.aHearth(Kin K1izhin)Baking Pit(Kin K1izhin)Lithic Scatter(Kin K1izhin)Lithic Scatter(Chacra Mesa)Other(Chacra Mesa)No. of Components 2Total Lithics 64874 2206 219 oDebitage:No. 57Percent 89.17889.7193 19993.7 90.9Cores:No. 2Percent 3.1I0.520.9Utilized Flakes:No.Percent910.30.552.3Projectile Points:No.Percent41.973.2Scrapers:No. 1Percent 1.6Bifaces:No.Percent20.9Drills:No.IPercent 1.6Ground Stone:No. 3Percent 4.731.5Hammerstones:No.Percent21.041.8Other:No.Percent21.0a Taken from Sebastian and Altschul (1986:Table SP.36).or camp-like sites (Saebastian and Altschul 1986:Table SP.35). The lithic assemblages (Sebastian andAltschul 1986:Table SP. 36) included mostly debitage,five cores, 15 utilized flakes, 11 projectile points, onescraper, two bifaces, one drill, six grinding stones, sixhammers tones , and two other objects (Table 3.4).Nine points or fragments, all from Chacra Mesa, fellwithin the Archaic-Basketmaker II period (Cameronand Young 1986). One possibly reworked basalt Jaypoint and two Bajada (or Early Archaic) points, madefrom an unknown nonlocal chert and from basalt,documented the Early Archaic presence. Three SanJose points (two obsidian and one fossiliferous chert)were attributed to the Middle Archaic. One indetermi-

68 Chaco Project SynthesisTable 3.5. Projectile points assigned to the Archaic period from four areas added to the park.Point classification Site type Material typeClear identification:Reworked Jay point 105, near 29SJ2430, Kin Klizhin BasaltBajada point 29Mc465, deflated dune area on Chacra Mesa Unknown nonlocal chertBajada point 29SJ2842, upper south bench of Chacra Mesa BasaltSan Jose point 29SJ2861, lithic scatter I, on Chacra Mesa ObsidianSan Jose point 29SJ2846, lithic scatter 2, on Chacra Mesa Fossiliferous chert (type 1010)Problematic identification:Middle Archaic, possibly San 29SJ2843, lithic concentration 2, on Chacra Mesa ObsidianJoseLate Archaic 29SJ2890, refuse scatter I, on Chacra Mesa Light-colored splintery wood with quartz crystalsIndeterminate Archaic 29SJ2847, lithic scatter I, on Chacra Mesa ChertLate Archaic or BasketmakerTotal 9 points29MC412, surfaceObsidianant Archaic chert point and one obsidian Late Archaicor Basketmaker point were also found on ChacraMesa, either along the ridge or near the ledge of themesa. One other point made from a light-coloredsplintery wood with quartz crystals in Late Archaicstyle was recovered. Several were of problematicalidentification (Table 3.5; Cameron and Young 1986:Plates 2 and 3).Unclassified lithic sites (Judge 1972; Sebastianand Altschul 1986:92-93) posed a problem. Although344 unknown components were recorded during theadditional lands survey, Sebastian and Altschul werenot able to infer what percentage may have beenArchaic, due to the nature of the data available. Basedon the comments in the column of Table 3.3 and thestatements of Sebastian and Altschul, the shaded areasin that table indicate components that probably shouldnot be considered because 1) no clearly determinedArchaic components were located in the Kin Bineolaand South Addition, and 2) several component typesdid not fit the Archaic pattern. Because Chacra Mesacontained 95 percent of the other/unknown lithics, aswell as most Archaic sites, Young evaluated the lithicsfrom identified Archaic, Anasazi, and Navajo sites inorder to properly assign the other/unknown site typematerials. She determined that the Archaic assemblageswere distinct: there were fewer utilized orretouched pieces and more projectile points. Theother/unknown assemblages closely resembled theAnasazi pattern (Cameron and Young 1986:44-45).Although the number of projectile points of basalt andobsidian, as well as non-local chert, listed in Table 3.5suggest the importation of material types, Cameronand Young (1986:29) indicate that only about 3percent of all the lithic raw materials were nonlocal.Similar figures for Navltio (8 percent) and Anasazi (5percent) suggested heavy reliance on locally availablematerial types, but reduction strategies among thesecultural groups differed. Archaic sites had a higherpercentage ofbiface thinning flakes (3 percent) versusthe Anasazi (1 percent) and Navajo (1.2 percent). Theformal-to-informal tool ratios were higher for theArchaic than for later sites (Cameron and Young1986:36-38, 52). Simmons (1982) also was able todistinguish Archaic from later tool assemblages usingdata from the surveys in the Alemita Coal Lease area.More recently, Vierra (1994) was able to distinguishbetween lithic debris assigned to aceramic, Archaic,and ceramic period sites by evaluating material types,

The Preceramic Period 69tool production, and tool use. Vierra (1994) also usedthe types of materials and the locations of their sourcesto outline possible areas utilized during an annualround by groups using the central San Juan Basin.In summary, Chaco Project surveys covered allphysiographic situations within the park boundaries.A typology and criteria for cultural subdivisions of thePreceramic adaptation were established. The dataconfirmed Gordon Vivian's impression that Preceramicsites were present on Chacra Mesa, but theevidence included a few sites in the canyon bottom, aswell as on ridges or mesa ledges in other areas of thepark (Hayes 1981).There is limited evidence for the use of the areaaround Chaco Canyon from Paleoindian through LateArchaic. The Paleoindian evidence consl' ..... "t".c\ -- ..... ""'. f on ....... Iv Jfive diagnostic projectile points. The more robustArchaic evidence indicates that approximately 28 sites,plus two isolated points (Figure 3.2), are locatedwithin the current park boundaries. The greatestnumber of Preceramic sites were occupied during theMiddle and Late Archaic; points from the additionallands survey peaked in Late Jay and Middle Archaic.Gillespie (1985) thought that the Late Jay and Bajadaperiods represented moist summers with an increase inplants and animals, the availability of pinon nuts, andprobably the peak abundance of bison, followed by aless mesic but cooler period (San Jose-Armijo) duringwhich there would have been less abundance ofresources. Thus, the low numbers of sites/points(which mayor may not be truly representative of theuse of the area) indicate larger populations duringthese moister periods. Whether these sites representseasonal use by mobile groups or use by a limitednumber of people living in the Chaco area was notascertained. The documentation of nonlocal materials(obsidian and basalt) indicates either large territoriesfor mobile groups or trade among Archaic people.ExcavationsInitially, Thomas W. Mathews was responsiblefor the preceramic site excavations. Sites with culturalhorizons such as the Paleoindian, Archaic, andBasketmaker II horizons, were considered "on thebasis of single phase occupations where no earlier orlater manifestations would be likely to complicate the,.Figure 3.2. Examples of Archaic and BasketmakerII dart points and preforms.(Taken from Cameron and Young2005.)excavations and confuse the picture" (Mathews 1979).One goal was to reassess the existence of BasketmakerII sites; which were thought to resemble the LateArchaic sites, with the addition of cultigens. Toobtain necessary data, rockshelters and cave loci, aswell as open sites without ceramics, were considered.Further considerations were Archaic flaked stoneforms, open site configuration and location, presenceof "figure-eight"-shaped surface depressions surroundedby broken cobble or other stone paving, andlocation near or on dunes.Five sites, considered to be Archaic, wereselected for excavation. All were on the north side ofthe Chaco Wash, either around Cly's Canyon(29S1126, 29S1116, and 29S11118)(Figure 3.3) or thenext canyon to the west (29S11156 and 29S11157)(Figure 3.4); none were on Chacra Mesa. Once excavationswere under way, 29SJ1118, a lithic site with

70 Chaco Project Synthesisshallow circular depressions (ringed by discardedwaste stone that formed raised borders) was determinedto be a sandstone quarry of unknown age(Figure 3.5). Site 29SJ116 (Figures 3.6 and 3.7),located approximately 15.24 m (50 ft) away from29SJ1118, had evidence for three periods of use:Archaic, possibly Pueblo III, and Navajo. Therelationship of at least two hearth areas (around whichwere scattered flaked stone tools, one-hand manos,and other items) to the Pueblo and Navajo use werenot well determined, and this site was eliminated fromthe analysis of Archaic adaptations. Thus, only threesites that were extensively tested provide evidence forunderstanding the Archaic culture (Lister and Lister1981 :xi).29SJ126 (Stanford's J site). During survey,one impure green chert Jay point, one chalcedony Jaybase, one petrified wood or chalcedony broken tip,one fine-grained red quartzite bifacial knife fragment,one dark-brown petrified wood bifacial implement,and one fire-shattered chalcedony biface fragmentwere recorded in a saltbush-grass environment on theeast side of Cly's Canyon (Figure 3.3). The Jay pointindicated an Early Archaic use of this ca. 61 x 61 m(200 x 200 ft) site (Figure 3.8). Corrugated andblack-an-white pottery sherds suggested an Anasazipresence (probably Pueblo II).Most artifacts recovered during excavations intwo trenches (Figure 3.9) came from the surface; onlya few were from the O-lO-cm level. A number ofrocks, flakes, pottery sherds, scrapers, manos, hammerstones,and metate fragments were plotted bysquares and used to make a distribution map (Figure3.10). The nine black-on-white sherds recovered fromthe surface of N 0-1 m, E 1-18 m were part of arestorable pot identified as the remains of a smallMcElmo Black-on-white bowl that would date toapproximately A.D. 1100 to 1200 (Peter J. McKenna,personal communication, 1980) and were consideredintrusive. A roasting hearth was exposed in testtrench 1 (S 0-2 m; E 12-13 m was identified as ahearth area); N 0-1 m, E 14-16 m, was also listed ashaving bone beneath a hearth.Flakes of chert, chalcedony, and petrified woodwere most frequently recorded, but concretions,jasper, argillite, obsidian, and basalt were recoveredfrom both the surface and the occupational level of thesite. The last two materials were the least commonand the only materials that would have been importedfrom outside of the area. Other catalogued itemsinclude one piece of red ochre, one petrified woodscraper, one complete chalcedony Jay point from thesurface, one possible point fragment of chert, and onemidsection of a chalcedony point. One broken chalcedonyprojectile point (base to midsection, with basalthinning) was recorded as coming from below thehearth. Also present were one broken obsidian basethat was reworked into a drill, one chalcedony brokentip, a sandstone mano, and a fine-grained quartzitehammerstone. In addition, one chalcedony scraperand one fist axe, or hammerstone, were identified.Some burned bone was recovered. A broken shellpendant was considered to be from a freshwater clam,possibly Anadonta (Mathien 1985), which lives inwater that runs year round. Today the San Juan Riveris the nearest such stream, but the source of the shellis undetermined.No analyses for this site have been carried out.One unpUblished indicator-only date of 5680 + 1290-1540 was obtained (from Dicarb Radioisotope Laboratory,DIC633) in November 11,1976. A very smallcharcoal specimen (fragments) came from a hearthnear the surface in the north-south trench in the 13-to-14 m grid. This uncalibrated date suggests possibleuse ca. 3730 B.C, which falls slightly later than therange for Jay material provided by Judge (1982:Table1.2). Because of the presence of a hearth, Lister andLister (1981:Appendix) considered 29SJ126 to be ahabitation site. The lithic materials are predominantlylocal; only the obsidian and basalt would have beencarried in from some distance. These, plus thefreshwater shell, suggest a wide range for procurementby the people who camped along the east rim of Cly'sCanyon over 5,000 years ago.29SJ1156 (Atlatl Cave) and 29SJ1157(Sleeping Dune and Ant Hill Dune). The 94 sitesassigned to the Archaic-Basketmaker II period did notinclude those with petroglyphs, a feature that Neller(1976b) thought might have been related to huntingmagic. The Late Archaic-Basketmaker II sites selectedfor excavation are located in a small rincon downstreamand west of Cly's Canyon; here, two rocksheltersand several dune sites had been recorded(Figure 3.4). The rockshelter, known as Atiati Cave,or 29SJl156, contains pictographs and is located on

The Preceramic Period 71N__ 29SJIIS." ,I ,\. .,~./ --7#'-r-,-.,.) "0/"000-/,0 •o·/(~o'o-1/o 100 200 300METERSFigure 3.3.Location of Archaic sites near Cly's Canyon. Sites 29SJ116 and 29SJ1118 (located nextto 29SJ 116) were excavated but found not to date exclusively to the Archaic period.(Taken from field notes on 29SJ126, Chaco Clulture NHP Museum Archive Collection,Accession no. 2.)

72 Chaco Project Synthesis..... ~---N\ .- ." -/:.----" /.:....-----.. "y'" /29 SJ 1157 \.( ISleeping Dune .. \ \: I Site ... _ \)/ ;' .. ---- ,_ .....,:, 1/\ '\ I'J:: \.J I .. r~ ... .../~"""''''. , \. ,.... // I I' 29SJII57. I T Ant Hill Dune Site(\ \'. \\) \ \ /"---(" I jl /'", \,...... t .. ,/ ./'\ 1 .. ___ "~ . ....--:---... ---\ /.--..\( ...- ..../. ,.,--".~Y'"I\\... --Figure 3.4,Location of Archaic rockshelters and dune sites investigated in the rincon west of Cly'sCanyon. (Taken from Neller 1976b.)

The Preceramic Period 73Figure 3.5.Overview of29SJ1118, a stone masonry quarry. (Chaco Culture NHP Museum Archive,Slide no. C-0152. Alden C. Hayes, photographer.)Figure 3.6.Overview of 29S1116. (Chaco Culture NHP Museum Archive, Slide no. C-0008. AldenC. Hayes, photographer.)

74 Chaco Project Synthesis./-""\I \I ...../ 4.&9 ...........( Hearth Area 2? ~)\ 4 / ......... ----,/N........._- /1/ I_/ (, Hearth Area I\, 5 )' ~....._--/"..-..." ,/ l~.1Trench 3/-,// II 8 II /, ,/\.//Limits of e~cQvatian/\/ \( I) 7 II I{ /) II I\ IoJo I 2METERS(~ Rock concentrationTrench I, NE-SEextensionFigure 3.7.Map of excavations at 29SJ 116. (Taken from field notes on 29JS 116, Chaco Culture NHPMuseum Archive, Accession no. 14.)

The Preceramic Period 75Figure 3.8. Overview of 29SJ126. (Courtesy of Chaco Culture NHP Museum Archive, Slide no. C-4446. Thomas R. Lyons, photographer.)

76 Chaco Project Synthesis.. N20 I---I18 r--16 -HG0 I 2 3 4METERSI,41210 -FE08-L 0K NJ M PIAC6-B4-2f--10 8 6 4 2 oFigure 3.9.Map of excavations at 29S1126. (Taken from field notes on 29S]126, Chaco Culture NHPMuseum Archive, Accession no. 2.)

The Preceramic Period 77;yc;;0. 0 1C :I.... No===:;aJ 2~ETERS.. S

78 Chaco Project Synthesisthe first terrace above the canyon. Owl Roost Shelter,located 30 m south of Atlatl Cave, was also brieflyexamined (Elliott 1986:80), but it contained only onepictograph on the ceiling to indicate human visitation.Gillespie (1982) attributed a lack of use of shelters toformation processes; most ofthe shelters in the Chacoarea form at the base of sandstone cliffs where groundwater seeps out along the top of the underlying, lesspermeable shale or mudstone strata. Floors areusually damp, shaly, and often steeply sloping-traitsnot well-suited to human occupation or the preservationof material culture. Atlatl Cave was different,in that the floor was 2 to 3 m above the wne ofground water seepage and much drier than mostshelters, such as neighboring Owl Roost Shelter(Figure 3.11). Just below the rockshelter were duneson which 29SJ1157 was located.asThe current vegetation of the area was describedvariable but generally sparse. Woodyshrubs are abundant around the base of thecliff, particularly in the sheltered, morerecessed areas such as Owl Roost Shelterwhere ground water seepage and less directsunlight lead to greater effective soilmoisture. New Mexico olive (Foresterianeomexicana) is dominant here with othercharacteristic wet alcove shrubs, such asSkunkbush (Rhus aromatica), also present.Atlatl Cave itself is nearly devoid of plantgrowth. The mesa top above the cliffssupports a mixed grassland and desertscrub community characterized by suchgrass taxa as Hilaria, Boute/oua andOryzopsis as well as Ephedra (Mormontea), Artemisia folifolia (Sand sage), andAtriplex confertifolia (Shadscale). Manyof these same taxa occur on the sandierparts of the bench area between the shelterand the valley bottom. Immediately abovethe cliffs is a slickrock area dominated byCowania mexicana (Cliffrose). The valleyfloor is dominated by Atriplex canescens(Four-winged Saltbush) and Sarcobatusvermiculatus (Greasewood) with Tamarix(now pervasive along the stream course).Neither juniper nor pinyon is present in theimmediate site vicinity though there are afew scattered junipers (Juniperus monosperma)within a few hundred meters. Thenearest pinyon (Pinus edulis) is more than1 km away. (Gillespie 1982:4)Excavations at Atlatl Cave and the dune siteswere carried out during 1975 and 1976. Prior to hisretirement, Mathews (1979) began a draft report butlacked sufficient information to complete it. AlthoughMathews and Neller (1979) issued a preliminarysummary of the work and Neller (1975, 1976a,1976b) began analyses of botanical remains and lithicartifacts prior to accepting employment elsewhere, itwas several years before Gillespie (1982) analyzed thefaunal remains and Elliott (1986) undertook anevaluation of the Late Archaic-Basketmaker II period.In the meantime, Judge (1982) had reviewed thePaleoindian and Basketmaker data from the San JuanBasin and noted a number of research problems thatneeded to be addressed to promote a better understandthis period. Results of these evaluations are presentedbelow.Atlatl Cave: Atlatl Cave is approximately 25m long, 4 to 5 m deep (but up to 9 m deep from thedrip line), and 2 to 5 m high. Accumulating roof fallhas elevated the floor a few meters above the surroundingterrain. A steep talus slope is located infront of the elevated area, but still under the drip line(Figure 3.12). The loose sediments containing archaeologicaland vertebrate remains are located from 1 to3 m along the back wall for the entire length of theelevated area (Gillespie 1982).Pack rat middens were present in three areas-atthe two ends of the shelter, and against the slightlyelevated roof fall. Other unconsolidated debris fromwood rat occupation is found throughout most of theshelter. It is mixed with loose sediments mainly in theupper 20 to 30 cm (Gillespie 1982). Figures 3.13 and3.14 present a plan view of the layout and excavationsin Atlatl Cave, as well as the distribution of pack ratmiddens and artifacts. During his initial analysis ofone-half of the material collected from grid 29, Neller(1975) realized that because pack rats tended to havea limited foraging range (ca. 50 to 150 m), a study ofthe materials collected by these animals would provideclues to past environmental conditions (Betancourt andVan Devender 1980, 1981). Pinon and one-seedjuniper,plus traces of Douglas-fir, hackberry, poison ivy,and wild rice, suggested slightly different conditions

The Preceramic Period 79Figure 3.11.Overview of AtlatI Cave and Owl Roost Shelter. (Chaco Culture NHP Museum Archive,Slide no. C-0470. W. James Judge, photographer.)Figure 3.12.Overview of Atlatl Cave, with steep talus visible in foreground. (Chaco Culture NHPMuseum Archive, Slide no. C-1255. Thomas Mathews, photographer.)

----------------80 Chaco Project Synthesis('\11M0 IE 2E3E\\\I1\/ )/ II//exposed/ \II "-I \,/ SteepIfa/usIRoof fa/I\ at surfaceI\ Site datum7N6N5N4N3N2NIN0\N(opprolt.l• E~covated9ri ds\\"- \.,"- \"- "-)+-Drip line(opprox.)"- I\..\I\ \\\IIII-;!6 27 _2829 30 3132 33 34\525354S55657585950 I 2 3METERSlOSliSFigure 3.13.Map of Atlatl Cave, showing grid layout and excavated areas. (Taken from Gillespie1982a.)

~,The Preceramic Period 81~....1'-,/--.(\29SJI156At/at! Cave~~-'~,Ā,~-

---------------------~---- ---- ------82 Chaco Project Synthesisfrom the present. Burned materials and hearths suggestedhuman use of the rockshelter.When Neller (1976a) compared the site locationand chipped stone artifacts from this and the dune siteswith data from Judge (1973), he did not think therockshelter or dune sites had functioned as basecamps, processing camps, or armament sites. Heconsidered the use of this rockshelter as a specialpurposearea; the triangular, broad-shouldered petroglyphof a man (Figure 3.15) is similar to otherBasketmaker II art and might indicate a religiouspurpose. He also considered seasonal use and habitationamong the alternatives.Except for an anomalous cache of San Joseprojectile points, almost all the chipped stone materialcame from the uppermost stratum of Atlatl Cave.Although some of the deposits were stratified, most ofthe chipped stone artifacts could not be separated stratigraphically;thus, Neller considered all to representa single homogeneous cultural horizon (BasketmakerII). Approximately 85 percent of the material wasclassified as flakes, most of which were closetogether, which Neller interpreted to mean use of thecave for stone tool production. A few of these flakeshad polish that might result from cutting yucca, and aknife had attrition that could result from cutting wood.Other types of stone included one graver, one spokeshave,two knives, a few scrapers, and utilized flakes.There were no drills, point fragments, or preforms.These, plus cut yucca leaves and some cut wood in theshelter, suggested that a few activi ties were carried outin the shelter.Gillespie (1982) untangled the stratigraphy of therockshelter. By then, there were two radiocarbondates from upper and lower hearths in area A; theyindicated considerable time differences (DIe 591 at4240.±70 B.P. corrected to 4,855 B.P.; DIC 588 at2330+85 B.P. corrected to 2,405 B.P.). He noted alack of natural stratigraphic distinctions within thisarea and divided it into three units: unit 1, an upperlayer; unit 2, a mixed layer; and unit 3, material froma crevice. The five San Jose projectile points had beenrecovered from all three units, all within 30 m(Gillespie 1982:9). Two points were from unit Al(grids 2 and 48), two were from unit A2 (grid 49,mixed), and one was from unit A3 (grid 2). Becausethese units proved to have different radiocarbon dates,he indicated that either the association of the pointswith dates is spurious because of mixing or misinterpretationof the spatial relationships, the dating isfaulty, or the Irwin-Williams sequence and dates arenot directly applicable (Gillespie 1982:9). The firstexplanation seemed most probable. Artifacts recovered(mostly from unit AI) were small woodenartifacts, basketry fragments, yucca ties, cordage,bone tools, chipped stone debris and tools, andevidence of corn.Although there was much mixing due to pack ratactivity, area B produced three radiocarbon dates (DIC794 at 2220.±100 B.P. corrected to 2,275 B.P.; DIC592 at 2700.±65 B.P. corrected to 2,860 B.P.; andDIC 590 at 2730.±65 B.P. corrected to 2,900 B.P.).This area contained poorly delimited hearths andburned rocks. Cultural materials included smallwooden artifacts, a fragment of a wooden atlatl, ayucca sandal (Figure 3.16), basketry fragments,cordage, yucca ties, fragments from a rabbit-fur robe;and chipped stone debris. Evidence of corn wasrecovered.Gillespie considered this record to represent asporadic, short-term camp site. Use probably fellwithin the En Medio phase of the third milleniumbefore the present. Because the corn kernels and cobsfrom both area A and area B were fragmentary, theydid not add much to knowledge about early corn, butthey could be assigned to the range of 2,200 to 2,900B.P. (ca. 950 to 450 B.C.).Most of the faunal remains were not attributableto human occupation of the shelter. Gillespie'sanalysis did, however, provide information that couldassist with reconstruction of paleoenvironments. Thepresence of one species of bat (Lasionycterisnoctivagans) suggested a woodland environment; andthe prairie vole (Microtus ochrogaster) suggestedgreater effective moisture and better developedgrasslands in the past (Gillespie 1982:94-96). Thefew faunal remains that could be tied to culturalbehavior were insufficient to reconstruct minimumnumbers of individuals (MNI) or meat weight calculations.Burning on 13 percent of the bones fromlarge mammal species, however, did indicate humanuse. These species included Odocoileus sp. (deer),Antilocapra americana (pronghorn), and Bison sp.(bison), Although smaller animal bones had less

The Preceramic Period 83Figure 3.15.Pictographs in Atlatl Cave, including the broad-shouldered man. (Chaco Culture NHPMuseum Archive, Photo no. 10752. Victoria Atkins, photographer.)Figure 3.16.Sandal and atlatl fragment recovered from grid 30, area B, of Atlatl Cave. (Chaco CultureNHP Museum Archive, Photo no. 10742. M. Moquin, photographer.)

84 Chaco Project SynthesisFigure 3.17. Overview of dune ridge location of Sleeping Dune. (Chaco Culture NHP MuseumArchive, Slide no. C-1389. Thomas Mathews, photographer.)burning, Cynomys (prairire dogs), Sylvilagus (cottontailrabbits), Neotoma (wood rats), and Thomomys(pocket gophers) were utilized to a limited extent.Sleeping Dune and Ant Hill Dune. Thelocation of these two sites on a low, deflated duneridge is not the typical setting for Archaic sites(Figures 3.17 and 3.18); such sites are usually foundon sandy ridges overlooking the canyon floor. Neller(1976b, 1976c) described the Sleeping Dune site as aresidual lithic concentration with chipped stone tools,cobble manos/hamerstones, and fire-burned sandstone.An arbitrary grid system was laid out in 1 m squares.Two test trenches indicated no natural stratigraphy.No features were found in the 146 m 2 excavations thatcovered approximately 17 percent of the site (Figure3.19). Ant Hill Dune was a smaller area with a fewflakes, almost no stone tools, abundant fire-burnedsandstone, a "biscuit" mano, a basin metate, and amidden of sand with fine particles of charcoal. Withinthe trench that contained 20 m 2 grids, a hearth areaand a portion of a midden, plus a fire-burned soil areabeneath the surface manifestation of the hearth, wereexposed (Figure 3.20).Understanding Archaic Use of the Rincon.Neller (1976b) made the first attempt to understandthese sites. His chipped stone study included both ananalysis of early trade patterns and a determination ofthe types of activities associated with the pictographs.Data from Atlatl Cave (29SJ1156) were comparedwith those from surface collections at 29SJ1157 and29SJ1159. Only 121 pieces of debitage were examinedfrom Atlatl Cave, yet materials reflected 19 differentsources, five of which accounted for 75 percentof the sample because many pieces came from thesame core. One projectile point was made from Alibateschert (Texas). The remaining materials arecurrently found in the Anasazi region. Neller recognizedthe need for detailed survey of lithic sources andtechniques to measure distinctions among them,possibly using trace elements. Comparison of chippedstone materials among the three sites indicated that thesame sources were represented, but in different proportions(Table 3.6). Neller thought that the threelithic sites represented a similar culture at a similartime period (based on source material similarities), butthat the two open sites showed more variability thanthe shelter. He believed that this supported his idea

Figure 3.18.Map showing relationship of Ant Hill Dune and Sleeping Dune. (Courtesy of Chaco Culture NHP MuseumArchive, no. 55876.)

--------86 Chaco Project Synthesis.,--....,. .40N-=~35N-30N-25N -Site stake20M ---I0 I 2 3 ..METERS.//'15N - .,./"II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I r I I I J I J t IIOE I~E 20E 25E 30E 35E.'Figure 3.19.Map of grid system at Sleeping Dune. (Taken from Neller 1976c.)

The Preceramic Period 87--+- Light sandDp, .Q) \;\)0 ",___,/ 0 ,/ a \00: '" --+Ant hill\ \) V I\~" ./1o 2METERS(J Rock• HearthDark, sandy middenFigure 3.20.Map of grid system and artifacts recovered at Ant Hill Dune. (Taken from Neller 1976c.)

-------------- ._----------88 Chaco Project SynthesisTable 3.6.Comparison of chipped stone materials recovered from Atlatl Cave and the two dune siteslocated in the same rincon. All numbers are percentages.·Material TypeAtlatl CaveSleeping DuneAnt Hill Dune1052 Clear translucent chalcedony661053 Chalcedony with black inclusions 101091 Chert, chaldeconic (Pedernal chert) 101112 Dark silicified wood (nonchalcedonic)1113 Light-colored silicified wood1120 Red-colored silicified wood 271140 Light-colored to white chalcedonic silicified wood1142 Light-colored silicified wood, chalccdonic, undifferentiated 181151 Yellow-brown silicified (jasperized) wood 94000 Quartzite, undifferentiated 6OtherTotal percent 10014318516201001426681914-1.100a Taken from Neller (1976b:Tablc 4), with Warren's descriptions for lithic codes added.that the shelter represented limited use. The surfacecollections at the open sites also were larger.Neller (1976b) also compared the chipped stonefrom Atlatl Cave and Sleeping Dune with Judge'ssurvey data from Folsom sites along the Rio Grande.He concluded that the Archaic-Basketmaker II siteswere different from Folsom and that the Chaco sitesdid not represent base camps, processing sites, orarmament sites. He also compared these three siteswith Preceramic site-location data from Judge's transectsurvey; there was a negative correlation for dunesand rincons, thus indicating that these sites were nottypical.Comparative DataThe Chaco Canyon AreaBesides Atlatl Cave, two other rockshelters wereexcavated as part of the Chaco Shelters Project(Simmons 1984a) in order to increase knowledge ofthe Archaic use of rockshelters and to evaluateSimmons's hypothesis that the Chaco area may havebeen the winter location of Archaic peoples whowould be more protected in these rockshelters than inopen areas. Simmons wanted to establish an absolutechronology for the San Juan Basin Archaic (which heconsidered a possible variant of the Oshara tradition[Irwin-Williams 1973,1979; Simmons 1984d: 10)) andto improve the database available for use inreconstructing the paleoenvironment. This projectcontributed more toward the latter goal, but data fromthe excavations at Sheep Camp Shelter (29SJ178), andAshislepah Shelter (CAP PB AH 15), and surveys inthe surrounding areas also improved our understandingof the Archaic period in this area.Gillespie (1984a) described Sheep Camp Shelter,which is located on the north side of Chaco Canyonjust east of Chaco Culture National Historical Parkand 1.5 km west of Sheep Camp Canyon. It isapproximately 600 m north of the floodplain at thebottom of the canyon, 60 m above the canyon floor (at

The Preceramic Period 89Figure 3.21.Overview of Sheep Camp Shelter, excavated by the University of Kansas as part of theChaco Shelters Project. (Chaco Culture NHP Museum Archive, Photo no. 30775. WilliamB. Gillespie, photographer.)1,975 m [6,475 ft]), and on the southeast side of ashallow open side canyon (Figure 3.21). Excavationsin a test pit and four areas of this 20 m long and 7 to8 m deep shelter covered approximately 26 m 2 of thesurface area. Two major strata were defined. Instratum A, the upper 15 to 65 cm were composed ofdense organic material (mostly plants collected bypack rats) in decomposing sandstone and are assigneddates from approximately 3,000 years ago to thepresent. The lower stratum (stratum B) reflects LatePleistocene or Early Holocene fauna; thick sandstonerubble has few archaeological or macrobotanicalremains but abundant faunal remains. Becausematerial often slumped off from higher levels, the twostrata were often difficult to separate. The evidencefor Archaic period use is in the uppermost levels ofthe lower stratum (B) and the upper stratum (A).These deposits also have remains that indicate use ofthe rockshelter until approximately A.D. 900.Hearths (but not firepits) indicate non-intensive use ofthe shelter.Several radiocarbon dates were obtained(Simmons 1984b:Table 50). Two from domesticsquash seeds-2820 ± 220 B.P. (A-3388) and 2130 ±280 (A-3159)-indicate early evidence (approximately870 B.C.) of use. Two maize kernels were also datedto 2250±80 B.P. (A-3395) and 2150±170 B.P. (A-3396) (Gillespie 1984a:69, Table 8), or approximately500 to 200 B. C. The major contribution of this excavationwas pack rat midden and other faunal remainsthat provided new data for reconstruction of thepaleoenvironment.Survey around Sheep Camp Shelter documented26 sites; of these, eight were classified as lithicscatters with presumed Archaic affiliation. Six arelocated on level areas along the ridge tops aboveSheep Camp Shelter, and two were on the sloping area(talus ?) between the upper and lower cliffs. Of these,four were in sand dunes; the others are in sand sheets.Located at several were concentrations of burned rock.No diagnostic lithics were found and no finer chronologicalplacement ofthese sites was made (Weston andSimmons 1984: 121-122). Ten possible Archaic sitesalong Sheep Camp Canyon were identified duringbrief reconnaissance. A test at Sheep Camp no. 4uncovered a fire-burned rock concentration that provideda radiocarbon date of ca. 160 B. C. (Weston andSimmons 1984:Table 26).

90 Chaco Project SynthesisThe second excavated rockshelter, AshislepahShelter, is located on a small, northwest-flowingtributary to Ashislepah Wash. This 70 m long and 8m wide shelter has a fairly flat floor and the openingfaces west. Grasslands and large dune sheets are locatedabove the shelter. Although water can be obtainedby digging into the alluvial wash, there are no nearbypermanent water sources.Excavations at Ashislepah Shelter (Simmons1984c) revealed six stratum and four occupations inarea A. Stratum A, a loose flow sand that was lessthan 5 cm deep, and stratum B, a variable level thatdid not exceed 10 cm of recent organic material (strawand grass) with Pueblo ceramics, as well as pack ratactivity, were thought to represent both a Navajocorral and Pueblo use (late A.D. 1100s to early1200s). In stratum C, which was disturbed byrodents, there was a mixing of materials (straw, grass,ceramics) that made it difficult to separate from itfrom stratum B. Feature 1, a 60 cm long by 10 cmdeep hearth containing carbon and other organicmaterial including com, provided a radiocarbon dateof 1400 ±. 80 (A.D. 550, UGa-4605). Its use wasattributed to early Anasazi or Late Basketmakerpeople. Beneath this, stratumD was approximately 30cm of sterile sandy material that contained coarsegravel lenses that possibly represent roof fall. StratumE was similar to stratum C in that feature 2, a welldefinedhearth, contained charcoal and inorganicremains (com) in its 5 cm thick layer. A radiocarbondate of 2205 ±. 65 BP (255 B.C.; UGa-4606) wasobtained. This was interpreted to represent LateArchaic use. The lowest level, stratum F, was 60 cmthick and similar to stratum D in its sandy matrix.Areas Band C, located south of an inferredNavajo corral, contained some charcoal and recentbone, as well as Anasazi ceramics and nondiagnosticIithics that may be Late Archaic. Simmons (1984c:102) concluded that the stratigraphic context of thesetwo units was equivocal.Survey in the immediate vicinity of AshislepahShelter documented the presence of two Archaic lithicscatters, one that dates to the Armijo phase (1800 to800 B.C.), based on the presence of an Armijo pointlocated directly above the shelter; and a second onethat dates to the San Jose phase (3000 to 1800 B.C.),based on the presence of a San Jose point. Twopossible Archaic sites were also recorded. One is alithic scatter whose age could not be determined; theother is a general debris scatter that included Anasaziceramics along with burnt rock and lithics (Westonand Simmons 1984:116-117).In summary, data from the Chaco SheltersProject suggest that more intensive use of this areabegan around 3,000 B.P. Cultigens from the three excavatedrockshelters include both com and squashduring the Late Archaic-Basketmaker II period.Because the stratigraphy in the excavated rockshelterswas disturbed by pack rats, the recovered data weremore useful for reconstructing past environments thanfor understanding cultural change through time.The San Juan BasinDuring the 1980s, investigators attempted toview data from a regional perspective. In a review ofdata from the San Juan Basin, Judge (1982) indicatedthat major baseline data (e.g. , chronological placementof sites, site distribution within general ecologicalzones, and categorization by site type) were virtuallyabsent in the then-existing database (SJBRUS-thecomputerized database created as part of the San JuanBasin Regional Uranium Study, Wait 1982). Recordingof Preceramic sites was variable; they oftenwere ignored. When recorded, they often werelumped into a single period and were not categorizedby site type. Only 14 (0.2 percent) were attributableto the Paleoindian or transitional; 719 (8.6 percent) tothe Archaic or transitional; and 102 (1.2 percent) tothe Basketmaker or transitional periods. This was atotal of 11.1 percent of all known prehistoric sites(Judge 1982:Table 1.1). Very few were archaeometricallydated; very few studies even attempted toplace them within the Oshara tradition defined byIrwin-Williams (1973), and data that would documentthe Oshara model had not been fully published so thatit was difficult to determine whether the model wastruly applicable to an area broader than the ArroyoCuervo region of the southeast San Juan Basin.Plots of site distributions were presented withcaution. The entire Archaic span could not be subdivided,but preferred locations were in upland dunes.on elevated ridges, and/or on mesas near waterresources. The Basketmaker II period was not clearlydefined, and Judge suspected it was underrepresented.

The Preceramic Period 91However, he thought the Basketmaker III period wasprobably representative; locations of these sites werequite different from those in earlier periods. Environmentalreconstructions were incomplete and oftenconflicting, especially with regard to the extent andtiming of the Altithermal period. As a result, Judgesuggested a general scenario of climatic and culturalevents for this period (Judge 1982:Figure 1. 7) as aninitial step in furthering understanding of these poorlydefmed Preceramic periods (Figure 3.22).Several archaeological procedures that wouldimplement collection of the baseline data needed toverify the Preceramic chronological sequence in theSan Juan Basin and to refine dates assigned to thedifferent phases included detailed descriptions ofqualitative and quantitative attributes, condition, andmaterial type for all projectile points. With better dataon the range of variability of each point, the projectilepoint typologies could be further refined. All artifactsassociated with points should be described andanalyzed. The environmental context (topographicand vegetative) should be recorded for all sites.Similar data should be collected for all lithic sites, notonly those with projectile points (Judge 1982:51).Still needed were additional studies that would lead toa better understanding of the paleoclimate; e. g. ,alluvial geochronology and palynology of Late Pleistoceneand Holocene deposits, macrobotanical andfaunal analyses, and dendroclimatology of these earlierperiods. By using proper sampling strategies, sufficientinformation could be obtained to provide apicture of the changes that took place from Paleoindianthrough Archaic and Anasazi. Only whensufficient baseline data were collected would it bepossible to evaluate models of prehistoric behavior.Elliott (1986) had two goals: to synthesize thesurvey and excavation data from Chaco Canyon, andto compare these data with those from other areas ofthe San Juan Basin. He defined the Late Archaic asextending from 3,000 to 1,500 B.P., a period that encompassesthe beginnings of horticulture, the appearanceof ceramics, increased population, seasonalsedentism, and the transition to use of pithouses ashabitations. He reviewed the data relative to environmentalreconstructions and past archaeologicalresearch, which included major cultural resourcesmanagement surveys that were conducted during the1960s and 1970s and were among the 28,000 site filesin SBJRUS.When Elliott attempted to order sites chronologically,he, too, was hampered by the lack ofabsolute dates. Most radiocarbon dates available werefrom only a few sites. Relative dating using IrwinWilliam's phases was based on projectile point stylesthat still needed considerable refinement before theywould be useful in assigning sites to more specifictime frames. Like Judge, Elliott found few sites attributableto the Archaic. The low level of utilizationfor those sites that were recorded was attributed tosmall groups of people using them for short periods oftime. He inferred that there were no large permanentpopUlations.Although a large database was available, itcontained limited baseline data, and the suitability ofthe database for testing models was uncertain. Thesite distribution analysis had several drawbacks,including the problem of site visibility, methods usedto specify site types, lack of stringent criteria forinterpreting sites, and, without burials, lack ofunderstanding of how mobility of people would haveaffected use and reuse of sites through time. The datafrom Chacoan sites and the increased information fromrecent surveys in the San Juan Basin were not asdetailed as necessary to answer specific questionsabout changes in adaptations through this long periodof prehistory.Elliott did provide a model of what he believedrepresented Late Archaic period behavior. There waslimited temporal and spatial diversity in sites, and sitesizes were small prior to 3,000 B.P. He suggestedlimited sporadic use of the Chaco area, with noneduring cold weather. The macrofloral species recoveredin sites suggested occupation during the latespring, summer, and early fall. No survey data wereavailable from cold-weather use areas, which werepostulated to be in the surrounding mountains.Because site densities in the San Juan Basin were low,Elliott discounted population pressure as a primemover for this change. Instead, he proposed thatChaco's water catchments were good for seasonalsedentism and limited maize horticulture. Theintroduction of cultigens that enabled horticulturecame from the south around 1000 B.C. Only with the

92 Chaco Project SynthesisYears B.P.12.000Veors B.C.'Mild' Winters, Cool Summers ..... 10,000lCIOViS11,000 r- 900010,0009000IFo l50mTplanoI •1HCOdYColder Wintersr 8000Winter DominantPrecipitation -70008000 60007000Summer DominantIJOYPrecipitationr 5000BajadaModern Climatic aVegetative Conditions16000 40005000 San Joser- 30004000Warm, Xeric Period1 Armijo~ 20003000 -10002000IBMUIBM .m::Cooler, MesicWarmer, Xeric Interlude?~ B.C'/A.D.Cooler, Mesic1000 IOOOA.D.Figure 3.22.Judge's (1982b) hypothetical correlation of chronology, culture, and climate for the SanJuan Basin.

The Preceramic Period 93adoption of maize horticulture and the availability ofstorable surpluses was year-round occupationprobable. This, in tum, provided a foundation forlater agricultural adaptations (Elliott 1986).Gwinn Vivian (1990) examined the San JuanBasin data to evaluate a correlation between climaticchanges and cultural adaptations. He reviewed theevidence for Paleoindian, Archaic, and BasketmakerII use of the San Juan Basin to elucidate the basis forthe origins of, and clarify the processes of the systemtrajectory of, the Chaco Anasazi. Because most investigatorsused Irwin-William's (1979) description of theOshara tradition as a baseline for analysis of theirdata, they assumed that gradual cultural shiftscorrelated with changes in subsistence practices thatwere based on climatic fluctuations, particularlyprecipitation amounts and patterns (Gwinn Vivian1990:79-109).For the Paleoindian adaptation, Gwinn Vivianconsidered the availability of water one of the mostimportant factors that would have influenced thepresence of several species of animals, especiallymammoth, the major animal found in relation toClovis artifacts. There are several correlationsbetween sites and probable climatic variations.Although data are few, Clovis points have beenrecovered in the peripheries and the northern part ofthe San Juan Basin where water would have beenavailable in savannah-like areas around approximately9500 B.C. Between 9000 B.C. and 8500 B.C., therewas a drier period during which savannas andmegafauna withdrew and mammoth disappeared, onlyto be replaced with bison after 8500 to 8000 B. C. ,when increased moisture again extended grasslandsthat provided hunting territories for those using aFolsom technology. Folsom evidence is generallylimited to projectile points and appears in areas similarto those where Clovis points were found. From 8000to 6500 B.C., effective moisture decreased, andevidence for the Cody complex appears circa 6500B.C., when effective moisture that lasted until 6000B.C. is noted. Vivian (1990:81) indicated that theClovis, Folsom, and Cody complex remains areusually found on dunes and ridges above valleybottoms. His map of Paleoindian and Early Archaicsite locales (Vivian 1990: Figure 4.1) shows six areasof the San Juan Basin that were considered primarylocations (Arroyo Cuervo region, Chaco core,Gallegos Mesa, Upper Chuska Valley, Lower ChuskaValley, and Puerco Valley). Evidence for use of thedrier interior of San Juan Basin is limited.Gwinn Vivian (1990:83) contrasted the modelproposed by Irwin-Williams, who suggested that thePaleoindian hunters abandoned the San Juan Basinafter 6000 B.C. to follow large game animals eastward,with that of Judge (1982), who proposed thatenvironmental variables affected the local adaptationsand that changes in tool technology may simplyrepresent adaptations to these climatic changes.During the Eariy Archaic (5500 to 3000 B.C., or theJay and Bajada phases), Vivian acknowledged arelationship between greater aridity and changes in thelithic tool kits, specifically projectile points. The toolkits would reflect the greater adaptability to a semiaridenvironment that is somewhat similar to that seentoday. "In either case, increasing dryness probablyfostered greater concentration in localities withpermanent water" (Gwinn Vivian 1990:84).During the Late Archaic (3000 B.C. to A.D.400; San Jose, Armijo, and En Medio phases), therewere two different opinions about the climate. IrwinWilliams (1979) suggested that the climatic conditionsprovided increased effective moisture, while Judge(1982) differed. Gwinn Vivian (1990) suggested thatthe Late Archaic was not as dryas the Early Archaic,and that there was, therefore, increased plant growth.These conditions, however, did not provide sufficientgame animals for a return to hunting as a primarysubsistence strategy. Although there was an increasein human population growth, greater dependence onplants occurred. Data from the Chaco area wereconsidered similar to those reported from the ArroyoCuervo area, but there was a lack of evidence forseasonalaggregation. Simmons (1982, 1984d:l0-11),who worked just north of Chaco Canyon, thought thatChacra Mesa might have served as a winter campwhere such larger popUlations aggregated. WhenVivian compared data from a number of surveysconducted throughout the northern San Juan Basin, henoted that although Irwin-Williams's model for thisperiod was essentially substantiated, there were someminor regional differences by the Late En Mediaphase.The degree of Archaic cultural variation inthe Basin remains unclear, and the im-

94 Chaco Project Synthesispression that cultural complexity decreasedfrom east to west, based on evidence forlarger and more permanent seasonal habitationsites in the Arroyo Cuervo region,may be incorrect. The problem iscompounded, as Judge (1982) and othershave noted, by the lack of detailed empiricaldata from the Arroyo Cuervo region.Until Archaic sites are sought morediligently in Chaco Canyon, on the ChacraMesa, and along the eastern flanks of theChuska and Lukachukai ranges, the extentof regional variation cannot be firmlyestablished. (Gwinn Vivian 1990: 90)Gwinn Vivian (1990:90-91) acknowledged theproblems that existed in defining a Basketmaker IIoccupation in the San Juan Basin. Yet he alsoevaluated the data from numerous sites that indicatedreliance on wild plant foods, the presence of maizepollen, some procurement of small animals, and thelong-distance procurement of some lithic materials.With caution, he was able to infer a regionaldifference between the En Medio and the Los Pinosvariants around 100 B.C. to A.D. 400. In summary,Though the processes of culture changeoperating in the San Juan Basin during theArchaic and Basketmaker II periods areonly broadly defined, the available dataand interpretations of that data provideseveral useful guides for analyzing theevolution of Chacoan culture after A.D.400. First, the evidence for linking culturechange to climatic shifts during theArchaic and Basketmaker II, though weak,strengthens the argument that similarprocesses probably characterized thePuebloan period. Second, though Berry's(1982) model for culture change may beextreme, it has refocused attention on theimportance of considering social as well asenvironmental elements in explaining culturegrowth. Finally, cultural variabilityin the Puebloan period may have considerableantiquity if the contrasts betweenthe Late En Medio and Los Pinos variantsdo represent expressions of contemporaneousbut basically different culturalsystems. (Gwinn Vivian 1990: 109)Contributions of Chaco ProjectPre ceramic ResearchStudies of pack rat midden debris (Betancourtand Van Devender 1980, 1981) and pollen (Hall 1975,1977 , 1990) contributed to environmental reconstructionfor this early period. Faunal analysis alsoindicated differences in the Archaic environment(Gillespie 1985), but research leading to more detailedenvironmental reconstruction is needed.Survey and excavation carried out by the ChacoProject contributed to our knowledge about preceramicadaptations in the Chaco Canyon area. We have acomprehensive inventory of all sites located within theboundaries of Chaco Culture National Historical Park.We do know there was little use of the area during thePaleoindian period, that use increased during the Earlyand Middle Archaic, and that use was probably greatestduring the Middle and Late Archaic. The criteriadeveloped by Young (Cameron and Young 1986) todiscern whether lithic scatters belonged to the Preceramic,Pueblo, or Navajo adaptations can be integratedwith similar studies by others to improve theassignment of such site types to chronological orcultural periods. Although there are still numerousquestions about the chronological placement of manysites, Chaco site data can be assigned to the chronologyestablished by Irwin-Williams (1979) for theArroyo Cuervo area to the southeast of the San JuanBasin.Atlatl Cave (29SJ1156) and two dune sites,Sleeping Dune and Ant Hill Dune (29SJ1157), aresimilar to other Late Archaic-Basketmaker II settlementsthroughout the San Juan Basin. The presence ofcom and squash at AtIatl Cave and neighboring SheepCamp Shelter and Ashlislepah Shelter correlates wellwith the known presence of cultigens in the basin.These sites probably represent regional springthrough-fallencampments, with possible winterencampments on Chacra Mesa. The timing of increaseddependence on maize, however, may notcorrelate with events in other areas of the San JuanBasin; e.g., the Chuska valley. Gwinn Vivian (1990)thought that there were subregions within the largerOshara tradition, and that differences can beattributed, in part, to environmental variables.

The Preceramic Period 95Judge's (1972) indication that obsidian andbasalt were the only imported lithic materialsrecovered during the initial transect survey suggeststhat the people using the Chaco area may have had alarge territory or trade contacts with groups nearer tothese sources. Neller's (1976b) analysis of lithicsfrom Atlatl Cave and local lithic scatters did not. indicate what other materials might suggest trade orlarge regional mobility.DiscussionIrwin-Williams (1994) indicated the need formultiple working hypotheses about the Preceramicperiod that can be tested when good control over timeand space is available. Irwin-Williams believed thatthe plethora of models and research pursuits representa healthy approach to understanding the iifeways ofhunting and gathering populations; the role thatcultigens play in subsistence changes over time; andproblems in determining regional group differences,the size of regions, and the role that environmentalvariability plays in sustaining populations during allseasons. During the ensuing years, research on thePreceramic period has made several advances.One problem exists with terminology. Vierra(1994) pointed out that two contexts are included inthe term Archaic (a generalized subsistence adaptation,and a cultural/temporal unit). If we accept theArchaic as a hunting and gathering adaptation only,then difficulties arise when we try to evaluate changein the cultural continuum from Paleoindian to Archaicand from hunting and gathering to an agriculturaladaptation in a temporal system. Vierra also reviewedthe different models for social organization that havebeen proposed for Archaic settlement and subsistencesystems.Several contributions dealt specifically with theprehistory of the San Juan Basin. Within the Osharatradition, Vierra (1987a, 1987b, 1994:383) was ableto distinguish between the use of the west side of theSan Juan Basin during the San Jose phase and the eastside during the Armijo phas

----------------------96 Chaco Project Synthesisintroduction of ceramics. Those sites with the earliestdirectly dated cultigens tend to be located in areaspresumably near fields and occupied during thegrowing season, a pattern seen elsewhere in theSouthwest. These sites are situated at midelevationson the eastern side of the San Juan Basin; thepatterning of site locations by phase indicatesrepositioning of Archaic groups with numerous SanJose period sites, few Armijo sites, and an increasednumber of En Medio sites in the San Juan Basin.Following Hogan (1994), Vierra noted that thispattern probably reflects a movement of Archaicpeople to different areas at different times rather thanmovement of new people into the Basin.With the discovery of irrigation features in theZuni area (Damp et al. 2002), Vierra (2004) againrevisited the issues relating to the adoption of maizehorticulture across the Colorado Plateau. Hecompared the percentages of archaeobotanical remainsfrom 53 Late Archaic habitation sites (those containingstructures and extramural features) in three areas: thewestern San Juan Basin, the northern San Juan Basin,and the northern Rio Grande valley. He could notsupport the hypotheses that farmers moved into thearea (e.g., Berry 1982) or that the San Juan Basin wassegregated into foragers on the west and farmers onthe east during the Late Archaic (Hogan 1994). Instead,he suggested that agriculture developed atdifferent rates in different environmental locations(earlier in the western San Juan Basin than in thenorthern San Juan Basin or Rio Grande valley).Maize cultivation appeared in both upland and lowlandcontexts. Vierra suggested that early agriculturewould have occurred in well-watered micronichesettings that had low diet-breadth return rates (e.g.,succulents and wild seeds). These microniches wouldinclude floodplains, high-water-table areas, playas,ponds, seeps, springs, or areas where runoff waterfrom mesa tops can be utilized. Those areas adjacentto pinon-juniper woodlands and fall plant resourceswould have an advantage of fewer schedulingproblems in any cost-benefit assessments. Vierra's(2004) analysis lends support to the proposition byGwinn Vivian (1990) that environmental variables areimportant in these early periods.In summary, models for the Archaic adaptationhave been devised and are being evaluated. Becauseit has proven the most useful for the San Juan Basin,many investigators still rely on Irwin-Williams'(1973, 1979) incomplete description of the Osharatradition to evaluate their data. The Chaco Projectdata do fit her model, but it is more likely that theChaco area of the San Juan Basin would not have asdense a popUlation as the peripheries or the ArroyoCuervo region. Its unique setting, however, doesprovide advantages not available immediatelysurrounding this center of the San Juan Basin.

- --------------------------------------------------------------------Chapter FourThe Foundations of Chacoan Society:Basketmaker III to Pueblo IIt was for the purpose of obtaining much-needed information on the house and village types of the fmalperiod in the Basket Maker era that the excavations in the Chaco Canyon were conducted. Most of theprevious work had been done at sites located in caves where later occupants had to some degree disturbedthe older remains. Occasional Basket Maker III pithouses had been excavated but not in sufficient numbersto warrant definite conclusions as to their types. The Chaco Canyon site was an especially fortunate onebecause it was in the open and no later buildings had been erected upon it. Ii was an isolated example ofa ~ingle cultural stage. (Roberts 1929:7)Almost nothing is known about the Pueblo I village layout-or about the Pueblo I period in general-inthe Chaco Region. House Cat Shabik'eshchee Village with its associated contiguous circular storage cistswith a living area in front has been cited above as representing an early stage in the development of thehabitation-unit layout. Ruins of what are probably small habitation units of Late Pueblo I date are fairlyfrequent around the smaller water courses of the region. Long alignments of rooms, such as are typicalof the larger northern San Juan Region units, do not seem to occur in this region. (Bullard 1962: 108-109)By 1969, excavated sites in Chaco Canyonattributed to the Basketmaker III - Pueblo I period(Appendix A) provided limited information on thetransition between these two periods and the socialorganization of the people living at that time. During1926 and 1927 at Shabik'eshchee Village, Roberts(1929) cleared a total of 20 pithouses, over 48 storagebins, a large circular structure or great kiva, and acourt; he suggested use from Basketmaker III throughPueblo 1. The pithouses exhibited variability in shape;Roberts (1929) suggested evolution from circular andoval to rectangular. The antechambers also werereduced in size and transformed into ventilators.Roberts thought two major periods of occupation,separated by a distinct break that could be attributed toa reversion to a nomadic life style, were indicated.Shabik'eshchee Village was considered the BasketmakerIII type site (Bullard 1962: 101). Nine tree-ringspecimens from the great kiva indicated constructionaround A.D. 753, and four from House H clusteredaround A.D. 757 (Bannister 1965: 192, Table XL).These dates are late compared with those reported forsimilar sites elsewhere (Bannister 1965: 199; McKenna1986:54-58; Truell 1986: 139; Wills and Windes1989); thus, people in Chaco were thought to havelagged behind their neighbors in cultural development.Based on ceramic types recovered, Late PuebloI pit structures that had evolved into above-groundstructures were difficult to assign to a specific period.Data from the Three C site (Gordon Vivian 1965)included a variety of wall construction methods; thearchitecture was interpreted as Pueblo I but theceramics as Pueblo II. This supported Bullard's (1962:175) comment that the division between Pueblo I andPueblo II was blurred. The architectural pattern thatwas carried forward into Pueblo II was retained in theearliest forms of great houses that appeared during thelate A.D. 800s, which is approximately where Vivianplaced the Three C occupation. Bullard had concluded,however, that the Basketmaker III and PuebloI periods were more like each other than either periodwas to the preceding or following one.

98 Chaco Project SynthesisFigure 4.1.Joseph Maloney excavating a slab-lined house near Casa Rinconada in 1936. (Courtesyof the Vivian family, Chaco Culture NHP Museum Archive, Photo no. 70860.)The presence of a great kiva at Shabik'eshcheeVillage was rare; Bullard (1962: 102) found very fewattributable to Basketmaker III. This, and availablesettlement data, prompted him to ask whether valleypopulations lived in a few large villages or a numberof small villages and whether there may have been onelarge village with scattered subordinate settlements.Several pit structures had been discovered asthey eroded out of the wash (R. N. Adams 1951; Judd1922; Roberts 1929:80-71). Others had been buriedby later occupations (e.g., Z. Bradley 1971; Judd1964:21-22). Some were poorly reported (e.g., onebeneath Be 50; Glenn 1939:166-172; Hibben 1937:81-87; Senter 1939) or not reported at all (e.g., sitesexcavated just south of Casa Rinconada [Figure 4.1]by Joseph Maloney as recorded in Brand 1937a:27).Gordon Vivian (Vivian and Mathews 1965:42-45)indicated that in addition to the pithouses located inthe eastern section of the park (Shabik' eshchee Villageand Half House), there were numerous Basketmakersites in Werito's Rincon, on the mesa near PenascoBlanco, south of Tsin Kletzin, and just south of thecanyon escarpment. He had seen very little evidenceof Basketmaker III pithouses between Chaco Canyonand the San Juan River but had noted numerous onesto the south (Gordon Vivian and Mathews 1965:28-29).Based on ceramics, limited architectural data,and a lack of archaeometric dates, it was difficult toplace some sites within a tight chronological sequenceor distinguish subtle changes in construction, settlement,or other cultural manifestations. Gordon Vivian(Vivian and Mathews 1965:28-29) did not fully agreewith Gladwin (1945), who proposed that there hadbeen an early migration into Chaco Canyon from thesouth and west; Vivian thought that populations hadonly shifted and become more consolidated throughtime. He acknowledged R. N. Adams's (1951:291)statement that Half House differed somewhat fromShabik'eshchee Village, and thought that these structuresmay be representative of different cultures in thecanyon at an early date-a hypothesis he explored inmore detail elsewhere (Gordon Vivian and Mathews1965: 108-111). Bullard (1962:55) also had noted thedifferences between his northern and southern Anasaziareas in pottery types and ventilator construction.Both traits cannot be attributed to the samecenter of origin. I have suggested that theventilator originated in the southern part ofthe area, the habitation unit in the northern.The rapidity of the spread is indicativeof the unity of Anasazi culture and ofthe close contacts maintained throughoutthe area. (Bullard 1962: 175)

Basketmaker III to Pueblo I 99In summary, at the start of the Chaco Project,there were several issues that deserved attention.Among them were the difficulty in estimating thenumber of pit structures buried under several feet ofalluvium along the main Chaco Wash or under latersite components, in assigning dates to components, ininterpreting the variability in architectural features forcontemporary sites, the settlement pattern, and thepossibility that more than one group lived within thearea. It would be difficult to understand the transitionsfrom horticulture to agriculture and from pitstructures to above-ground houses without better datedexcavations.This chapter will focus on information gatheredduring surveys and excavations in order to addressthese issues. The final report on Basketmaker IIIPueblo I excavations (windes 2006a) will providegreater detail. Here, I have relied heavily onMcKenna's (1986) synopsis of small-site excavationsand Truell's (1986) synthesis of small-site architecture,which provide careful analyses of changes inpit structures and above-ground structures throughtime. Their information is combined with artifactanalyses and other studies to provide a picture of thefoundations for later developments in Chaco Canyonand the San Juan Basin.Chaco Project StudiesThe Chaco Prospectus (NPS 1969) recommendedthat ceramic and architectural sequences be reevaluatedand populations be estimated in order tobetter understand the shift of Basketmaker sites typicalof the southern half of the San Juan Basin into theChaco area and the shift from mesa top locations tovalley bottom locations. Changes in the environmentthat related to the discovery of pithouses beneath thepresent surface along the Chaco Wash neededclarification.Survey DataJudge's transect survey crew identified 43Basketmaker III sites based on the presence ofdepressions, indicating pithouses, and a dominance ofLino Gray pottery. An absence of surface structureswas a major factor in distinguishing these sites fromlater Pueblo I sites (Judge 1972:31-32). Although theBasketmaker III sites were found at similar mean siteelevations as earlier Preceramic sites, their location onMenafee Shale 66 percent of the time and on sandstone24 percent of the time was exactly opposite from theearlier site distributions with regard to geologicalsubstrate. The mesa and canyon edge locations ofmany of the open-air Preceramic sites would havebeen unsuitable for the construction of pithouses.Judge also attributed this difference to an associationof Basket maker III sites with a low average distance tothe nearest stream, especially when compared withsites assigned to different periods. Basketmaker IIIsites were generally found on hills, ridges, or activedunes in upland areas south of Chacra Mesa, as wellas on the elevated Menafee Shale outcroppings foundat mesa bases in close association with tributariesrather than major streams.Hayes's (1981) inventory survey assigned datesfor the Basketmaker III period from A.D. 400 or 500to A.D. 725 or 750. Subcircular subterranean pithouseswith antechambers or large ventilator shaftshad oval or bean-shaped cists located behind them.Characteristic artifacts included two major ceramictypes (Lino Gray and La Plata Black-on-white);imported ceramics from the Mogollon region (darkredwith black smudged interiors); bows and arrowsinstead of atlatls; and deep trough metates.Usingthese criteria, the survey crews identified a total of188 Basketmaker III sites located on mesas (n=60),on plains (n = 40), and in bottomlands (n = 88) (Hayes1981:Figure 13).Because 15 Basketmaker III sites were found incutbanks of canyon bottom arroyos, Hayes (1981:24)was concerned about site visibility for these pitstructures. Windblown sand quickly covers pitstructures on mesa tops (e.g., Roberts's [1929] needto trench to uncover pithouses at Shabik'eshcheeVillage), and exposures in arroyo cuts indicatedconsiderable aggradation of the Chaco Wash overtime. Hayes estimated a rate of deposition of about3.9 m (13 ft) in 500 years, and suspected that 150 sitesmay have been buried in the floodplain and notrecorded. If Hayes's estimate is correct, approximatelytwo-thirds of the Basketmaker III sites wouldhave been located in the bottomlands, closer tointermittent streams.Two great kivas were recorded, one atShabik'eshchee Village and the other at 29SJ423 on

--------------------- ~~~~-~~-100 Chaco Project SynthesisWest Mesa near Penasco Blanco, suggesting twomajor Basketmaker III focal points. Hayes (1981: 14,Figure 13) identified clusters of Basketmaker III sitesat the north end of West Mesa, on the southeast sideof West Mesa near the head of South Gap, on thesouthwest side of West Mesa, in Rafael's Rincon, andin the Pueblo Bonito/Chetro Ketl vicinity. BecauseShabik'eshchee Village is located near the parkboundary and there was a lack of survey outside ofthat boundary, Hayes also thought there might be acluster near this large site.Hayes's suspicions were confirmed during the1983 survey of the four additions to the park. Thenumber of Shabik'eshchee Village pithouses skewedthe samples recorded. The size of this site is muchlarger than any other pit structure site (with an averageof 1.1 to 1.8 pithouses per site if Shabik'eshcheeVillage is not included) and confirmed Hayes's suggestionof this as a major locus for Basketmaker IIIhabitation (Sebastian and Altschul 1986). Sebastianand Altschul also confirmed a shift in locations onChacra Mesa; during the period from A.D. 550 to750, most of the residential concentration was on thedrainage where Shabik'eshchee Village is located (seealso Wills and Windes 1989). Other sites were foundalong the east and south edges of mesas. In the KinBineola addition, between A.D. 550 and 750, habitationsites and scatters were found on mesa tops andvalley slopes along both sides of the wash (Sebastianand Altschul 1986). In both the Kin Klizhin andSouth addition, sites were few in number, especiallyduring the periods from A.D. 550 to 800 (Sebastianand Altschul 1986).Initial identification of Pueblo I sites was notsimple, nor was the characterization of the sitesrecorded. Judge (1972:32) considered the distinctionbetween Basketmaker III and Pueblo I sites one of thehardest to make. Neck-banded pottery sherds werenot always the best diagnostic ceramic type, especiallyin small-site surface collections. If a site had both LaPlata Black-on-white (an early ware) and Red MesaBlack-on-white (a late ware), plus a pit structure andsurface structures, it was assigned to the Pueblo Iperiod. Early ceramics and a surface structure alsomerited a Pueblo I classification. Judge (1972:51)thought that the problem of identifying a Pueblo Iadaptation in Chaco was hampered by the possibleimproper classification of sites (mixes of BasketmakerIII, Pueblo II, and Pueblo III in the sample) or theearly existence of a dichotomy between the "Towns"and ·Villages· suggested by Gordon Vivian (Vivianand Mathews 1965:29).Like Basketmaker III sites, the 19 recordedPueblo I sites tended to be found on Menafee Shales,but at a considerably lower elevation (Judge 1972).These sites also tended to be located in areas withrelatively high frequencies of rice grass. Theirtopographic settings exhibited characteristics of bothBasketmaker III and Pueblo II, yet none were associatedwith mesas, few with rincons, and many withhills.Hayes (1981) assigned a total of 457 sites toPueblo I (A.D. 750 to 900); of these, 373 werepueblos and 36 were classified as field houses. Thetransition from below-ground to above-ground structuresoccurred. Storage cists were joined together,and ramada-like structures appeared in front of them.The smaller and deeper pit structures lost their antechambers,and floor features dwindled. Above-groundconstruction consisted of jacal poles and adobe,upright slabs, adobe walls with stones, adobeturtlebacks, and rough-coursed masonry. Lino Grayand La Plata Black-on-white continued to be used, butpottery types evolved into neck-banded (Kana'a Gray)and White Mound or Kiatuthlanna Black-on-white (seealso Truell 1986). Hayes (1981:26) was still concernedthat some of the Pueblo I sites had been buried(e.g., the pithouses excavated by Judd [1924] and R.N. Adams [1951]).Hayes (1981) posited a gradual but significantchange in site location to the canyon bottom. Therewas a shift in the locations of large communities.Basketmaker III communities on the south side ofWest Mesa, in Rafael's Rincon, and near PenascoBlanco decreased in size or nearly disappeared, but theones in South Gap, near Pueblo Bonito, and FajadaGap increased in size. A new settlement appeared onPadilla Wash (Hayes 1981:Figure 15).Sebastian and Altschul (1986) reported a declinein occupation on Chacra Mesa between A.D. 700 and880; only one habitation site was located on thecanyon floor east of Shabik' eshchee Village. BetweenA.D. 700 and to 880, there were three major clustersin the Kin Bineola section-one in the north, one

Basketmaker III to Pueblo I 10 1centrally located, and one in the south with a greatkiva. The last small site (29Mc261) consists of tworoom blocks and a trash mound with ceramics datingto approximately A.D. 750 to 1000. Across the washwas another area of intensive occupation (29Mc291)dating from approximately A.D. 700 or 880 throughA.D. 1130.In summary, the three surveys identified anumber of Basketmaker III and Pueblo I habitationsites (Figures 4.2 and 4.3). Due to alluviation of thefloor of the Chaco Wash, however, it was doubted thatall sites were identified. Although several clusters ofpithouse sites dated to both periods, there is a shift incluster locations between periods. The two largestBasketmaker III clusters, both with great kivas, appearon mesa tops (Wills and Windes 1989). Other pitstructure clusters were also located on the southeastside of West Mesa, the southwest side of West Mesa,near Rafael's Rincon, and in the vicinity of PuebloBonito and Chetro Ket!. By Pueblo I, the two majorclusters declined in size; three major clusters (Fajada,South Gap near Pueblo Bonito, and Padilla Well) wereno longer on mesa tops but rather were in valleybottoms, as is the cluster in the Kin Bineola valley.Pueblo I great kivas were identified at 29SJ457 on aridge southeast of Padilla Well and 29SJ352 (south ofPadilla Well) (Truell 1986:238), as well as the KinBineola drainage. Recent surveys by Windes (Leksonet al. 2006; Windes 2oo6a) document the presence ofa Pueblo I cluster (A.D. 775 to 850), which includesat least one great kiva, along the south fork of FajadaWash. These data support Judge's observations ofPueblo I populations located near tributary washes thatwould provide a source of water for agriculture.ExcavationsMost of the excavated small house sites havecomponents assigned to more than one period. Sitesthat provide information about the Basketmaker IIIand Pueblo I periods include 29SJ423 (Windes 1975);29SJ299 (Loose 1979b; Windes 1976a); 29SJ628(Truell 1976); 29SJ1659 (Shabik'eshchee Village)(Hayes 1975; Roberts 1929; Wills and Windes 1989);29SJ721 (Windes 1976b); and 29SJ724 (Windes1976c). Three others (29SJ629 [Windes 1993];29SJ1360 [McKenna 1984]; and 29SJ627 [Truell1992]) have Pueblo I components, but major occupationwas during the Pueblo II period. A summary ofthe architecture and stratigraphy for each site wasprepared (Table A.5). A detailed analysis of the siteswithin the Chaco region is under way (Windes 2006a).Major contributions to the database for the periodsinclude information from the following sites:29SJ1659 (Shabi k'eshchee Village). Atabout the same time that Hayes (1975) was excavatingPithouse Y (which proved to be comparable toPithouse C at 29SJ628) and obtaining tree-ring datesin the A.D. 500s for this structure, Robinson et al.(1974:39) re-evaluated prior tree-ring dates fromShabik'eshchee Village to place them in the A.D.5OOs. This site, then, was contemporary with otherBasketmaker III settlements in the San Juan Basin.Although these new insights did not improve theinformation available from earlier excavations byRoberts (1929), Wills and Windes (1989) reviewed thenew survey data (Figure 4.4), which added approximately49 structures on the north side of a smalldepression (including two that Roberts had assigned toa separate site) to this largest Basketmaker III settlementin Chaco Canyon. Re-evaluation of the infonnationfrom at least 163 Basketmaker III sites in thecanyon led to an analysis of proposals for social organizationfor this period (Wills and Windes 1989; seediscussion below). As noted above, recognition oftwo sites (both with great kivas) and numerous otherBasketmaker III sites in their respective areasconfirmed major settlements on the two mesas at theeast and west ends of the canyon (Hayes 1981).29SJ423. This is one of approximately 20Basketmaker III sites located on West Mesa near theconfluence of the Chaco and Escavada washes. It isjust above 29SJ424 and 29SJ425, which are located ona lower leeward bench; McKenna (1986) suggestedthat these three site designations may represent oneliving area. The extensive number of pithouse sites onthis mesa and the presence of a great kiva at 29SJ423suggest that this large settlement may be comparableto Shabik'eshchee Village on Chacra Mesa (Wills andWindes 1989). Fieldwork under the direction ofWindes (1975) included the excavation of three ofprobably seven pithouses; three of at least 40 cists; agreat kiva that exhibited three construction episodes,each of which was destroyed by fire; and a Pueblo IIIshrine (Figure 4.5). Although data from the pithouseswere minimal, the three great kiva construction phasesall fell within the A.D. 500s (around A.D. 520 to

Figure 4.2.Identified Basketmaker III habitation sites in and around Chaco Culture NHP. (Data from the New Mexico HistoricPreservation Office, NMCRIS database, overlaid on aerial photographs digitized by Richard Friedman.)

Figure 4.3.Identified Pueblo I habitation sites in and around Chaco Culture NHP. (Data courtesy of the New Mexico HistoricPreservation Office, NMCRIS database, overlaid on aerial photographs digitized by Richard Friedman.)~g..-o............o~

ooo00 0o 0 00o 0 0qo000 00 "~""" 0~ 00 0.~ 000 P'O,000o o 0\0III(\\\\ c~\oC611/01'[. A~~ D~ "'D~.M do..t~~~ "- "~;rro •. ,..,"~Adlo,hl"". ",."tIl./Otto Ilhoo."' ............ dFigure 4.4.Map of Shabik'eshchee Village. (Composite compiled by Windes.)

...Basketmaker III to Pueblo I 105l('.0(c()\'),or0-())o....,••. j/-----'.':., ,.I'~IIt-, v~'.0.,;: ....__ "( ".l0-'-......I IeoIInCIIIItoFigure 4.5.Map of 2981423, indicating excavated structures and surrounding features. (Taken fromMcKenna 1986:Figure 1.8.)

•BftlO€)•••• oI

108 Chaco Project Synthesisoooo 0

Output File Types 115Intensity FilesMain SequenceFiles from BustardOptional Files fromBustardThe prefix of the intensity filenames follows the prefix of the image filenames,but the tile position is padded to four digits. For example, s_1_0006_int.txt isthe intensity file corresponding to the image files s_1_6_a.tif, s_1_6_c.tif, andso on.Each intensity file has a set of data for remapped clusters on each line. Eachrow corresponds to the data from one cluster and each column is delimitedby a space. Each row has a lane index, and a tile index in the first column,with the X offset and Y offset of the cluster in the second and third columns(all coordinates indexed from zero). These fields are tab-delimited. Thesevalues should be enough to uniquely identify any cluster for any run.Following the coordinate fields are the data fields. The first value in a datafield is the raw intensity for base A, the second is the raw intensity for base C,then G, and then T. These four values are separated by spaces and arefollowed by a tab to mark the beginning of the next four values. The nextfour values represent the corresponding intensities in the de-block scan (if ade-block scan has been performed), and then four intensities for the nextcycle.The number of fields should equal four coordinates plus four bases times thenumber of cycles of processed data, even if clusters don't yield data at theend of a set of cycles or part way through. In this case, the fields contain 0.0and preserve delimiters.The following is a sample line from an intensity file (_int.txt): \... A second set of files with an identical layout, stores the estimates of the noiseon the intensity estimates. These files end in _nse.txt.The main output files in Bustard are the _qseq files. They have the followingformat: Machine name: (hopefully) unique identifier of the sequencer. Run number: (hopefully) unique number to identify the run on thesequencer. Lane number: positive integer (currently 1-8). Tile number: positive integer. X: x coordinate of the spot. Integer (can be negative). Y: y coordinate of the spot. Integer (can be negative). Index: positive integer. No indexing should have a value of 1. Read Number: 1 for single reads; 1 or 2 for paired ends. Sequence Quality: the calibrated quality string. Filter: Did the read pass filtering? 0 - No, 1 - Yes.Sequence FilesThe data found in the sequence files (_seq.txt) located in the Bustard folderare raw sequences in the following condition:Genome Analyzer Pipeline v1.3 and CASAVA v1.0 Software User Guide

Figure 4.9. Map of 29SJ724. (Taken from McKenna 1986:Figure 1.15.)

Basketmaker III to Pueblo I 111storage rooms were ramadas with low walls oftenmade of adobe turtlebacks or simple masonry inmortar. At this time, the pit structures were locatedcloser to the room blocks; they also had fewerhabitation features. These changes were similar at allsites, regardless of site size.Basketmaker III firepits were multipurposefacilities that served a nuclear group (McKenna1986:32-37). By Pueblo I, there was multifamily useof differentiated features and space (e.g., Pithouse Aat 29SJ724 [McKenna 1986:37; Windes 1976c]).Although there was a trend toward standardizing pitstructure size through time, the function of thesestructures was not always clear. McKenna suggestedthat a Pueblo I differentiation of sites into specialcomponents was possibly related to an amalgamationof populations, which may not have been due toindigenous growth.Truell (1986) summarized pit structures andabove-ground features in shorter time intervals asfollows.A.D. 450 to early A.D. 500s. Because PithouseBat 29SJ423 (Figure 4.5) was located beneath strataattributed to construction and use of the great kiva thatwas dated to the mid-A.D. 500s, this structure is theearliest of the excavated pithouses in Chaco Canyon(Windes 1975: 19). Windes (1975: 17-18) thought thatit could have been an antechamber to a larger pithousedestroyed by erosion or quarried for material for lateruse. It therefore provided little information foranalysis.A.D. 500s to early A.D. 700s. Pithouses atShabik'eshchee Village (29SJ1659) (Figure 4.4),29SJ423 (Figure 4.5), 29SJ299 (Figure 4.6), and 29SJ628 (Figure 4.7) provided a small sample with gooddates. Truell (1986:218-219) found several consistenciesin construction: four floor postholes, wingedwalls, a south or southeast orientation, shallowstructures, and antechambers for all but two. In contrastto McKenna, who related changes in architectureto change through time, Truell identified differencesbetween the pithouses at several sites. AtShabik'eshchee Village, the main chambers of thepithouses tended to be circular to square in shape,with four floor postholes and slab-lined wall bases,but no benches. At other sites, the pithouses wereassociated with antechambers and had D-shapes andthree-quarter benches. Truell suggested that twostyles might have existed contemporaneously or thathouse styles were more consistent for those siteslocated in close proximity to one another. The A.D.600s structures at 29SJ299 and 29SJ628 (1.6 kmapart) were more like each other than they were tothose at Shabik' eshchee Village (5.5 and 7.1 kmdistant).There IS a distinct difference between thepithouses and two excavated large pit structureslabeled great kivas (at Shabik'eshchee Village and29SJ423). The great kivas had at least 13 to 20 m 2more space and their shapes were circular instead ofsquare or D-shaped. They also contained a centralhearth and postholes for roof poles, but few otherfeatures (except possibly ladder rests at 29SJ423)(Truell 1986:235). Because the presence of greatkivas at Shabik'eshchee Village and 29SJ423 wasunusual but not a unique occurrence in the Anasaziregion, Truell (1986:236) questioned whether thesetwo sites should be classified as small sites or largesites. None of the other Basketmaker III sites in theChaco area contained great kivas and none had asdense clusters of pithouses.Other features at the small sites included small,square, slab-lined extramural hearths; roasting pitsthat were very similar in construction, but had anoutward flare to slabs that exhibited intense burning;small subterranean storage bins or circular cists that inChaco contained no food remains; and firepits thatwere located near structures or storage bins in whatwould later be called plaza areas. The pattern for latersite units had been established.Early A.D. 700s to early A.D. 800s. Informationfrom Chaco Canyon sites reflects events notedelsewhere in the San Juan Basin, but the detailsavailable for analysis do not always correlate well(TrueIl1986:250). Gladwin (1945) had separated theAD. 700 to early AD. 900s into three phases: WhiteMound (AD. 750 to 800); Kiatuthlanna (A.D. 800 to870); and Red Mesa (A.D. 850 to 930). Thepredominance of the White Mound Black-on-whitepottery type was not precisely dated. The end of theWhite Mound phase, sometime in the late A.D. 700s,was considered by Gladwin to be the transition fromBasketmaker III to Pueblo I.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------112 Chaco Project SynthesisTruell (1986:219-220, 249-250) fmmd very littleevidence for an early A.D. 700s occupation, whichshe considered a transitional period when storage ciststhat had been separate entities were joined together.The predominant ceramic types (White Mound Blackon-white,La Plata Black-on-white, and Lino Gray)are present in Chaco but not closely associated with pitstructures. Possibly Pithouse A at 29SJ724, PithouseE at 29SJ299, and Feature 5 at Bc 50 belong to thisperiod. Truell observed both ceramics and architecturesimilar to Gladwin's White Mound phasedescriptions for the southern San Juan Basin. Duringthe ceramic analysis, however, very few sherds wereclassified as Kiatuthlanna Black-on-white.Middle to Late A.D. 700s to Early to MiddleA.D. 9OOs. Windes and McKenna (1989:7) recordedvery few painted sherds present on or in ChacoCanyon sites dating between A.D. 800 and 900. Asa result, most of the Chaco Project analyses combinedinformation from the A.D. 700s through A.D. 900into one period. Early Red Mesa Black-on-whitepottery was identified as the major ceramic type forthe period extending from the early to middle A.D.800s into the early or middle A.D. 900s (Truell1986:219-220, 250) (see also H. Toll and McKenna1997:278). Excavated sites with well-documentedstructures included 29SJ299, 29SJ625, 29SJ627,29SJ629,29SJ721,29SJ724,29SJ1360,and29SJ1659(Shabik'eshchee Village); others with less informationfor this period include Bc 50, Bc 51, Bc 236, HalfHouse, and Judd's Pithouse No.1. The typical sitearrangement consists of adjoined storage bins forminga crescentic arc located to the west or north of aramada or roofed area in front and a pithouse to thesouth.There is some variability among architecturalfeatures during this period. Dirt-walled pit structurescontinue to exhibit a variety of forms (circular,rectangular, or D-shaped, the last being most common).They predominantly faced south, but somefaced east or southeast. Benches were more common,and pit structure size decreased, with postholes towardthe sides of the structures or incorporated into thebench. In the late A.D. 700s, the antechambers weretransformed into ventilators. Although the pitstructures were deeper, as a possible explanationTruell (1986:221) attributed this to their location onslopes or floodplains rather than bedrock.The joined storage rooms (initially dug asseparate units) that appear during this period alsoshowed variability in construction (Truell 1986:251).Not only did their size increase, but also roofsprobably were full-height. Instead of the generallycircular shape of earlier storage facilities, these roomswere usually somewhat oval in shape at the floorlevel. Other than two rooms at 29SJ724, these unitswere lined with upright sandstone slabs set into thefloor and covered with an adobe or gray-clay plaster.Unlike earlier pithouses, none had flagstone floors.Because these rooms were still located somewhatbelow the ground level, some had lateral benches (in52 percent of the excavated rooms) or shelves thatheld either roof support posts or adobe turtlebackwalls to support the roof. Adobe turtleback wallsoften contained some small sandstone chinkingembedded in the mortar and covered with plaster.Ingress and egress through doors that only connectedto the plaza/work areas and not to other storage roomswas often facilitated by a sandstone slab door step.Unlike Basketmaker III cists, these later interiorstorage rooms contained floor features that varied bystructure. Subfloor cists were found most often at29SJ627 and 29SJ724. A few firepits were alsoidentified at 29SJ627, as were several heating pits thatmay have served to dry out rooms or warm peopleusing the rooms as workrooms (Truell 1986:260).Many of these structures were remodeledthrough time; Truell (1986:Table 2.30) estimated anaverage floor area of 2.93 m 2 vs. 2.56 m 2 for earlierBasketmaker III sites. At most Pueblo I sites, therewere two storage structures for each ramada area; butat three sites (29SJ299, 29SJ724, and 29SJ625) one ofthe storage features was over 1 m 2 larger than theothers. There were only a few wall niches in theserooms during the A.D. 700s; Truell (1986:259)proposed that the increased space in the storage roomscompensated for the decreasing space in the pitstructures.Ramadas or work areas frequently fronted twostorage structures and tended to be wider than theassociated storage rooms. There is variability in thenumber of storage rooms fronted (from one to three),the presence or absence oflow-walled enclosures, andthe number of associated features (Truell 1986:261-266). Some areas were identified only by the presence

Basketmaker III to Pueblo I 113and distribution of postholes that supported uprightsfor roofs in the open spaces (plazas) between thestorage rooms and the pit structures. At 29SJ627,where adobe walls were not shared, the uncoveredwall bases were narrow (10 to 17 cm wide). Exceptfor two work areas at 29SJ724, the surfaces were atthe level of the surrounding area. Floors wereleveled, and possibly sloped to drain. Surface. treatments varied from none to adobe to clay,probably depending on the source of material. Slaborplaster-lined hearths were the most common featurefound within the ramadas, but sometimes none, ortwo, were present. The plaza work areas became formalizedduring this period.In summary, architectural analyses confirmed thechanges in pit structures from shallow to deeperthrough time, the transformation of the antechamberinto a ventilator, and the linking of cists to formabove-ground storage rooms separated from pitstructures by a plaza work area. The presence of twolarger villages with great kivas at different ends of thecanyon introduces the possibility of popUlation centerswith integrative structures as early as Basketmaker III.Data from the excavation of very few early structuresat 29SJ423 precludes comparisons of smaller structuresbetween these two villages. Truell did suggest,however, that there may be two different house stylesrepresented in different areas of the canyon(Shabik'eshchee Village vs. the area around FajadaButte as exemplified by 29SJ299 and 29SJ628).The concept of multifamiliy use of Pueblo I siteswas reviewed by McKenna, who proposed that growthmay be due to the accommodation of nonindigenouspopulations. How these possibly different populationswere integrated and whether or not they wererelated to groups outside of Chaco Canyon had not yetbeen addressed. (See also Gwinn Vivian [1990:147-148, 154], who viewed the Pueblo I period as a timewhen migrants from the southern part of the San JuanBasin moved into the Chaco Basin and shared itsresources with earlier inhabitants.Evidence for Chacoan LifestylesThe inhabitants of Chaco Canyon depended onboth agriculture and hunting to sustain their society.Flotation samples with macrobotanical remains fromsix sites indicate heavy reliance on crop productionand little reliance on economic annuals, which appearonly in a patchy fashion and in very low numbers inthese early sites (M. Toll 1993a). Com contributed53 percent to economic remains during the BasketmakerIII through Pueblo I periods; in later periods,that portion would decrease to 26 percent.Horticultural remains present in Toll's samplesincluded common beans, squash, and 12-rowed corncobs(versus lO-rowed cobs during Pueblo II) .Because row number is generally considered a genetictrait, Toll considered the possibility that these earlyfarmers may have been growing a different geneticstrain of com than the later i!l_habitants of the canyon.Yet undeveloped kernel rows, as well as reduction insize of the cob, can also be attributed to stress inducedby low moisture, temperature, and mineral content ofsoil.In her comparative analysis of cobs fromBasketmaker III and Pueblo I sites in the San JuanBasin, M. Toll (1993a) found that the 12-rowed cobsdominate the collection from Chaco Canyon, and fromLA 26749, a site located near Crownpoint. For thesample from small sites to the west and south, 45percent are eight-rowed. When cob diameters werecompared, however, there was little variation amongsites. Those from Chaco are the largest (13.6 mm);by Pueblo II, cobs from sites in Chaco share small cobdiameters with Bis sa'ani, sites excavated during theENRON Project, and Navajo Mine sites. Also duringthis later period, predominantly 12-rowed com hasbeen recovered from Salmon and sites in the La Platavalley, and their cob diameters are larger than the onesfrom Chaco. Although a larger sample size is needed,Toll's results could suggest differences between areasin the San Juan Basin, but how well these differencesin row number and cob size reflect genetic andenvironmental stress, let alone social ties, needs muchfurther investigation.Data on squash and bean remains are fewer andless definitive. Most squash remains are difficult toidentity as to species. M. Toll did identify C. Mixtaseeds at 29SJ724, which contrasts with C. pepo seedsfrom Bis sa'ani and Pueblo Bonito, which wereintroduced early and are most widespread. Becauseunburned seeds at Bc 288 indicate that there is somemorphometric variation among varieties, dimensionsof two bean seeds from 29SJ628 were found toresemble those from later proveniences at 29SJ629,

114 Chaco Project Synthesisbut smaller seeds from 29SJ626 possibly represent adifferent variety. Although at least seven varieties ofcommon beans have been identified, the differencesamong sites are difficult to interpret.Data from faunal remains suggest the types ofanimals that provided a protein source. Akins (1985:Figures 7.1 and 7.2) indicated that small mammals arethe major species present in the Basketmaker 111-Pueblo I sites. Cottontail rabbits were predominant,with jackrabbits providing some meat, and prairiedogs present but contributing fewer calories. Bothspecies of rabbits occur in reasonable numbers,reproduce rapidly, and increase dramatically aroundagricultural fields (Akins 1985:335-336). If the earlyChacoans employed communal hunts in a mannersimilar to their Historic Period descendants, one mightexpect hunts in early summer and autumn or duringthe pinon-nut gathering season (October andNovember). Akins (1985:339) concluded that rabbithuntingprobably occurred year round, and thatcomplete animals were brought back. Prairie dogswere probably field pests during the spring and summerand could be eliminated by trapping throughoutthe agricultural season; they hibernate from Novemberthrough March, but their burrows could have beenraided for meat. Akins's (1985:Figure 7.1 and Figure7.2) graphs suggest that the prairie dog percentageswere slightly lower during the Basketmaker III-PuebloI period than during the later periods; if taking of thisspecies is correlated with agriculture, then a greaterdependence on agriculture would be taking placeduring Pueblo II and Pueblo III. (If, however, muchlarger areas were under cultivation or more diligencewas needed by agriculturalists during later periods toprevent garden pests from destroying much-neededcrops to support a larger popUlation, an increase inprairie dog remains could be expected.)Because of the relatively small size of theseanimals, little butchering or preparation prior tocooking was necessary. Evidence for burning washigh for these small mammal species when comparedto rodents, carnivores, artiodactyls, or birds (Akins1985:339). They probably represent the major sourceof protein in the daily diet, especially during thegrowing season.Several carnivore species (bobcats and coyotes,which are local species; wolf, mountain lion, andbear, which are considered imports) were recovered.The limited numbers of bear, wolf, and mountain lionbody parts suggested possible ceremonial use (Akins1985:356). Ethnographically, bear skins are used inceremonies and the hides often appear as robes,bedding, and rugs. During Chaco Project excavations,all bear remains (except one from PuebloAlto) were found in the early sites (A.D. 500 through800)(Akins 1985:Table 7.14), which may reflect earlyinstances of their importance (Akins 1985:349). Bodyparts of grizzly bear included a tibia and possibly arib, as well as a metapoidal recovered from 29SJ423.Bear claws and mountain lion claws were found in alater kiva at Pueblo Bonito, which suggests ceremonialuse or perhaps the marking of architectural featuresused by a distinct group (see discussion in Chapter 9).Akins (1985:356) commented that the remains ofcarnivores at 298J423 and 298J628 are different fromthose at other sites in that the evidence for burning ishigher and the amount of dog bone and gnawing islower, which might reflect a different attitude towardthese animals.Artiodactyl populations include deer, pronghorn,mountain sheep, and elk. Only elk are nonlocal andhunted in the mountains surrounding the San JuanBasin. During Basketmaker III-Pueblo I, pronghornare the most common of these large mammals (Akins1985:Table 7.18, Figures 7.3,7.4, and 7.5) and probablywere procured through communal hunting (Akins1985:368). "Perhaps most of the deer in the immediateenvironment had already been harvested and theinter-community organization necessary for communalhunts was present from A.D. 600 on" (Akins 1985:357).Although a few turkey remains were recoveredfrom Shabik'eshchee Village and 29SJ628, no penswere located. This, plus the poor environment forforage, suggested that these birds may have been keptfor their feathers (Akins 1985:368-369). Fewer turkeyremains were present in the Pueblo I componentsat 298J724 vs. a greater abundance at 29S1299. Otherwild bird species were also captured, probably fortheir feathers. More of these species are present atearlier sites (Akins 1985:384). It is reasonable, then,to infer that some of the larger animals and birds werenot simply part of the daily diet, but rather thatproducts made from them contributed to other aspectsof this society. It may also be reasonable to infer that

Basketmaker III to Pueblo I 115people living in different sites specialized in theprocurement and utilization of their products-ideasthat were being fully explored during the 1980s, whenmost of the analyses were completed.Were the horticultural and hunting strategiesadequate to sustain the populations estimated to havelived in the canyon at this time? Schelberg (1982a:115-118) reviewed population estimates compiled byseveral investigators. He used Gwinn Vivian's(1974b) estimates of the amount of irrigable land,Loose and Lyon's (1976a) estimates of the productivityof Chaco fields, and Jorde's (1973) estimateof the number of acres needed to support a person,plus models for fallow, to propose that a population ofaround 2,013 to 2,416 could have been supportedwithin the canyon. Based on these estimates, bothHayes's (1981) Basketmaker III popuiation estimate of1,053 and Pueblo I estimate of 1,674 people couldhave been supported by agriculture. There wouldhave been no need to rely on outsiders to supplementagricultural production unless there was an unforeseenincrease in population, a crop disaster, or some fluctuationin climatic factors that affected soils and/or theamount of available water. In contrast, Akins (1985:404) suggested that the prehistoric popUlations probablyneeded to procure animal resources from outsideof the canyon at all times. She estimated that only702 persons could have been sustained by exploitinglocal rabbits and artiodactyls. Even during theBasketmaker III period, local inhabitants would havehad to look outside the canyon for additional meat.Dried meat could have been brought into the canyonfrom the larger region, either through trade or morefrequent hunting trips.Interaction with people living in the largerregion is evident. Artifacts for this period (ceramics[H. Toll and McKenna 1997], chipped stone[Cameron 1997b; Lekson 1997], bone tools [Miles1989], faunal remains [Akins 1985], ground stone[Bretemitz 1997; Wills 1997], and ornaments andminerals (Mathien 1997]) were analyzed separately.Some artifact categories suggest limited interaction;others imply more frequent communication. Analysesof construction wood, household goods, and luxuryitems shed some light on the frequency and possiblereasons for trade or long-distance procurement tripsduring the Basketmaker III-Pueblo I period.For house construction, M. Toll (1985, 1993a)found that 88 percent of the wood used was coniferous;it included a large pifion component. Theconifers tend to be local species, probably obtainedfrom side canyons and nearby mesa tops. A smallnumber of riparian species were identified. Yet onlya few of the tools used to cut these trees wererecovered; Bretemitz (1997) assigned only twogreenstone axes to this period. Greenstone is animported material, found in the Brazos Uplift ofnorth-central New Mexico, which indicates aconscious choice of an imported material for the axes.Heating pits within structures contained mostlynonconiferous species (mostly shrubby types, especiallysaltbush and greasewood), which are locallyavailable(M. Toll. 1985, 1993a). Coniferous remains(mostly juniper) rnade up less than half of the materialrecovered from these pits.Food was prepared by grinding on locallyavailable sandstone metates (Schelberg 1997), usingboth one- and two-hand manos (Cameron 1997a). Allbut five of the one-hand manos were sandstone pieces;the five quartzite manos indicate a choice of adifferent, but still local, material.Pounding tools (e.g., mauls [Bretemitz 1997])tend to be made of local sandstones. About onequarterof the hammerstones, however, were madefrom imported materials (Wills 1997). There was agradual increase in the amount of local chert and darkwood (type 1112) among these artifacts until thetransition between Basketmaker III and Pueblo I, afterwhich they decrease in number. Wills thought thatthese changes might be related to technologicalchange, population growth, diversity in materialculture, and experimentation that was taking place atthat time. The Basketmaker III-Pueblo I sites also hadmore quartzite hammerstones, which then decreased infrequency through time. In contrast, the relative useof petrified wood was lower in these early times, butincreased through time.Wills proposed a correlation between the use ofthese two types of materials. Quartzite is a toughermaterial and would be excellent for the initial flakingof cores to prepare other tools made of chert orchalcedony. Some petrified wood may have been used

116 Chaco Project Synthesisin the later stages of chipped stone tool manufacture.There could have been a gradual decrease in flintknapping activities or an increase in the importation ofblanks rather than cores of other materials into thecanyon so that only finishing touches were needed toprepare the tools for use. Cameron's {l997c:652)analysis of cores indicated that importation from longdistances was almost nonexistent from A.D. 500through A.D. 920. This would suggest that importedlithic materials came as end products rather than rawmaterials from which to produce tools or flakes. Forlocally available core materials, however, the patternsare varied. The number of chert and splinterysilicified wood cores does decrease from the A.D.500s through the A.D. 820 to 920 period. The chertysilicified wood cores, on the other hand, increase,while the relative percentages of chalcedonic silicifiedwood cores peak in the A.D. 600s (Cameron 1997b:Table 3C.12).For chipped stone tool use, Cameron (1997b:Table 3.8) indicated that nonlocal materials made up5 percent during the A.D. 500s; 10 percent during theA.D. 600s; 3 percent during the A.D. 700 to 820period; and 2 percent during the A.D. 820 to 920period. These materials varied by type through time(Cameron 1997b:Table 3.9). Obsidian was always themost frequently imported material throughout theperiod. During the A.D. 500s and 600s, Red Hillobsidian (source in west-central New Mexico;Cameron 1993:Figure 3.2; Cameron and Sappington1984) was the most frequent obsidian source (69.3percent in the A.D. 500s, and 43.5 percent in the A.D. 600s [Cameron 1997b:Table 3.11]), followed byimports from Polvadero Peak (in north-central NewMexico ), Jemez, and Modena (Utah) sources. By theA.D. 700 to 820 period, the predominant obsidiansource was in the Jemez Mountains; and by the A.D.820 to 920 period, it had shifted back to the Polvaderosource. In the first three periods, there were alsoobsidian pieces from several other sources in Arizona,Utah, and Colorado.More recent analyses of source areas for site29SJ629 (see Windes 1993:304) indicate that theremay have been fewer Red Hill specimens at this sitethan was suggested during the early studies, when thenumbers of Sources were not as well sampled andanalyzed. Sources identified by Cameron andSappington (1984) as Polvadera were later identifiedas Grants Ridge; Windes (1993:304) assumed that asource near Grants Ridge was more common and thatthe Red Hill may have been rarely used. There wereshifts in percentages obtained between two major areas(to the north and south), but Windes suggested that wemay not be able to accurately estimate the amount ofmaterial coming from these sources during theseperiods.Except for some unusual caches and a few gravegoods, formal tools make up only a small percentageof the chipped stone items (Cameron 1997b; Lekson1997). Formal tools were found more frequently inthe early periods (A.D. 500s and 600s); and miscellaneouspoints and blades were found mostfrequently in the A.D. 500s. The relative proportionsof materials for finished tools are different from thechipped stone material types. Cameron (1997b:564)noted that certain tools (e.g., arrow points) were madefrom imported materials. Obsidian is the most frequentmaterial type recorded for the A.D. 600 throughA.D. 820 period. Drills and scrapers, on the otherhand, were made primarily from local chalcedonicsilicified wood. Cameron identified a possible chippedstone tool workshop area at 29SJ423. Because thecores that would indicate importation from long distancesare almost nonexistent from A.D. 500 throughA.D. 920 (Cameron 1997b:652), it is likely that mostimported lithic materials came as end products ratherthan raw materials from which to produce tools orflakes.Evidence for local manufacture of pottery waspresent at three sites (29SJ299, 29MC448, andShabik'eshchee Village) during the Basketmaker IIIperiod, and at two sites (Half House and Judd'sPithouse) during the Pueblo I period (H. Toll andMcKenna 1997:Table 2.67). Evidence includes thepresence of a number of different tools, raw or workedclays, possible kilns, and some uniformity of ceramicswithin specific sites.Changes in ceramic wares, forms, and designstyles documented by H. Toll and McKenna (1997)parallel those found throughout the Anasazi regionduring the Basketmaker III and Pueblo I periods. Theuse of reddish paint increases from 44 percent in theA.D. 500s to 70 percent during the A.D. 600s, but itdecreases to 6.4 percent between A.D. 700 and 820,and to 2.2 percent between A.D. 820 and 920 (H. Toll

Basketmaker III to Pueblo I 117and McKenna 1997:Table 2.7). Decorated wares arenot common priorto A.D. 700. Slips are not commonprior to AD. 850. White wares are few during theearly years, but they increase through time, with thegreatest number present after A.D. 820 to 1040.Jars were the predominant form throughout theBasketmaker III and Pueblo I periods, and bowls weresecond in frequency. Yet, between A.D. 700 and820, bowls increased in almost equal proportions tojars (H. Toll and McKenna 1997:Table 2.15).A dramatic and widespread change invessel form took place from early grayware(Lino Gray) jars with necks and tecomates(both with small orifices) to the widemouthedjars that followed (Table 2.15).This change has two components--changein the role of ceramics in food preparationinvolving more boiling, probably as part ofa greater reliance on agricultural products(Blinman 1988), and the development ofmore task-specific whiteware forms (C.Wilson and Blinman 1995:79-77). Althoughthe number of grayware forms isgreater in the earlier periods than in laterperiods (partly because decoration coverssmaller percentages of vessel surfaces inearly "whitewares"), graywares are nearlyalways closed forms in all time periods.(H. Toll and McKenna 1997:70)Other forms were present in low numbers during thesetwo periods.There was a change in design styles from "isolatedto continuous lines bisecting or quartering thevessel, to designs pendant from rims" (H. Toll andMcKenna 1997:43). Hachure was recorded on lessthan 5 percent of Pueblo I vessels. The treatment ofgray ware jar surfaces went from smoothly scrapedduring the earliest period to texturing (wide neckbanding)on the upper one-third of the jar necks,probably around A.D. 850 to 925 (vs. the A.D. 800to 950 dates cited by others). These trends areregionwide.Ceramic data indicate long-distance contacts withpeople living in different areas of the Anasazi andMogollon regions. Although the percentages ofimports are lower at earlier sites, all the majorimported temper types found throughout time inChaco Canyon ceramics are represented in the samplesrecovered at Basketmaker III and Pueblo I sites. H.Toll and McKenna (1997:Table 2.58) documented anoverall total of imported ceramics at 16.6 percentprior to A.D. 800, and 18.1 percent between A.D.800 and 920. Prior to the A.D. 800s, the highestportions of these imports included brown wares, redwares, and smudged wares ofthe ForestdalelWoodruffseries; these types are attributed to the eastern Arizonaand southern New Mexico or Mogollon regions.Some Lino Red ceramics may have been brought infrom the San Juan Basin. Only 6 percent of the grayware and 17.1 percent of the white ware were importedfrom areas in the San Juan Basin. BetweenA.D. 800 and 920, approximately 55.1 percent of thegray ware and 38.9 percent of the white ware camefrom areas throughout the San Juan Basin. Trachyte(from the Chuska area) and cha1cedonic sandstonewere the dominant temper types.Evidence of more distant imports is seen amongornaments and minerals (Mathien 1997). In contrastto the objects recovered from the Archaic-BasketmakerII period, when all materials could have been obtainedfrom sources within the San Juan Basin, the BasketmakerIII-Pueblo I peoples included materials from alarger area. The appearance of turquoise (unsourcedto date, but from outside the San Juan Basin) andshells from the Gulf of California (Glycymerisgigantea and Olivella dama) indicate that eitherChacoans traded with neighbors or traveled longdistances. Increased numbers of minerals probablyobtained from the peripheries of the San Juan Basin(azurite, quartz crystal, and talc/soapstone) wererecovered.At 29SJ628, a site that spans the transitionbetween Basketmaker III and Pueblo I, one new shellspecies appears; however, Haliotus cracherodii wasfound earlier in other parts of the Anasazi region. Itspresence indicates importation from the Pacific Coast.Use of materials prior to A.D. 900 is similar to thatelsewhere in the Anasazi world, but this use is lowcompared to what occurs during the Pueblo II period(Mathien 1997:1151).The presence of turquoise in two postholes andthe appearance of turquoise and shell on top of the

118 Chaco Project Synthesislower bench of the great kiva at 29SJ423 suggests thebeginning of a custom of placing these materials inbuildings either during construction or remodeling(Mathien 2001b).The technology for jewelry-making and the useof turquoise and shell were documented in northeasternArizona during Basketmaker II. In the earlyChacoan sites there is little evidence for the manufacturingof jewelry items. No workshops have beenfound; items that were used were probably being madeon an as-needed basis (Mathien 1984). Tools used tomake jewelry include active and passive lapidaryabraders. These tools are rarely found in BasketmakerIII or Pueblo I sites (Akins 1997:733, 773, 792,Tables 5.25, 5.81, 5.89). None of the abraders attributedto the Basketmaker III through Pueblo Iperiods suggested a jewelry workshop area.Those abraders that are present are part of a toolkit that includes polishers and cobbles. Most abraderswere made of sandstone; quartzite cobbles also wereused in high numbers (Akins 1997:Table 5.153).During the Basketmaker III and Pueblo I periods,there were low percentages of active and passiveabraders; high percentages of polishers; high percentagesof burned abraders (except at 29SJ423); muchvariability in cobble materials; less reuse of otherartifacts as abraders than in later times; fewer abradersthat were extensively modified; and more abraders thatwere more often heavily used than in later sites, andsecondary use, mostly as hammerstones (Akins 1997:853). Akins reasoned that either the polishers wereused for many activities that abraders later filled, orthat they were perhaps used for maintaining claysurfaces that are found in pit structures and othersubterranean structures until Pueblo II. During thisperiod, the tool kit was more general than that of laterperiods. The incorporation of abraders into benchconstruction of the great kiva at 29SJ423 indicates thatlarger stones, even during Basketmaker III, werereused during construction.At two Pueblo I sites, 29SJ721 and 29SJ724,anvils were found on floors from which almosteverything else of value had been removed. The onefrom 29S1724 was recovered in an area near twometate fragments and five bone tinklers and other boneartifacts. Akins (1997:927) considered this anvil to bepart of a bone tool working area or possibly aresonating chamber.Analyses of these different artifacts indicate thatthe Basketmaker III and Pueblo I people in Chacoeither traveled long distances, traded with neighboringtribes, or were joined by people from these areas whobrought some local resources with them. The directionof social interaction during the Basketmaker IIIperiod indicates that the use of ceramics and lithicsfrom eastern Arizona and southern New Mexico wasmore intense during this period and that contact withthe north and east increased during Pueblo 1.Because human remains from all excavated sitesin Chaco Canyon attributed to this period are meager,Akins (1986) analyzed all from the Basketmakerperiod through the early Red Mesa (pre-A.D. 925)period as one group. The largest number (n= 14) wasrecovered from Shabik'eshchee Village, where onlythree were accompanied by ceramics, and from theThree C site (n= 15), where six had Early Red Mesapottery. When found, these grave goods were recoveredwith burials of children as well as adults. Ingeneral, a westerly orientation was reported (Akins1986:82-85). Although the sample is small and thedata from these previous excavations limited, it doesprovide a baseline with which to contrast later humanburials and grave goods to infer changes in socialorganization.Contributions of the Chaco ProjectInvestigations of the Basketmaker III-Pueblo Iperiod indicates considerable change during the 400years. Families lived in small houses. Initially therewere two major clusters on mesa tops; several othersmaller ones were also identified. The two m~orclusters contained large, round structures suggestive ofgreat kivas at different ends of the canyon. Althoughmany smaller sites were also located on mesas (relativelyclose to tributaries of main streams), otherswere found on the floodplains, some at a considerabledepth below the current surface. There was amovement off the mesas during Pueblo I, and Hayes(1981) noted a shift in site cluster locations. RecentlyWindes (2001) identified a Pueblo I village with agreat kiva on the south fork of Fajada Wash. Duringthis period, antechambers were transformed intoventilator shafts, and living quarters were moved frompit structures to above-ground rooms.

Basketmaker III to Pueblo I 119Families subsisted on com, beans, and squash,supplemented by protein obtained by capturing gardenpests, local rabbits, and some larger game animalsfrom the area. If Hayes's (1981) population estimatesare correct and Akins's (1985) estimate of the humanpopulation that could be fed by hunting local animalsis reasonable, then Akins's conclusion that game musthave been hunted outside of the canyon as early asBasketmaker III suggests a need for continuous movementout of the canyon by at least a small portion ofthe local population to obtain meat. That contactswith groups outside the canyon existed during BasketmakerIII and increased during Pueblo I is confirmedby the variety of sources of ceramics or their temper,lithic materials, and shell species present. Becausethere is evidence for local ceramic production, locallyavailable sources of chipped stone and ground stonetools, and much material used for site construction,the presence of imported goods may reflect 1) materialcollected during hunting excursions, 2) ties to otherrelated groups living outside the canyon who eithershared hunting areas or information regarding resourcesand their availability, or 3) trade with nonrelatedgroups.The presence of turquoise and shell offeringsduring the construction(s) ofthe great kiva at 29SJ423suggest that some traditions recorded at later sites mayhave been established during the Basketmaker IIIperiod. Akins (1985) also suggested that the presenceof the very few bear, wolf, and mountain lion partsamong the faunal material may reflect earlyceremonial items that retained meaning throughout thePuebloan occupation.DiscussionSouthwestern archaeologists recognize that lifein a semiarid environment placed restrictions on theagricultural production needed to support a localpopulation. Schelberg (1982a, 1982b) used anecological approach to outline the limitations that suchan environment placed on horticulturalists andagriculturalists in the San Juan Basin. In a stressedenvironment, inhabitants would react to even minorvariations in climate. Seasonal storage would maintainthe structure of the system and smooth out fluctuationsin the subsistence base. The amount ofenergy available insulates and controls the system,which can change only when excess energy isavailable. Perturbations can occur in either the environmentalparameters or population, leading to suchchange. In a semiarid environment, water availabilityis the major influence on energy flows that affect bothplant and animal life across space and through time.Dendroclimatological reconstructions of past environmentsoffered clues to changes in precipitation thatmight effect changes in the human adaptation.Dendroclimatological reconstructions for the SanJuan Basin were not well defined for the years prior toA.D. 900. Using paleoclimatic data from Dean et ai.(1985), and Euler et a1. (1979), Gwinn Vivian (1990:92-94) emphasized broad 50-year patterns that suggestedvariations in periods of drought on theColorado Plateau. "The most significant climatic featureof this period was the decline in total annualmoisture that began at about A.D. 725-750, reachedminimal levels about 875, and then increased toessentially the 725 levels by A.D. 1050" (Vivian1990:24). He (Vivian 1990:24) accepted a shift fromwinter-dominant to summer-dominant storm patternsaround A.D. 750 to 775 (Schoenwetter and Eddy1964). Summer monsoons were characterized ashaving greater intensity; shorter duration; and limitedsoil permeability, and thus increased runoff. Vivianconsidered two events in the period from A.D. 750 to1000 as critical-the major drought from A.D. 850 to900, and the shift in periodicity and variance ofprecipitation and storm dominance-but he recognizedthe period from A.D. 500 to 1200 as being relativelyhigh in moisture values.Judge et aI. (1981) pointed out that the droughtfrom A.D. 850 to 900 documented by Euler et aI.(1979) for the broader region was not as visible in thedata reported by Dean and Robinson (1977) for theSan Juan Basin. Additionally, after A.D. 900,summer precipitation peaks seen in the dendrochronologicaldata presented by Robinson and Rose(1979) do not always correlate with information onannual precipitation. A more detailed interpretation ofrainfall patterns in the tree-ring data of Dean andRobinson (1977) during the Pueblo I period appearedin Windes and D. Ford (1996:306-308), who indicatedthat there were several long periods (A.D. 728to 737, A.D. 850 to 864, 887 to 899, and A.D. 910to 919) when precipitation levels were above normal.

120 Chaco Project SynthesisThe period between A.D. 850 and 864 was the longestand wettest period in the A.D. 800s; every year hadprecipitation values that were above average.Based on these interpretations of the environmentaldata, changes during the Basketmaker III andPueblo I periods should have been initiated after A.D.725 to 750 when a decline in moisture began (GwinnVivian 1990). The above-normal rainfall betweenA.D. 728 and 737 (Windes and D. Ford 1996) mayhave alleviated some of the problems brought on bythe onset of drier summers, or the drought may havestarted after this period. After A.D. 737, however,slowly declining summer moisture must have erodedthe farmers' ability to produce successful crops withoutadjustments.Possible adjustments include moving to betterwatered lands, increasing acreage under cultivation, orchanging technology, or any combination thereof(Hayes 1981). The population estimates derived byHayes indicate that there should have been sufficientavailable agricultural land to allow movement off themesa tops, where dry farming would have been theonly option. By locating along the larger tributariesto the Chaco Wash, where soils were deeper andprobably better able to obtain and retain moisture thatwas being channeled into these areas, the popUlationwas able to survive. The gradual movement frommesa tops to the valley floor correlates with thesedates. But the need to move back and forth to moredistant hunting grounds to provide animal proteinwould remain.The social organization needed to coordinate thisadaptation remains under discussion. Wills andWindes (1989) recognized that most models of socialorganization during the Basketmaker III to Pueblo Iperiod relied heavily on Roberts's (1929) report onShabik'eshchee Village. They (Wills and Windes1989:352) suggested that the band-to-clan progressionfor Chaco society that had been in vogue sinceSteward's (1937) analysis of Basketmaker III socialorganization may not be accurate. Instead, Wills andWindes (1989) proposed that the mesa top locations ofthe two large Basketmaker III sites (Shabik'eshcheeVillage and 29SJ423) were indicative of "group-leveldecision making that was situational and episodic"(Wills and Windes 1989:349).Shabik'eshchee Village was located in an areawhere access to pinon-nut harvests would have beenpossible in the fall for approximately one out of everyfour years (Wills and Windes 1989:359). Theproximity of this site to good agricultural lands in thevalley bottom during wet springs may have luredmembers into longer periods of sedentism. TheBasketmaker III occupation, therefore, is tied tosedentism, because it represents the period when theuse of stored grains would tether the population toseasonal sites.Two types of storage at Shabik'eshchee Villagemay represent two different storage tactics (Wills andWindes 1989). The antechambers attached to the pitstructures may have held crops that were used daily;the small cists or bins located outside of the pit structuresmay represent sealed facilities that would preventexposure to air and humidity (for cultigens that wouldbe needed as seeds at some future date or for longtermpreservation) or for caching of foodstuffs byhighly mobile groups. Because these cists would havebeen easily visible to the group, easily monitoredcommunal economies could have existed at this time.The popUlation would have included a resident family(or families) that remained at the site year-round, andother members who were present at intervals. Threepossible pithouse clusters in the southwestern part ofthe site excavated by Roberts (1929) may representgrowth and change in social organization amongfamilies who recycled pit structures through time.Wills and Windes (1989:359-361) proposed thatthere were two types of settlements in the canyonduring Basketmaker III: 1) typical sites that representone to three families who moved around throughoutthe seasonal cycle; and 2) large aggregations such asShabik'eshchee Village and 29SJ423, both locatednear access to arable lands, large local watersheds, andprobable pinon woodlands, which led to episodes ofpopUlation concentration. The linear distribution ofBasketmaker III sites in these two areas is not foundelsewhere on the mesa tops. Although Wills andWindes (1989:364) agreed with Lightfoot andFeinman (1982) that there was a need for group-leveldecisionmaking in large sites such as Shabik'eshcheeVillage, they did not believe that the big-man modelbest fits the data. Storage cists could not be linked topit structures; there was a lack of evidence of storage

Basketmaker III to Pueblo I 121by any specific group at the site. Instead, theyproposed consensus agreements among householdheads, possibly using a periodic corporate strategy.In contrast, Schelberg (1982a) proposed that alow-level ranked society during Basketmaker III wouldmonitor climatic changes that affected the availabilityof food products. The leaders would be in contactwith similar groups throughout the San Juan Basin andbeyond. He thought that the presence of great kivasand the importation of nonlocal materials did notdiffer qualitatively from the evidence for later periodsthat he thought represented a stratified society.Schelberg proposed that the Basketmaker III-Pueblo Iperiod was the foundation for later developments.Imported goods could easily have beentransported from other areas as part of the huntingquest. Whether some lithic materials were actuallyobtained during hunting expeditions has not beenestablished. There were, however, very few importsinto the canyon during the Basketmaker III and PuebloI periods (Breternitz 1997; Cameron 1997a, 1997b;Mathien 1997; H. Toll and McKenna 1997; M. Toll1985, 1993a; Wills 1997). Cameron (1997c) suggeststhat very few cores were imported, and that mostmaterials came as end products. Because the distanceto marine shells is much farther, it not unlikely thatthe shells from the Gulf of California were obtainedthrough a down-the-line trade network. The fewnumbers of imported lithics (including turquoise) andshell prior to around A.D. 920 do not signify a highdegree of broad regional interaction outside of the SanJuan Basin.At Shabik'eshchee Village, the protokiva definitelyshared Pueblo I features, as did House C withits raised bench and multiple posts, and the court withits tub-shaped rooms and paved patio. Wills andWindes (1989:353-354) suggested that the breaks indeposition in the refuse mounds that Roberts attributedto two different Basketmaker occupations may,instead, divide Basketmaker III and Pueblo Ioccupations.A change in subsistence strategy is suggested byseveral lines of evidence. The change from living inpithouses and storing foods in cists to above-groundstorage facilities fronted by ramadas, and eventuallyhabitation rooms, may be related to increased concernover the protection of harvested crops, and reflect achange from communal sharing (by hunter-gatherersdependent on horticulture) to individual familystockpiles (by those dependent on agriculture)(McKenna 1986).Based on firepit size, McKenna (1986: 14) suggestedthat a change from single-family dwellings tomultifamily dwellings might indicate more cooperationbetween members of an extended family and possiblyless reliance on the community at large. Access tostorage rooms located behind ramadas was limited tothe users of the ramada directly in front of theserooms; connections between ramadas were not visible(Truell 1986).The wetter periods around A.D. 850 to 864 andA. D. 887 to 899 would have provided an opportunityto acquire surplus, which could lead to severalpossible changes; e.g., greater storage for nonsurvivaluses and/or the ability to support an increasedpopulation within the same spatial configurations.Judge et a1. (1981) postulated that those who hadestablished a claim to the best lands at confluences ofside tributaries of the Chaco Wash would have beenable to support the growth that is seen ca. A.D. 850and thereafter. Three early examples in the canyonare Penasco Blanco, Pueblo Bonito, and Una Vida; inthese areas, cultivation could have been expanded aslocal populations increased. Such developments couldhave occurred anywhere in the San Juan Basin wheresimilar conditions existed; the presence of BasketmakerIII and Pueblo I communities has been documentedin the San Juan Basin (e.g., Marshall et al.1979; R. Powers et al. 1983). Some, but not all, haveevidence of later construction of large Chacoanstructures. If extended families retained use of thesebetter watered areas starting during Early Pueblo I,then some type of social organization would be neededto maintain interaction among the various inhabitantsof the canyon and its surrounding area. Judge et a1.(1981) considered the three great houses andcommunities that developed in the tenth century (nowknown to have occurred in the ninth century) (Windesand D. Ford 1996) to have changed from a kin-basedsociety that used reciprocity to even out subsistenceshortfalls to one of redistribution by leaders whogained advantages due to the location of their farmlands in better watered locations (with labor-intensivestrategies), This model provided some basis for

122 Chaco Project SynthesisSebastian's (1988, 1992) later discussion of change inleadership roles through time (see below).Composition of the population living in thecanyon and the San Juan Basin must also beconsidered. Truell's (1986:218-219) observation thatthere are two types of pit structures in the A.D. 500sthrough the early A.D. 700s and the differencesbetween construction techniques for small houses indifferent localities suggest standards did vary.Akins's (1985) observations on differences among theuses of carnivores at sites 29SJ423 and 29SJ628provoked a comment about different attitudes towardthese animals. Different attitudes could reflectdifferences among people of the same background, orsuggest the existence of different social groups. Ifdifferent groups existed and a desire to identify withtheir social groups became more important, perhapsthis brought about increased use of decoration onceramic vessels after A.D. 700. There was anincrease in the numbers of white ware vessels throughtime and improvements in technology; e.g., the use ofslip after A.D. 850 (R. Toll and McKenna 1997).Based on craniometric analyses, Schillaci (2003)recently proposed a link between two distinct humanpopUlation samples in southwestern Colorado and thetwo burial popUlations from the Classic period atPueblo Bonito. Whether additional distinct populationsco-existed in the canyon is unknown; the lackof human remains from Basketmaker III and Pueblo Isites precludes definitive research of this type.Gwinn Vivian (1990) discussed the Chaco datawithin a larger regional framework of the San JuanBasin. Both architecture and ceramics were used tosupport the existence of four regional divisions duringthe Basketmaker III and Pueblo I periods. During theBasketmaker III period, he included Chaco Canyonsites in his La Plata variant (Gwinn Vivian 1990:Figure 5.1), which extends from the Mesa Verde onthe north to the lower Chuska Valley on the south, andfrom the Arizona-New Mexico border on the west tothe "Chaco core" on the east. His Lupton variant(located to the southwest) slowly expands and overlapswith the La Plata variant by Pueblo I; during thisperiod they are called the Piedra and the WhiteMound-Kiatuthlana variants (Gwinn Vivian 1990:Figure 6.1). Vivian's data support Bullard's (1962)conclusion that both a southern and northern populationwere present in Chaco Canyon during this period.Gwinn Vivian (1990: 133-134) suggested that theChaco core area was initially a hunting and gatheringarea used by descendants of En Medio period peopleswho probably retreated into the highland areas orbecame sedentary during Basketmaker III. Hesuggested that La Plata colonists also moved into thearea and established homes, so that by A.D. 700people who descended from both variants were firmlyentrenched. For Pueblo I, he listed several distinctionsthat are seen in the architecture of the San JuanBasin sites: 1) the northern habitation surface roomsare twice as large as the southern ones; 2) thenorthern-related sites link room blocks and createplazas; 3) the northern sites exhibit a curvilinear plan,in contrast to short linear room blocks found in thesouth; 4) in southern-style sites, the ramada workareas are not as well defined or tied to storage roomsas those in the north; and 5) great kivas are found inthe northern sites but not in the southern. Thus,Vivian (1990: 153-154) would support Bullard's(1962) observations, with expected forms in the ChacoBasin being transitional between the two areas. Thisdifferentiation and overlapping use of the canyonformed the basis for later developments; Vivianattributed the construction of sites that exhibited greathouses to northern populations, who established watercontrol systems and gridded gardens; the southernpopulations were considered inhabitants of smallhouse sites who continued to use akchin farmingmethods.If Gwinn Vivian's distinctions for the BasketmakerIII-Pueblo I period are correct, the two BasketmakerIII sites with great kivas (Shabik'eshcheeVillage and 29SJ423) reflect the presence of anorthern popUlation that relied on hunting andgathering and remained in place into Pueblo I times.The curvilinear plan at 29SJ724 (McKenna 1986:Figure 1.15) also reflects a northern characteristic.The Basketmaker III component at 29S1299 (McKenna1986:Figures 1.9 and 1.10) is linear, as is the PuebloI component at 29SJ627 (McKenna 1986:Figure1.18), reflecting southern styles. At 29SJ629, thePueblo I component started out as a linear block thatlater curves at one end, perhaps reflecting a mixing ofthe two types. Whether this mixing indicates thatpeople from the two areas lived at the same site(perhaps an intermarriage and adaptation by onespouse to the other's style) has not be examined.

------- - -----------------Basketmaker III to Pueblo I 123Gwinn Vivian (1990, 1992) suggested thatnorthern populations had already adapted to a dualsystem of organization with specific functionsdelegated to leaders who made decisions during theirseasonal rotation. In the south he anticipated thatdecisionmaking rested more closely with the family orextended family, depending on the number of peopleaggregated together during a particular season. Inboth cases, he did not see a formal hierarchical systemevolving during these early periods; however, twoestablished forms of social organization were presentby the end of Pueblo I.Whatever social forms developed, we may needto consider that there may have been more than one setof institutions, and to consider how the integration ofseveral groups may have occurred. Other evidencesuggests that more than one group lived together ornearby in several places in the Anasazi World evenearlier. Scheick (1983; Scheick and Ware 1983) indicatedthat the area around Gallup, New Mexico, hasevidence for mixed cultural remains that span theentire time sequence from Archaic through Pueblo III.Chapters in the Kiva issue edited by Matson andDohm (1994) document the distinctions seen inBasketmaker II in southeast Utah. Papers in Reed(2000) support a similar conclusion for the BasketmakerIII along the Chuska Valley, as do Wilshusenand Ortman (1999) for the Pueblo I period insouthwestern Colorado. I expect, therefore, thatmechanisms in their social organization integrateddifferent lineage groups, and possibly different ethnicor linguistic groups, quite early.Sebastian (1988: 132-140; 1992b:99-104) preferrednot to label the type of social organization; rather,she was concerned with how social organization woulddevelop, and why it would change, and the processesinvolved. She acknowledged the shift in settlementpatterns from Basketmaker III to Pueblo 1. Althoughthe reasons are not precisely ascertained, severalpossibilities could be considered; e.g., new strains ofhigher yielding cultigens, or the attainment of acritical density threshold for population. Sebastianpreferred the latter because survey data (Judge et al.1981) indicate that the better watered areas throughoutthe San Juan Basin were becoming densely settled.The movement of agriculturalists into former huntingand gathering locations would probably result inincreased agricultural production and multiyearstorage. The Pueblo I above-ground storage facilitiessupport this consideration. She saw a pattern ofincipient or low-level sociopolitical differentiationthroughout the Anasazi region by A.D. 900.Again, following Judge et al. (1981) and Cordell(1982a, 1982b), Sebastian proposed that two optionswere available to the Chacoans to increase theiragricultural production: 1) a land-extensive strategywherein numerous plots in different physiographicsettings were planted in the hopes that some wouldsurvive and provide sufficient crops; and 2) a laborintensivestrategy wherein facilities to capture anddistribute runoff required a system to construct,maintain, monitor, and manipulate such facilities.Individual families or corporate groups would maketheir decisions based on the topography and hydrologyof the land. Their decisions, however, would affectfuture production and organizational trajectories. Anextensive land use strategy would never achieve anincrease in the water available to crops, but it wouldrequire continued use of diverse topographic andhydrologic settings. This could lead to problems,especially if popUlation increases brought about adecrease in the size of plots available to each groupthrough time. Leadership would focus more on howto allocate land and how to regulate its use (e.g.,marriage alliances and inheritance), as well as managingcalendrical events related to the agricultural year.Those who chose a labor-intensive strategy wouldhave increased the amount of water available to crops.They would be more concerned with the organizationof labor to construct and manage their system.Sebastian suggested that decisionmaking by consensuswould have been replaced by decisionmaking by thosein positions of authority, which would result in greaterdifferentiation in jobs and centralization of authority.The latter group would need additional labor; theformer would need jobs for surplus popUlations.Because Sebastian assumed that both strategies wouldhave been operational, kin ties and social obligationswould bind them together.Sebastian viewed Pueblo I as the period duringwhich the two trajectories led to an imbalance andgroups that selected for a labor-intensive strategyaccumulated larger surpluses and could afford morefrequent displays that would demonstrate their success(whether due to better influence with the supernaturalor as a means to engender social obligations). When

124 Chaco Project Synthesisobligations could not be paid through goods orservices (e.g., ceremonial duties, labor, or assistancein warfare or defense), reciprocity and mutual aid thatexisted among kin groups would have been strained.A pattern ofleaders and followers emerged. Sebastiansuggested that throughout the Anasazi region there isevidence of such differentiation. Although she did notsee leaders achieving permanent roles, they couldconvert their success into ascribed status roles. Thetwo distinct uses of pit structures (as domestic quartersand as ritual settings) may indicate that someindividuals or groups began to build "a power base ofritual knowledge and access to the supernatural"(Sebastian 1992b: 104).Although data from the Chaco Project did notdirectly tie the Archaic settlements to those ofBasketmaker III, Stuart (2000) recently elaborated onhow choices made during one period affect lateroutcomes. He suggested that a period of unstableprecipitation from 500 B.C. to A.D. 1 would have ledto some experimentation with cultigens, which overtime meant a larger investment in time to secure food.The presence oflarge com cobs and new com types inarchaeological sites dated to this period, plus theexistence of large and more permanent camps withsome storage facilities, indicate that some people wereshifting toward a slightly more sedentary life styledependent on a greater labor input.With the rise in precipitation and water tablesjust prior to A.D. 1, the ground water in intermittentstream beds would have been sufficient to supportsmall-scale agriculture. A dependable food source inone place would be advantageous to people living ina patchy environment. As a result, there would besome areas where farming became more intense. Thefew scattered pithouses and greater storage in suchsettings attest to such beginnings. Those families whochose this more labor-intensive food productionstrategy would be able to produce more children. Inthe long run, they would overcome the traditionalhunters and gatherers.Stuart characterized the Basketmaker period asone of experimentation. During the early Basketmakerperiod (A.D. 1 to 400), settlements with pithouseswould be established in upland elevationsoverlooking lower ground near streams and intermittentwashes that allowed better farming. Contemporarysites in dune areas would have ramadas butnot pithouses; these would be hunter-gatherer seedprocessingsites. He interpreted these two sets of sitesas 1) fall and winter settlements with pithouses; and 2)spring and summer foraging camps at lowerelevations. A major revolution in cooking is indicatedby the appearance of pottery around A.D. 300 to 400.Between A.D. 400 and 750, or Late Basketmaker,pithouse settlements increased in size. Larger settlementsare found in uplands, but as populationincreased by the A.D. 600s and 700s, hamletsappeared in lower and more open basins such as ChacoCanyon. An increase in population growth by theA.D. 800s locked the popUlation into a pattern.During the Pueblo I period, Stuart proposed amore conservative approach. The decrease in precipitationduring the late A.D. 700s and its more erraticappearance made uplands more attractive. A shortergrowing season would make agriculture moreunpredictable and increase trade relationships betweencommunities that would share risks. Experimentswith new types of com and learning the advantages offarming in better watered areas would contrast withmoving, foraging, and trading. Thus, there would bean enhancement of trade and social connections. As aresult of what he terms "mixed signals," Stuart sawthe period between A.D. 760 and 860 as one needingnew solutions.But at A. D. 800 most of the lowlands weresimply not yet the place to be. LowlandBasketmaker sites similar to Shabik'escheeVillage in Chaco Canyon were abandonedaltogether, and no Pueblo I sites were builton top. Many of the lower-elevationBasketmaker sites are believed to havebeen used only intermittently orseasonally, when intervals of cooler,wetter climate favored temporary gardeningthere. Three notable exceptions liein Chaco Canyon itself, where Pueblo Jstyle settlements built just after 800 areconsidered the oldest core units at theeventual "great-house" sites of PuebloBonito, Penasco Blanco, and Una Vida.Each had an unusual number of multistoryrear storage rooms behind the residencesand pithouses. Why should Chaco Canyonhave been an exception? And why, apart

--------Basketmaker III to Pueblo I 125from the University of Arizona's R. GwinnVivian, do so few archaeologists makeanything of it? (Stuart 2000:55)Unknown to Stuart at the time, a dune dam across theChaco Wash at its confluence with the Escavada Washmay have ensured a high water table in the canyon. (Force et a1. 2002).Stuart accepted that from the A.D. 700s on therewere two rainfall patterns in the San Juan Basin. Tothe west, a bimodal pattern provided water duringboth winter snowfalls and summer rainfaHs. To theeast and southeast, mid-sununer to late summer providedthe rains. Stuart considered Chaco to be on theboundary between these two areas; he proposed thatthe Chacoans became brokers in trade between theseareas and that pottery was the medium of exchange.Thus, during Pueblo I, the young families of farmersmoving into new areas used trade networks to shareresources. The period around A.D. 830 or 840 iswhen we see the presence of different settlement typesthat include the beginnings of great house settlementsand communities (Stuart 2000:56).Yet, as Schelberg (1982a) noted, importation ofceramics, lithics, and other nonlocal materials intoChaco Canyon was taking place as early asBasketmaker III. The ability to move from place toplace during this period, whether to hunt and gather orto establish new agricultural fields, would haveafforded kin groups the opportunity to provide theirrelatives and associates with objects obtained fromlong distances or to exchange goods and informationwith non-kin groups. At this time, we have notexamined the data in an attempt to link different roomsuites and their outdoor areas within sites to differentsources. We have not deciphered whether lithicartifacts from excavated sites indicate that differentsources may have been used as the result of visitingdifferent areas as part of the annual round or whetherthey represent changes in places where people traded.Judge's observations on obsidian and basalt imports atdifferent times and Cameron's analysis of lithicmaterials suggest shifts in the intensity and type of useof resource areas by periods. We may begin toappreciate how decisions made in times past affectedthe options available later and how Puebloan traditionsthat exist today may have started early.Recently Wilshusen and Ortman (1999), who areworking north of the San Juan River, suggested thatthe minor changes in rainfall during the late A. D.800s initiated a movement of peoples out ofsouthwestern Colorado toward the south. If accurate,the late A.D. 800s in Chaco Canyon may also haveaccommodated increasing numbers of northernneighbors, many of whom could have been related .Mobility options may have been determined throughkin groups and based on who had sufficient surplus tohandle additional relatives. The effects of shiftingpopulations and additional populations in some areas(e.g., Chaco Canyon) on social organization are justbeginning to be discussed.In summary, data from the Chaco Project helpedto clarify and establish a chronology for architecturalchanges that took place from Basketmaker III toPueblo 1. What is evident is that there were aireadysome large settlements in the canyon duringBasketmaker III, but that these settlements shifted tolower latitudes by Pueblo I, probably because ofincreasing dependence on agriculture, which requiredestablishment on better watered lands. By the midA.D. 800s, at least three major settlements along theconfluences of smaller washes that drain into theChaco had evidence for the establishment of largerthan-averagestructures that later grew into the greathouses for which Chaco is so well known.Models for subsistence and social organizationby Chaco Project investigators and their colleaguesvary, but all questioned the model put forth by JulianSteward (1937) that suggests a band-to-tribe organization.Instead, Schelberg (1982a) proposed that aranked social order would have been necessary inorder to monitor changes in production across theregion. Wills and Windes (1989) did not believe thata ranked society existed during the Basketmaker IIIperiod; they proposed that there was still reliance onseasonal pinon harvests and that leadership would besituational. They did propose use of two differentstorage facilities (antechambers and cists) representingshort-term and long-term facilities. They interpretedthis to indicate less-than-full-time agricultural dependence.In contrast, the macrobotanical analysis ofM. Toll (1993a) suggested that the ubiquity of comduring the Basketmaker III and Pueblo I periods wasmuch higher than during Pueblo II. If dependence on

--------126 Chaco Project Synthesiscom was higher than during Early Pueblo II, we needto re-examine the dependence on agriculture duringthese different periods. If dependence is higher thanany of the other investigators assumed, thenSchelberg's proposal of a ranked society needs furtherinvestigation.Support for populations composed of peoplefrom both the northern and southern parts of the basinwas found in differences in pit structures and types offaunal remains found at several small sites. Whencombined with more recent data in Reed (2000),Wilshusen and Ortman (1999), and Gwinn Vivian(1990), it is likely that more than one group lived sideby side in several areas in the San Juan Basin byBasketmaker III. Thus, any models of social organizationmust account for the integration of multiplegroups, possibly moving between kin-linked locations.Whether hunting grounds were shared by numerousgroups or limited to kin groups is unknown. Similarquestions arise for sources of goods such as mineralsand lithic resources.In conclusion, Chaco Project investigations haveshown that the early Pueblo culture is much morecomplicated than previously thought. To fully understandthe foundations on which Classic Chacoansociety was based, new models will need to considersuch variables as kinship, mobility, mechanisms forsocial integration, and level of social organization inmuch more detail.

Chapter FiveThe Florescence of the Chaco People:The Classic Period (Pueblo II to Early Pueblo III)The climax of this development was Pueblo Bonito. From the treasures found within its ruinedwalls we can reconstruct the golden days of Pueblo history. Bonito housed somewhere around1,000 people and there must have been 3,000 to 4,000 people in the canyon living in the othercommunal dwellings. To Chaco came the riches of the Pueblo world through an extensive tradesystem. Shells from the west coast and the Gulf of Mexico, pottery from the neighbors on all sides,parrots and copper bells from old Mexico, and various Jl'Iineral pigments and semi-preciousturquoise came from the four comers of their far-flung country. (Pierson 1956: 15)Most of what was known about Chaco Canyonprior to 1969 was derived from excavations at severallarge pueblos and a number of smaller sites dating tothe Classic period (Appendix A). Summaries of earlyresearch by Brand (1937a) and by Gordon Vivian andMathews (1965) provided overviews of the natural setting,environment, and resources available, as well asthe known changes in architecture and material culture.Based on available tree-ring samples, Bannister(1965) found considerable unity among dated sitesranging between A.D. 828 and 1178, a period he considered"Classic" and one that encompassed what arenow defined as Late Pueblo I through Pueblo III sites(see Appendix B for a correlation of chronologicalschemes used during different studies). Cessation ofthe construction of large pueblos and a dwindling ofthe population were thought to have occurred by themid-A.D. 1100s. Several possible reasons for thisflorescence and decline have been proposed.Why this florescence and decline occurred in asemiarid environment needed explanation. AlthoughKidder (1924) painted a bleak picture of ChacoCanyon and its surrounding area, Gordon Vivian andMathews (1965:1-5, 14) recognized its uniquenesswithin the central San Juan Basin, in that perennialgreen cover existed in side canyons where there werepockets of trees and other vegetation not found on thecanyon floor or flat plains to the north and south.Although the greatest variation in vegetation andlargest number of species were found in these sidecanyons, they were not necessarily representative ofthe entire area. Based on the presence of a few localpine trees (Hawley 1934; Judd 1954) and estimates ofbetween 75,000 and 100,000 trees used in constructionof Chetro Ket!, Vivian and Mathews(1965: 110) suggested that a widespread pine beltprobably receded as construction needs increased.Comparison of 32 years of precipitation records withhistoric Hopi agricultural needs (Hack 1942) indicatedthat the growing season, calculated at 150 days, waslong enough, but the average annual precipitation of22 cm (8.71 in) in Chaco was about half of the 47.5em (16 in) needed to produce Hopi com. Thus, unlessadditional water was captured, dry farming would betenuous at best. Floodwater farming, enhanced bycapturing runoff from north side mesas using watercontrol features, however, would increase availablewater. Evidence for water control features had beenrecorded by a number of investigators (Brand 1937b:113-114; Bryan 1954:38, 39; Hewett 1905, 1936: 123-125; Holsinger 1901; Judd 1954:55-57). Floodwaterirrigation and akchin fields were therefore consideredthe most likely farming methods used. Based onphysiographic features, locations of the former on thenorth side of the Chaco Wash and the latter on thesouth side were postulated. Gordon Vivian began astudy of aerial photographs to determine where canals

128 Chaco Project Synthesisfor irrigation systems were located (Gwinn Vivian1983b). The presence of canals, mostly on the northside, and the long-term changes that their presencewould imply, would be one clue to help explaindifferences between settlements in the canyon.Differences in site size on the two sides of thecanyon and initial acceptance of Kidder' s (1924) PecosClassification had led to the proposition that smallsites were constructed and used earlier than largepueblos. Excavations at Bc 50 and Bc 51 (Hawley1937b; Kluckhohn 1939a) negated that concept; thesesmall sites were contemporaneous, in part, withChetro Ket!. Yet site size and evidence of materialculture differed. The different architectural and potterystyles uncovered at Kin Kletso (Gordon Vivianand Mathews 1965) supported the possibility of threedifferent groups; this McElmo style could represent alate migration.The presence of copper bells, macaws, and otherimports, plus similar architecture at several large sitesin the San Juan Basin, were recognized as evidence forlong-distance trade. Based on a comparison of architecturalfeatures, the question of Mesoamerican influencewas raised again (Ferdon 1955). Researchersworking in northern and western Mexico were pursuingthese lines of investigation (DiPeso 1968a,1968b, 1974; J. Kelley and Kelley 1975). Theirmodels proposed that foreigners would have beenresponsible for teaching local populations about craftsand masonry techniques, and that the florescence ofChaco could be correlated with events farther south.Thus, a regional perspective would be needed to integratedata from sites resembling Chaco (e.g., Aztec[Morris 1928], Lowry [Paul Sidney Martin 1936], andthe Village of the Great Kivas [Roberts 1932]), and toevaluate the concept of foreign influence.If the Pueblo social organization evident inChaco was indigenous and similar to that of historicpeople, possible reasons for abandonment included 1)accumulation of black alkali soils that became imperrnerabledue to irrigation (Judd 1954:60); 2)progressive up-canyon arroyo-cutting (Bryan 1954);and 3) elimination of perennial cover through farming,which led to soil erosion and abandonment of fields.Because there were no tree-ring dates for the periodfrom A.D. 1126 to 1300, Gordon Vivian andMathews (1965) thought the Classic period was muchlike today, but that between A.D. 1276 and 1299conditions were twice as dryas at present.In summary, the Classic period provided evidencefor contemporaneous occupation of small andlarge sites, with two different architectural stylesdescribed for the latter. Egalitarian social organization,migration of people, and long-distanceexchange were possible explanations for thedifferences between "towns" and "villages." Ethnographicanalogy provided models to explain Chaco aspart of a long-standing Puebloan system, or the resultofpochteca traders from Mexico. Either organizationcould have been responsible for the unusual developmentsrecorded in Chaco Canyon.With the wealth of new data resulting from theChaco Project, it is now possible to divide Bannister's(1965) "Classic· period into finer segments: TheEarly, Classic, and Late Bonito phases (Appendix B:Table B.1). This chapter will focus on survey andexcavation data that indicate evidence for change atboth large and small sites during the period from A.D.850 to 1150 and the propositions put forth to accountfor that change. How more specific chronologicaldivisions evolved is seen in the survey and excavationdata presented below.Survey ResultsJudge (1972) defined Pueblo II small sites asthose with surface rooms, a kiva depression, andceramics that were comprised predominantly of RedMesa and Gallup black-an-white ceramic wares, witha high percentage of corrugated utility ware. How toassign small sites to Pueblo III was less clear. Thecontemporaneity of Bc 50 with the great houses(Kluckhohn 1939a:156-157) and Gordon Vivian's(Vivian and Mathews 1965:29) exclusion of coredmasonry, internal kivas, and McElmo Black-on-whitefrom Pueblo II prompted Judge to base distinctions onceramic types. Mancos Black-on-white, McElmoBlack-on-white, Tusayan Black-on-white, and WingateBlack-on-red were considered evidence for a PuebloIII assignment. As a result, 59 sites in the transectsurvey were classified as Pueblo II, and 58 as PuebloIII.Pueblo II small sites lacked any general associationswith environmental attributes (Judge 1972).

~---------------------------------------------------------------------The Florescence 129Although they were nearly evenly located on MenafeeShales or Cliff House Sandstone, there was no concentrationin a particular topographic area. The mostdistinct environmental attribute of these sites wasslope direction to the northeast, followed by atendency to be located in canyon bottoms. Pueblo IIIsmall sites tended to be located on Menafee Shales,frequently in rincons, but on flat lowlands or erosionalescarpments, in contrast to the ridges or dunes notedfor the Basketmaker III sites.Pueblo II small sites had an average of 3.8rooms, a predominance of chaicedony and a lack ofobsidian, and very few projectile points. In contrast,Pueblo III small sites had more rooms and kivas anda wide variety of ceramic types. In addition to chalcedony,lithic materials included chert, quartzite, andsilicified wood. Side-notched projectile points werereported frequently and ground stone implements alsoincreased in numbers.Hayes (1981) addressed the confusion in ceramictypes as described by Hawley (1934b, 1936, 1939)and Roberts (1927) and correlated by Gordon Vivian(1959, 1965). Hayes's goal was to refine the datingand improve knowledge about the extent of the problems.Based primarily on ceramic types and architecturalstyles, Hayes (1981: 19-20) defined five periods:Early Pueblo II (A.D. 900 to 975). Roomblocks often were linear rather than curved, andTohatchi Banded was the diagnostic ceramic type. Atthis time, Red Mesa Black-on-white, Escavada Blackon-white,and Coolidge Corrugated appeared.Late Pueblo II (A.D. 975 to 1050). Walls weremore substantial, especially those in kivas that arenow lined with masonry. Although the Early PuebloII pottery types continue, Gallup Black-on-white andWingate Black-on-red appear. Early construction atgreat houses was not considered distinct enough toseparate them from small house sites.Early Pueblo III (A.D. 1050 to 1175). A dichotomyexisted between contemporary great housesand small house sites. Large pueblos were assigned tothe Bonito phase and small sites to the Hosta Buttephase. These small houses were very similar to earlierones, but tended to be L-shaped in ground plan andslightly more compact. Chaco Black-on-white, a lesscommon ceramic type, appears. There was an increasein carbon-painted wares and a change in utilitywares from Coolidge to Chaco corrugated wares. Ifsherds of these types were not present on a smallhouse site, it was not considered to have lasted intothe Pueblo III period, and many assigned to LatePueblo II did not.Late Pueblo III (A.D. 1175 to 1350). Large,shaped blocks of softer sandstone masonry and thepresence of Mesa Verde Black-on-white ceramicscharacterize sites assigned to this period, which is thesubject of Chapter 7.Hayes was aware that room estimates were notalways adequate to estimate population size. At29SJ627, the survey crew documented three roomsand one kiva, but excavation revealed 25 rooms, sevenpit structures, and a trash midden (Hayes 1981:28;Truell 1992:8). Hayes'S estimates compensated forthis problem and provided a combined Pueblo IIpopulation of estimate of 3,240 people and an EarlyPueblo III estimate of 5,625 people. (For the latterperiod, the Hosta Butte phase or small site populationwas estimated at 2,889 people and the Bonito Phase as2,763 people [Hayes 1981:50-51].)Settlement locations changed considerably betweenEarly and Late Pueblo II. The major EarlyPueblo II site cluster was located in the central canyonaround Pueblo Bonito and Chetro Ketl. There was adecrease in cluster size from earlier periods at SouthGap and Fajada Butte, but the cluster near PadillaWell remained much the same. By Late Pueblo II, thecluster at Padilla Well had grown, and the mesa topsand plains north and south of the canyon were nearlyabandoned. Rather than clusters at definable locations,there was now a string of small sites extendingthe length of the valley floor. During Early PuebloIII, this canyon-floor small-site pattern persisted, butthere was a population concentration, including greathouses, at the mouth of South Gap. Construction ofnew great houses or additions to existing ones hadincreased in scale and frequency. A number of otherarchitectural features (water control, cairns, shrines,stone circles, quarries, and road-related features) wereassigned to the combined Pueblo II-Pueblo III period.Thus, Early Pueblo III represented the peak for populationand construction in the canyon (Hayes 1981).The many new features and the differences between

----------------130 Chaco Project SynthesisHosta Butte and Bonito phase sites led Hayes (1981:60-61) to suggest that these two phases of EarlyPueblo III could reflect either two different socialsystems (one partly foreign and possibly Mexican inorigin) or a stratified society (c. f., Grebinger 1973).Both hypotheses would require further investigationthrough excavations.Data on settlement and popUlation changes alongtwo tributaries of the Chaco Wash located west of thecanyon were recorded by Sebastian and Altschul(1986). In both sections, there was decreased use ofupland areas around A.D. 1025 or 1030. Initial constructionof great houses in the Kin Bineola and KinKlizhin communities, however, occurred duringdifferent periods: the late A.D. 800s at Kin Bineola,vs. the mid-A.D. lO00s at Kin Klizhin. Within thefloodplains of the Kin Bineola survey area, there wasan early small Chacoan site in the southern portion.Location of field houses and habitation sites movedslowly upstream through time, eventually clusteringnear Kin Bineola. A dam and water control featuressuggested floodwater farming at a communal level(Sebastian and Altschul 1986; Van Dyke and Powers2006b). In the Kin Klizhin section, general upstreammovement filled all arable land between A.D. 1030and 1130. Here, however, habitation sites were regularlyspaced, and interspersed with field houses. Thepresence of approximately four to five field houses perhabitation site suggested a pattern of dispersed agriculturalfields. Unlike the Kin Bineola section, thepresence of the Chacoan structure here did not indicatea clustering of habitations nearby; instead, manymoved away from this site. Key areas for agriculturehad been settled early; when old fields were exhausted,movement to establish new fields ensued(Sebastian and Altschul 1986).Sebastian and Altschul (1986) recognized somebehavioral similarities for these two sections; e.g., amctior change in A.D. 890, when the number and varietyof site components began to increase. Prior to thistime, components consisted mostly of habitation sitesand scatters with hearths. Between A.D. 890 and1025, components were dominated by field houses andnonstructural sites; habitations became the dominanttype after A.D. 1030 to 1130. Sebastian and Altschulconcluded that these movements were responses tomicroregional shifts in agricultural potential. Therewas probably a gradual expansion of the popUlationfrom their initial habitation space into new areas,possibly in more than one location. Activities that hadtaken place in nonhabitation components during thelater periods had been performed in habitationcomponents during earlier periods. An increase in thesize of room blocks at habitation sites and an increasedclustering of habitations into communities wereconsidered additional evidence for a system in whichsites had narrower or more specialized functions orranges of activities through time. Yet the people livingin these two sections probably were more concernedwith their own well-being than they were with theneeds of a larger social group. They did not see thesetwo communities tightly integrated into Chacoansociety, but Kin Klizhin was thought to have hadcloser ties to the canyon than Kin Bineola.Population estimates for the two areas for theperiod from A.D. 1030 to 1130 were in the rangefrom 878 to 937 for the Kin Bineola area and from137 to 166 for the Kin Klizhin area. When Sebastianand Altschul (1986) reviewed the estimates of howmany people might be supported on the "good" and"fair" agricultural lands defined by A. Cully and Toll(1986), there were more people than could havesupported themselves as farmers. Their peak in populationin A.D. 1030 to 1130 is slightly later thanHayes's (1981) peak, and may be attributable to theirdefinition of the field house component. Hayes (1981)considered one-room structures to be field houses,with pueblos having two or more rooms. During theadditional lands survey, field houses were defined ashaving two or fewer rooms, while habitation sitesconsisted of more than two rooms.In summary, surveys not only documented thelocations for various types of sites or components, butalso indicated major changes through time. Movementfrom uplands to lowlands and the filling up ofgood agricultural lands were completed during theperiod from A.D. 1030 to 1130. There were clustersof sites, some located around great houses and somenot, but the great houses (with a few exceptions thatwere in close proximity to Pueblo Bonito) were locatednear water sources that were tributaries of theChaco Wash. Throughout the Pueblo II and PuebloIII periods, there was an increase in population. Thedefinition and role of field houses, however, needsfurther clarification.

The Florescence 131ExcavationsData from excavations not only expanded ourunderstanding of the chronological developments inarchitecture, ceramics, and artifact types, but alsoraised several new topics for discussion. Site29SJ1360, located on a ridge north of Fajada Butte,'was originally thought to be representative of PuebloI, but was an excellent example of Pueblo II use.Within the discrete geographic area known as Marcia'sRincon, three sites (29SJ627, 29SJ628, and 29SJ629)were excavated, and three others (29SJ626, 29SJ630,and 29SJ633) were tested to examine settlementchange through time (see summary in Truell1992:6-8). Because numerous roads entered the canyon nearPueblo Alto (29SJ389), this great house was chosenfor excavation (Windes 1987[1]). Other excavatedsites included a road-related feature (29JS 1010)(Drager and Lyons 1983a); the Chetro Ketl field(Loose and Lyons 1976a); a shrine at 29SJ423 (Hayesand Windes 1975); several stone circles (Windes1978); and the fireboxes fronting Hillside ruin nearPueblo Bonito (Windes, field notes, 1978). This summaryillustrates why the period from A.D. 850 to1150 includes the florescence of Chaco culture andunderscores new issues, not all of which have yet beenfully resolved.298J1360This small house site, located just below andnorth of Fajada Butte, was occupied from approximatelyA.D. 850 through 1030 (Figures 5.1 and 5.2).Two house mounds associated with pit structures, atrash midden, several retaining walls, and otherextramural features may represent part of a largeroccupation that included an unexcavated site,29SJ1278. McKenna's (1984) analysis of the architectureand material culture indicates initial constructionaround A.D. 850 to 950 of rooms 2,4, and possibly3, in House 1, Pit structure C, and the lowest floor(Floor 2) of Pithouse B. From about A.D. 950 to1030, he found evidence for the addition of rooms 6,9, and 11 in House 1, the ramada area, and Kiva A infront of House 2. An L-shaped wall complex (mealingarea) and Room 1, plus the retaining wall north ofPithouse B, were also attributed to this period. Byabandonment (around A.D. 1020 to 1030), the inhabitantsof Pithouse B were using House 1 plazaareas, Room 1, and the L-shaped complex; and rooms7,9, and 11 (two of which had unusually large firepitsand may represent special use areas) in House 1.Contemporary trash was thrown into Kiva A.Because Pithouse B was left intact after anunusual event, household furnishings provide a uniqueview of the material culture in use at the end of thepithouse's use. Human remains in Pithouse B indicatethat two women, probably in their late 30s to early40s, and three children, plus their dogs, died of ashyxiationduring the cold season. One woman (Burial2) and child in the main part of the pithouse werelying on mats, seemingiyasieep. A younger woman(Burial 1) was found in the raised area to the southbehind the wing wall in a position that suggests thatshe was trying to save an infant by placing it in theventilator shaft, but she fell backward into anotheryoung child who also died in this area. The unusualplacement of the area behind the wing walls at 30 cmabove the floor of the main chamber may have providedmore oxygen, but the deflector could haveprevented proper air circulation and caused a build-upof carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide. McKenna(1984) suggested that two projectile points and othertraumatic evidence found with Burial 2 were probablythe result of slightly earlier damage. Stuart (2000)argued against a violent ending for the woman becauseboth dogs are in positions of repose, and they wouldhave heard anyone above who intended to harm thewomen. Although some ceramics in Pithouse B (RedMesa Black-on-white and narrow-neckbanded culinaryware) fall generally into the Early Bonito phase,the presence of early Gallup Black-on-white, EscavadaBlack-an-white, and Mancos Black-an-white placedthis event and the terminal use of this structure ataround A.D. 1020 to 1030.In addition to the two women and children,McKenna (1984: 199) considered other evidence tosuggest that this pit structure may have been used bytwo nuclear families. The pairing of open and closedceramic forms (e.g., two early Gallup Black-an-whitepitchers) on both sides of the firepit suggests use by anextended group, as did two possible clusters of bonetools on distinct sides of the bench (McKenna 1984:35-345). He thought these could represent two disincttool kits, a single tool kit duplicated in both areas,or one tool kit that was scattered along the bench.McKenna favored the last. Additionally, rooms 7 and11, both located behind the storage areas in House 1,

"'1 (llllbllfJlI ea.",,P 'h.-plttiP H ..,l", PI,AT "".lft1ftt WallHOUSE I0·· .."- "...........Figure 5.1.Map of 29SJ1360. (Taken from McKenna 1986:Figure 1.17.)

------ -- - -- --The Florescence 133,..- ....IJ" ,I ,f I\ I, ./.... _0#"'.Period I: AD 850-950Period II: AD 950-1010,maximum extent of sitej/Period IIa: ca. AD-I02G-I030,areas in use at abandonment (?)....- ....0 / \, J/--""Figure 5.2. Construction phases at 29SJ1360. (Taken from McKenna 1984:Figure 2.77.)

------~ --- - ---l34 Chaco Project Synthesishave unusually large firepits, possibly indicative ofspecial preparation areas.Some specialized tasks were carried out at thissite. Lapidary tool kits and a number of turquoisepieces on the bench in Pithouse B and in Plaza Area 5suggest jewelry-making (McKenna 1984:275, 306,Table 5; Mathien 1984). The bone tool kites) on thebench also suggest a variety of other tasks (McKenna1984:335). Although a number of ceramic items thatcould have been part of a potter's tool kit were presentin Pithouse B, the tools were multifunctional in natureand could not be considered representative of a fulltimespecialist's tool kit. Because McKenna believedthat 29S11360 was last used during the winter, andpottery-making was a warm-weather activity, hesuspected that such a tool kit may not be easily seen.A large number of ceramics and the somewhat limitedvariability in certain production traits on black-onwhiteitems also add weight to the proposition ofonsite ceramic production (McKenna 1984:203-204).Several unusual finds led McKenna to entertaina relationship between the inhabitants of29SJ1360 andPueblo Bonito. Bin 1, located north of Room 3/10and east of Room 11 in House 1, resembled a pen forthe confinement of birds. The recovery of five elementsfrom an old macaw in the overburden or backdirtrepresent the only known macaw remains fromChaco Canyon not found in a great house site.Recovery of macaws from several locations andnumerous complete macaw skeletons at Pueblo Bonito(Judd 1964; Pepper 1920) suggests they were kept forspecial purposes. Additionally, one cylinder jar sherdat 29SJ1360 (McKenna 1984:197-191) ties it toPueblo Bonito, which has the greatest numbers ofcylinder jars recovered to date (Pepper 1920; Judd1954; H. Toll 1990).Since McKenna (1984) prepared his report,Akins's (1986) craniometric study of a very limitedsample of human remains from sites in Chaco Canyonprovides another tantalizing clue. She discerned thatthe popUlation buried in the northern or central area ofPueblo Bonito was more closely related to severalindividuals, including \he women found in Pithouse Bat 29S11360, than they were to the popUlation buriedin the western area of Pueblo Bonito. Burial 2 at29SJ1360 is also the only person recovered from anysmall site that had a long strand of 3,889 disc beads asa necklace. The implications of these data for socialinteraction have not been fully explored. If such arelationship existed, there would be no distinctionamong popUlations living in great houses and smallhouse sites; some people may have lived in smallhouses and buried their dead in Pueblo Bonito.29SJ627This site (Figure 5.3), located on the south sideof the Chaco Wash in Marcia's Rincon, is the largestof the small sites excavated by the Chaco Project.Construction and remodeling of a row of rooms alongthe western edge of the room block and its associatedfeatures (ramadas and pit structures) started in themiddle A.D. 700s and continued into the middle A.D.lOOOs (Figure 5.4), suggesting an occupation of morethan 300 years. Changes in pit structure form andfunction (pithouse to kiva) were documented, as werechanges in the use of some of the above-groundstructures. Site use peaked around the middle A.D.looos, yet there is evidence of some use in the earlyA.D. 1100s (Truell 1992).Wall construction at 29SJ627 includes plastereddirt walls, puddled adobe lining, turtlebacks withspalls, upright slab and turtleback foundations, andsingle horizontal masonry. With the exception ofKiva E, pit structure walls were cut into the groundand plastered; there was limited evidence of masonry.McKenna (1986:82) suggested that the simplemasonry in Kiva E and in the southern wall and wingwall of Pithouse C may have functioned as a retainingwall for fill into which the structures had been builtrather than adoption of a masonry style. Throughtime, the pit structures at 29SJ627 tend to decrease insize, become more rounded, and be placed deeperbelow the surface. Placement of floor features becamemore formalized; and the number of these featuresdecreased through time. McKenna (1986:84) indicatedthat orientation of kivas in a north-south alignmentstabilized by the mid-A.D. looos.Truell (1992) divided the 25 rooms into foursuites (A through D). Suites A, B, and C were builtfirst (possibly in the late A.D. 800s, based on thepresence of Red Mesa ceramics). Pithouse C probablyserved all three suites. Suite D was constructed slightlylater and is probably associated with Pit StructureF. Typical of the pattern recorded throughout the

FP5ooo1

'(JR22 ':~~~-:';1~-;~./ -'-, ,'I "1 II• II "~ III I ~.•,,--......' .. -------- ";- ,'" t-S' AtO R19 ' 'Rl0o n,1 ulteI U. I[D 0 tdlil: I 'aI. II~-F.J~ I! !:: ~ -~'R" (U"'''a''''O)I;:j ~ 4 .~;p'--_&...L_...;:.. ___ --' I R 16 .' '. ~~ /S B \ ~/· '.ulte /l!)R:: 0 (;) .,: 0I b 'R8 .. 0 :' R23I ' •. D. I, • . . I,Suite C ~ I:_·.~-Cl.'~ II) ~-----=...::.... -- • .00'/ 0,\OJ'O I, ~Rl' ~. O· ~'-:-=- -=...-.-.()J 0 ZI I\ '. - I ,, ". .. ~/D \~,-" ,RS "/ ::_---:. ,,:"I R2 I 00 '-"I/ r • ,I ./ -- ........Suite 0 ~ ! R7 ~ II / "-, ---+- ~ /' \I I 0 /' I \I I -II l Plthouse H II R 1 I R6 0 II I~ l.~" \, 0 " ........ /'·0 I , I '- /, .. ,I~ ,R 11 I? -oII,II".... - " .-"Pithouse C;-,.-' ,..f , ,\ ./'--!/..... -'"\\IIII2 3 4 5 6~~~ __ ~-L.~metersFigure 5.4.Construction phases B, C, and D at 29SJ627. (Taken from McKenna 1986:Figures 1.18, 1.19, and 1.20.)

Plthou •• C~f 8 0 0-: ~oo:~g(_--_---#1R'2 q( - - - .... 1o ", ~;\[]l~'>~'----_:=:=,I II 11 /\a 1J2 3 4 5 6ImetersOC11,, '~ KIVA E ", "oo C3B BurIalR RoomC Cis'MB Mealing Bin:ra Sealed Doorway.- Uprl9ht SlabII1A UnexcavatedmelcrsFigure 5.4.(Cont'd.),

13 8 Chaco Project SynthesisAnasazi region at this time, the back two storagerooms were fronted by a larger living or work space,with a plaza area separating these ramada rooms froma pit structure. The ramadas were divided by lowwalls, and roofed; they contained a number of featuressuch as firepits, heating pits, and other work areas.Remodeling maintained the earlier pattern, yetreflected change and more variability in room use.Sometime during the late A.D. 900s through earlyA.D. 1000s, storage room walls were completelyrebuilt; the ramada area walls were tom down; thearea was resurfaced; and Room 19 (a storage room),which included a mealing catchment area, was built.By the mid-A.D. 1000s, above-ground rooms werefully walled and new floor surfaces were in use, aswere two or three pit structures (kivas D, G, and E).Room 17/18 and Room 20 had a series of mealingbins; other mealing basins were located in the plaza onthe east side of the pueblo. The presence of multiplebins in formal work areas suggests a division of thesite into specific functions. Ceramic analysis by R.Toll and McKenna (1992) supports differential use ofrooms. Mealing rooms 19 and 20 were associatedwith a high number of white wares, and might be partof the grinding complex. The presence of features andwhite wares in one of two rooms in the pairs ofstorage rooms (rooms 4/9 and 16/19), while the otherroom had no features and higher numbers of culinarywares, also suggests differences in types of storage,possibly long- and short-term (R. Toll and McKenna1992:225).An increase in the use of turquoise and shellafter A.D. 900 is documented by the presence of acache of 23 pieces of turquoise and two Olivella shellbeads in the ventilator tunnel of Kiva G that Truell(1992:90-91) considered to be either a ritual offeringat the time of construction or intentional fill. This isthe earliest (A.D. 1000s) such offering in a small-sitepit structure. Although most of the turquoise in thiscache resembled bead blanks, unfinished pieces ofturquoise were also found in two floor pits in storageRoom 16 (Mathien 1992). Cameron (1992:262) recordeda cache of seven drills of silicified wood(similar to those from workshop debris at 291S629) inRoom 5. These data only hint at, but do not prove,the manufacture of jewelry took place at this site,which also exhibits an increase in number of shellspecies from approximately the A.D. 900s throughl000s (Mathien 1992).29S]629 (Spadefoot Toad Site)This site (Figure 5.5) is also located in Marcia'sRincon. Nine rooms and three pit structures, a trashmidden, and several extramural features testify to itsuse from around A.D. 900 to the middle l000s, andagain in the early A.D. 1100s (Figure 5.6) (McKenna1986:65-71; Windes 1993). Architectural and ceramicdifferences allowed Windes to subdivide the data intoapproximately 50-year periods and discern changes insite use through time.Site 29S1629 may have been occupied by twofamilies or extended families and their descendants forapproximately 150 years (Windes 1993). Initial constructionof Pithouse 2, a ramada with a bell-shapedpit, and three to four tub-like storage rooms orientedtoward the east, occurred sometime between A.D. 875and 925. Some turquoise on Floor 2 of Pithouse 2hints at jewelry-making, which is well documented forthe next occupational phase. Between A.D. 925 and975, the smaller secondary Pithouse 3 was constructed,as was Other Pit 6 in the plaza. Other Pit 6,a possible storage facility for the new pithouse, mayhave been used for ceremonial purposes during thisperiod when change from pithouses to kivas occurred;or it could have functioned as additional space forthose using Pithouse 2. From A.D. 975 to 1000, twosets of living and storage rooms were added to thenorth and south ends of the surface rooms, andPithouse 2 was refloored and its ventilator wasremodeled into the sub floor type. Domestic activitiesin rooms 3 and 9 (the new, but not fully enclosed,living rooms on each end of the surface structure),dual sets of mealing bins and catchments in Pithouse2 and on the plaza work areas, and differences inramada work areas suggested the presence of twofamilies who may have used the surface living roomsduring warmer weather. Windes (1993) questionedwhether occupation was seasonal or permanent. Hecould not determine whether the families returned toPithouse 2 or moved elsewhere during colder times.Windes (1993:400) proposed that the addition of thetwo sets of rooms on the north and south ends of thesite may indicate the presence of permanent residents.The lack of Puerco B1ack-on-white, Escavada Black-

TRASH MOUNDoIoFigure 5.5. Map of 29SJ629. (Taken from McKenna 1986:Figure 1.16.)

140 Chaco Project Synthesis.')•Phase IAO 875 -925o, I6mfI, ...... , .",- - .. :Phose III ... __' ____ ,AD 925 - 975,,0 "o'0~eo: 0 I10 00 00,,0

The Florescence 141on-white, and Gallup Black-on-white sherds suggeststhat the site was abandoned sometime between A.D.1000 and 1030. Limited use occurred between A.D.1100 and 1150, when a kiva (Pithouse 1) was builtover Pithouse 2, Room 1 was added, and Plaza Firepit5 and Bin 1 were in use, which Windes postulatedmay be related to events at nearby 29SJ630.Recovery of predominantly Red Mesa Black-onwhiteceramics covers 150 years of use of 29SJ629.Both the transition from Kiatuthlanna Black-on-whiteto Red Mesa Black-on-white and from Red MesaBlack-on-white to Gaiiup Biack-on-white represent thecontinuum of black-on-white ceramic development inthe area (H. Toll and McKenna 1993). There wassome change in design elements between the early andlate Red Mesa Black-on-white ceramic period.U sing temper to determine sources of ceramicvessels made outside of Chaco Canyon, H. Toll andMcKenna (1993) deduced that at this site white-wareimports may have declined through time while graywareimports more than doubled. The decrease inwhite-ware imports is not straightforward, however,because there was an Anasazi-wide decrease in sandstonegrain size in temper through time. Because finegrainedsandstone is dominant in Chaco Canyon, butpresent in other areas as well, some ceramics with thistemper type could have been imports as well. Alongwith these changes, H. Toll and McKenna documentedincreased standardization in ceramic production,which included a gradual sophistication in white-wareproduction and more formalized or specialized graywarevessels. Based on the recovery of several nonfiredceramic pieces, Windes (1993:396) suggestedthat special ceramic items were made on the site.Debris from turquoise ornament manufacturingrecovered in Pithouse 2, as well as in the Plaza Grid9 floor and associated pits, indicates that much timewas spent in the preparation of beads and pendants,probably representing part-time craft specialization(Mathien 1984, 1993b, 2001b; Windes 1993).Because most of the turquoise recovered representsunfinished pieces or workshop debris, the use offinished items probably occurred elsewhere.Windes (1993) noted similarities in and differencesbetween contemporary small sites. 29SJ629 ismuch smaller than 29SJ627; yet the presence ofmultiple mealing bins and/or catchments suggests thatconsiderable grinding activity took place at both sites.Windes proposed that the large number of grindingand food processing tools suggest heavy dependenceon horticulture. This increase in mealing areas is alsoseen at 29SJ1360, which, like 29SJ629, has evidencefor turquoise jewelry production and ceramic production.Although Windes (1993) considered 29SJ1360to be part of the larger Fajada Gap community, heplaced it within a different subgroup of sites from29SJ629. Thus, there is some suggestion of differencesamong small sites within the larger Fajada Gaparea, as well as within Marcia's Rincon.29SJ633The only excavated site in the Chaco Projectsample representing the late A.D. 1000s to early1100s is 29SJ633. Truell (1979, 1981, 1986; andMathien 1991a) indicated that small sites assigned tothis period demonstrate greater organizationaldifferences than had been recognized previously. Hergoals, therefore, were to compare data from this sitewith earlier sites in Marcia's Rincon to determinewhether there was continuity or difference inconstruction techniques and to compare 29SJ633 withgreat houses to determine the degree of continuitybetween inhabitants of large and small house sites.Room 7 (a living room) and Room 8 (a storagefacility), which are located in the central room block(Figure 5.7), were examined.Architecture was attributed to the late A.D.lO00s to early 1100s, but most of the artifacts wereassigned to later reuse. Gray clay foundations andassociated heating pits, plus the offset placement ofsome walls from the foundations, indicate preplanning.Combined with unusually large room size, thesetraits suggest continuity in construction techniquesbetween great house and small house sites. The wallmasonry, however, is unlike the styles documentedeither by Hawley (1938) or Judd (1964). At 29SJ633,the masonry is heterogeneous; there was much reuseof ground stone artifacts and locally available soft,friable sandstone. These irregularities led Truell tosuggest expedient wall construction over the preplannedfoundations.

IWisl PlazaEast Room Block(unfinished)iMnu,i.\Klvo? :\ / .'... ------AT • Anomo Iy TestATIO CJFigure 5.7. Map of 29SJ633. (faken from McKenna 1986:Figure 1.22.)

The Florescence 143Other Small House ExcavationsOther contemporary small sites, either tested orpartially excavated, include 29SJ625 (the Three-C site,previously excavated by Gordon Vivian 1965) and29SJ626 East. No formal reports have yet been prepared,but information from these sites has been. incorporated into studies by McKenna (1986), Truell(1986), and Windes (1993d), and compared with datafrom excavations at 29SJ627 and 29SJ629.When Windes re-examined 29SJ625, the ThreeC site, he located an earlier pithouse a..'1d floors (seeTruell 1986:Figure A.89) beneath the structures describedby Gordon Vivian (1965). McKenna (1986:11) indicated that plaza-facing rooms are similar inpattern to other mid- to late A.D. 900s to early 1000ssmall sites even though Vivian's maps and discussiondo not make this clear (compare Truell 1986:FiguresA.89 and A. 95 with Vivian 1965:Figure 2). Truell(1986:266, Table A.4) provided dimensions forabove-ground rooms during this period. Windes(1993:207) suggested that the secondary pit structurelocation fits a pattern seen at 29SJ626 East and29SJ627 and indicates the need for additional space inthe A.D. 900s for specialized tasks.At 29SJ626, the West House was tested in 1976,but no structures were excavated (Truell 1986:267;Windes 1993:7). Ceramics dated to the mid-A.D.900s through mid-lOOOs (TruellI986:267). During1983 and 1984, when the park's road alignment wasbeing changed, the East House was partially excavated(Windes 1993:7). Architecture was similar to othercontemporary sites (Windes 1993:207, 278, Table7.2). Archaeomagnetic samples ranged in the lateA.D. 900s and early lOoos. Although much of thematerial culture has not yet been analyzed, Windes(1993: 187) found evidence for the breaking of overallindented corrugated jars at the time of abandonment.He suggested that purposeful destruction of theseChuskan vessels, which are later than the otherceramics at 29SJ626, was possibly due to inability tocope with bad times between A.D. 990 and 1040(Windes 1993:404).29S]389 (Pueblo Alto)This one-story, D-shaped great house (Figure5.8), located on the north mesa, has 133 rooms. Ofthese, 13 rooms and two kivas were excavated in anattempt to better understand relationships between thisgreat house and others within the canyon and the SanJuan Basin, as well its relationship with contemporaneoussmall-house sites. Several other structureson the mesa top form the small community (Figure5.9) that Windes (1987[1 and II] and Mathien andWindes 1987) documented in detail.Windes (1987[1]) discerned an early settlementbeneath the great house. Rooms 50 and 51, and anarea with several features located beneath the latergreat house and plaza, contained a Red Mesa ceramicassemblage that dates in the early A.D. lOoos, andpinpoints the first use of this location.Windes (1987[1]) envisioned five constructionstages for the great house, beginning around A.D.1020 to 1040 and ending about A.D. 1100 to 1140,which fall into three major categories: Primary siteuse (stages 1 through III); remodeling and construction(stage IV), which alters the form and function of thesite; and late remodeling (stage V), which exhibits adefinite contrast in patterns, layout, and use of space.Stage I (A.D. 1020 to 1040), represented by thecentral room block (Figures 5.10 and 5.11), consistsof five "big-room" suites and at least three "court"kivas. These features are similar to smaller sized featuresin small house sites. The large front rooms inthe big-room suites contain heating pits, which suggestpossible habitation use; but they lack the morepermanent cooking facilities (e. g., firepits) thatsuggest full-time habitation. At this time, rooms 208and 209, located just east of a road spur that leaves RS33, a route from the canyon floor originating betweenPueblo Bonito and Pueblo del Arroyo that passes thenorthwest comer of Pueblo Alto and continues towardthe north-northeast, were constructed (Windes1987[1]: 113, 160). These rooms were later integratedinto the southern arc that enclosed Plaza 1.Stage II, the West Wing, was built between A.D.1020 and 1050 (Figure 5.12). This L-shaped roomblock contains big-room suites; here, however, the bigrooms contain firepits rather than heating pits. Thisroom block also includes other rooms that exhibitmore variability in suite size. Windes interpreted thisas a habitation area.

PUEBLO ALTOFigure 5.8. Map of Pueblo Alto. (faken from Lekson 1984a:Figure 4.55.)

\ I\ II :: \1 I: I a ..\\\ l .-'';~- -~---I I ....I I""''''-TOlf18~~ltnlr----·..JiI...... __-_----N~~ UUw--... ;;;",-------" ./LFigure 5.9. The Pueblo Alto community. (Taken from Windes 1987[JJ:Figure 4.1.)

I/IIIIIII,I"II/IIIII/' .. OQCIUI" AtUSSIlOoOOIIIIIIIiIPUEBLO ALTOIAflj '", l[, .".- -!.' .......: 1t .... 41l I"~,,,.._--_....j.-"'"liP l/ ...'\ \\'./ ' 0 rp~L«I*·S'ntttot>I\::J "IY"~~?0 0\ ___ /"j i •w.u~. •,•\,\•.,It.\ z1 ,\\,\,COMP\.[l I,\,Figure 5.10.Phase IA construction at Pueblo Alto, A.D. 1020 to 1040. (Taken from Windes 1987[I]:Figure 6.5.)

II/ffII,II( /IMOOI:AIIaccOSIl(lAC,"IfIIfI, fIIIIIfII,(I, IIIJIfII!/IIIfIIII,{II • ,,,I,IIII,"IIIIII!II/I,/PUEBLO ALTO"'~"oo\ \IIIII\ ,I\I\I\\II.II'U,usuu.t ,'f'VI'O#tI).y \\\I\I\"\ \\\\A \ 1-\\II\I\I\I\\'.I\IFigure 5.11.Phases IE and Ie construction at Pueblo Alto, A.D. 1020 to 1040. (Taken from Windes 1987[I]:Figure 6.6.)

I/"I II , IIIFI ,II"I IIIII/"III ,IloIOot."I,/ _ccrssllOoIOI,!IIIIIJIII,IIII" l III!,IJIII :II!tII,IJ,I I( JII,III:II,II, ,JI,/ /I,IIr{I,III,/I,/ "'.HIIPUEBLO ALTO.,,"0 0------~------=~ ------ \\III,\,\,\\ ,\I,\\\\\\I,\\\\A \ 1,\\l\\l\,II--,\\lFItt"'·HDRIC \,\\\\\,Figure 5.12. Phase II construction at Pueblo Alto, A.D. 1020 to 1050. (Taken from Windes 1987(I]:Figure 6.7.)

IffFI//II/IIjI,//III" 1111001:"'"II/ "ccrs~ IIUDIfIIIPUEBLO ALTO&B'"R, ,:,~I"'" I~ I,"""0 0'~,,=~--cc=~\ ,\ \ ,I\,\\ \,,,"RtHI~TOfttC ,$l'VflllOoAO \,\,\\\\,\I\,\\ Z..,\,\..\\, ,\,\Figure 5.13.Phase III construction at Pueblo Alto, A.D. 1040 to 1060. (Taken from Windes 1987[J]:Figure 6.8.)

,!I/ /II,/III/" "IIIII /I, II III "oot:~ ../ .ACCU511C4/) /IIII,I "III,II I, I IIIIIII, "IIII IIIIIfIIfIIIIIIIIIIIII/,/I,,I,/l! ,,I I,I," ~'J3/,IIIIII ,II, f,/I,,II/"IIDIIJfio~ '0'10,1'"[~no~'G '"•& ~'I,I "..--' ...... ,~PUEBLO ALTO,\,\\,\\\\\\\\,\\\\I,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\2\,\A \?OI£""ST:loRI( ~5I'~~~ \\, ,\\\ \\,\\,Figure 5.14. Phase IV construction at Pueblo Alto, A.D. 1080 to 1100. (Taken from Windes 1987[I]:Figure 6.9.)

, ,, fI f, If ,I f/ ,"If MCOCR~I A[x~SS "(;;I\~fff(PUEBLO ALTO\I\\\\\\\\\\IL\ l\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\Figure 5.15. Phase V construction at Pueblo Alto, A.D. 1100 to 1140. (Taken from Windes 1987[I]:Figure 6.10.)

152 Chaco Project SynthesisStage III, the East Wing (Figure 5.13), builtbetween A.D. 1050 and 1060, exhibits a change inmasonry style from Judd's (1964) type II to Hawley's(1934) combined types III and IV (Windes 1987[1]:148). This unit parallels the West Wing, but unlikethe rooms in the latter unit, three toward the southhave doorways that link Plaza 2 (on the east) with thePlaza 1. Four road-related rooms (194 through 197)appear along what is later the southeastern section ofthe room block. They are located east of a road spurthat enters Plaza 1; the main route runs north fromChetro Ked, proceeds northward along the east side ofPueblo Alto, and becomes part of the Great NorthRoad. The East ruin and the Parking Lot ruin, bothadjacent to roads, were probably built at this time(Windes 1987[1]:94). During this period there is aceramic shift from the dominance of Red Mesa Blackon-whiteware to Gallup Black-on-white ware.Events during stage IV, from A.D. 1080 to1100, include the construction of the south arc.Rooms 225 and 226 are remodeled. Major wallsextend in several directions to form boundaries forplaza areas outside of the pueblo and major walls thatrestrict access to areas around Pueblo Alto (Figures5.8 and 5.14). Kivas were built in older rooms of theexisting room blocks.During stage V, from A.D. 1100 to 1140, thereis evidence for a ceramic shift to what has been namedthe "Late Mix," in which several ceramic types arepresent but none are dominant (Appendix B, TableB.2). A number of irregular features and roomsappear in the plaza (Figure 5.15). Plaza Feature I, afive-room structure, provided one tree-ring date atA.D. 1132 on firewood in Firepit 2 (CNM-562;1031p-1132rBc). New Alto, Rabbit ruin, and29S12401 were built; Windes (1987[1]:415-416) suggestedthat Rabbit ruin and New Alto replace theearlier Parking Lot ruin and the East ruin. New Altomay represent a large storage facility (Lekson 1984a);Rabbit ruin is a habitation site rather than a roadrelatedsite. At this time, while there is continuity forthe overall system, there is a shift in the importance ofroads to the west side of Pueblo Alto. An examinationof Figure 5.16 indicates that several of thesewestern roads lead to seeps in Cly's Canyon duringthis period, which represents the greatest expanse ofthis community.Several issues arose as a result of theseexcavations. First, the "big-room suites" identified inthe central area are similar to suites found at PuebloBonito, Penasco Blanco, Kin Bineola, and Una Vida(Windes 1987[1]:355, Figure 10.2). AIl were builtbetween A.D. 919 and 1050. (More recent datingplaces initial construction at several of these sites intothe late A.D. 800s [Windes and D. Ford 1992,1996].) Windes (unlike Judge et al. 1981, and Lekson1984a) does not consider these large room suites to besimply scaled-up habitation units. Differences werenoted in big-room suites in the Central Wing and WestWing at Pueblo Alto, with the West Wing roomsexhibiting classic living room or habitation featureswhile the north or central room blocks had fewer floorfeatures, less diversity in pits, and heating pits ratherthan firepits, all of which suggested more storagefunctions. Yet big-room suites in the central sectioncoexisted with the smaller habitation suites in the WestWing and are clearly associated with "court" kivas,which are intermediate in size compared to "clan"kivas and "great" kivas (Lekson 1984a:50-61).Second, because so few living rooms wereidentified at Pueblo Alto, Windes (1987[1]:383,-406)questioned the size of the popUlation living there, aswell as year-round use. If there were cyclical groupsentering the area for short periods of time forceremonial or other reasons, the smaller popUlationestimate of approximately 100 people at Pueblo Altowould be more in line with other data. To furtherexamine this hypothesis, Windes re-examined severalof the Pueblo II and Pueblo III sites located along thecanyon bottom to suggest that there was not a continuousincrease in population in the canyon; instead,he inferred that data for the period between A.D. 1050and 1100 suggest a decrease, with a later increaseduring the early A.D. 1100s. To explain thesechanges, he cited a correlation with dendroclimaticpatterns that indicate drought conditions during thelate A.D. WOOs but an increase in moisture betweenA.D. 1100 and 1130.Windes (1987[1]:49) concluded that the PuebloAlto area had insufficient resources to support morethan 100 individuals. There was litde evidence forfarming on the mesa top, but several terraces withmasonry walls to retain soi I and water were presentalong the southern slopes toward the canyon. Water

Great No1lh Road J• StoifS........ Road $lQme~15---Malionry wall/1526-\\ Kin Kletso--~ ~q. ~~e-?C>o -~%. -'('%'''h%"'

154 Chaco Project Synthesiswas only available when it rained, or when obtainedthrough seeps along Cly's Canyon and from theEscavada Wash to the north. Thus, the attraction tothis area was probably related to other factors.Among the hypotheses presented was a road-relatedfunction in which Pueblo Alto was the control pointfor people entering "downtown" Chaco (Lekson1984a:272) from the northern San Juan Basin duringthe Classic and Late Bonito phases.Third, no great kivas were found in the PuebloAlto community. The function of court kivas, whichwere defined as being between 5 and 10 m indiameter, vs. smaller clan kivas (less than 5 m indiameter) was evaluated. Windes (1987[1]) doubtedthat their functions were identical. Court kivas,associated with big-room suites, appear between A.D.1050 and 1100 in the large-size units. Around A.D.1080, courtkivas were incorporated with the rooms inthe northeast and northwest areas, and smaller kivaswere placed within living rooms in the West Wing.After A.D. 1100, adjacent to Kiva 10 in thecentral room block (Figure 5.8), Room 147 wasdesignated a possible clan or society room (Windes1987[1]:310). The east and west walls were paintedwith designs (Windes 1987[II]:Figure 2.37), as wasthe north wall of Room 143 in front (Windes1987[II]:Figures 2.30 and 2.31). Fir pollen wasfound in heating pits in both of these rooms.Fourth, Windes (1987a[I]:95-140, Figure 5.2)documented three local uses for the Pueblo Alto roadnetwork (Figure 5.16) that functioned between A.D.1050 and 1140: as I) links to water procurementareas, 2) to terraced farming areas, and 3) for localinteraction between Pueblo Alto and the great housesof Pueblo Bonito, Chetro Ketl, and Penasco Blanco,as well as a community along the Escavada Wash.The great north road (Gwinn Vivian 1972, 1983a)suggests ties to the northern San Juan Basin; thus,Windes included the transport of goods and peoplefrom other sites and areas as another function (cf.,Lyons and Hitchcock 1977b).Possibly related to the roads are several wallsegments that divide the mesa top around Pueblo Altointo discrete areas (Windes 1987[11]:546-554, [I]:Figures 1.4 and 5.2). Major WaIl I, which leaves thenortheast corner of Pueblo Alto and proceeds to theEast ruin, includes the gate documented by Ware andGumerman (1977) and a blockhouse excavated byLoose (as documented in Camilli and Cordell 1983).Major Wall 2 runs from the southeast corner of PuebloAlto toward the trash mound. A passage through thiswall provides easy access between plazas 2 and 3.Major Wall 3 marks the western side of Plaza 3 andcreates an unnamed space similar to the other plazason the southwestern side of Pueblo Alto. OtherStructure 13 (a major wall) juts off the southwesterncorner of Pueblo Alto. Major Wall 6 proceeds fromthe northwest corner of Pueblo Alto and passes theParking Lot ruin and New Alto.The arc and the major walls that divide the outsidespace into discrete areas would have directedindividuals using the road system from Talus Unit No.1 and Chetro Ketl to enter Plaza 1 through OtherStructure 5 and Room 205 (Figure 5.17). In Plaza 3,a prehistoric road spur links with stairways into thecanyon at Talus Unit No. 1 and to the northeast ofChetro Ketl; it enters Pueblo Alto through eitherOther Structure 3 or Room 199. Just east of Room199 is one of the sets of road-related rooms. The areabetween Major Wall 3 and Other Structure 13 receivestraffic from a spur ofRS 33. The main route of RS 33passes west of Other Structure 13 and heads towardthe northwest corner of Pueblo Alto, where another ofthe sets of road-related rooms has been identified.Windes (1987[1]:113-114) suspected that these wallsmay serve to move traffic between local and regionaldirections.Four sets of paired room units at Pueblo Altothat Windes (1987[1]:96-129) identified were associatedwith road functions (Figure 5.17), as weresimilar sets at the Parking Lot ruin, the East ruin, andPenasco Blanco (where he also mapped existing roadsegments: Windes 1987[1]:Figure 5.1). Additionalroad-related storage features were postulated forexterior rows of rooms at Pueblo Bonito, Chetro Ketl,Kin Bineola, Penasco Blanco, and Pueblo Alto, allbuilt between A.D. 1040 and 1085 (Windes1987[1]:Figure 10.3).Fifth, studies in the trash mound revealednumerous layers (Windes 1987[II]:Figure 8.2) thatindicated there were three types of deposits that weredated from around A.D. 1050 to 1100 (Windes1987[11]:561-667). The earliest layers, representing

,I MC~t~ij/ ':'.b'_''"'o/!PUEBLO ALTO~~~::~t+;j;;~~1~q~~Etti:~c~sR~:,,','~~ ~ '"" "". h, Af " ? ,0' ,if I 0".,,,, ~ ','I'. II 'i F--'~ I ,~~, ",,t' '" ", ,I cf' !/ ,I,;::' ;":i{- --~\ '.::::::-~.' '..-. " '- •. -_. f'·I: ..,,,f.ii.i::'J~o,~~t~;t; , -" 0'"' trfrJ~.:~;:t:' !j /1 I'e"''''!' '- ." (~.', I ' '. ,~,r:~~)i :1 1~ ,i!~~.f 4""~ L":~~'i 'f~' ,K;~\ $~ ~:[~~'I...c ~~ IHfUk;1 I ~ r-::r--l ~ ~;,~. fr--~--':~ \1 / !~' '/',~ __ ,J~) .:r."~ ••.,,,"'"I '~ I'"''"''' ~ - I • l! ,I '.' {! ;~.,~.~,':,,'.. Ii ,-, " Ii ~ iJl''I'":'~71: II ~F,._' I' ....... ~",,>ei~ri:h fl~: ~r , ,~::~~tS~;1it\.~,".~ ","'9");../\\ ~) t'{\ . \\\ ,~" /(.;,~ ~i.\':' \-:., ,t-- ~-'''','''."", ~T ~R c.-,p",,,,,','=7"

~-~--------~- ~--156 Chaco Project Synthesis43 percent of the profile, consist of constructiondebris that included rotted juniper bark, buildingstones, hafted and unhafted hammers, hammerstones/abraders,and ceramics that represent a RedMesa assemblage. Faunal remains of small and largemammals, gray ash, charcoal, and chipped stone inlayers 11 and 16 were attributed to activitiesassociated with construction. Green corn stalks andburned bone indicative of either spring or fall huntingin construction levels of Room 142 support thesuggestion of fall construction.The intermediate layers, representing 37.9percent of the profile, indicate trash deposition, andwere associated with the Gallup ceramic assemblage.Only Layer 35, which was the largest unit in this setand included a mixture of adobe chunks, grayishsands, bits of charcoal, and occasional spalls andlarger stones, probably represents remodeling. Layers70 to 72 were thought to represent a rise in constructiondebris around A.D. 1075. Other layersincluded less sandstone, but increased quantities ofchipped stone, bones, ceramics, and corncobs. Therewas variability in changes among these layers; e.g.,the density of ceramics and lithics correlated with oneanother but not with those of the faunal remains andash. Windes indicated that layers 45 and 57 hadfaunal densities greater than ceramics, which mightrepresent feasting events; yet beginning in Layer 57ceramic densities increased immediately and weremarked by sudden breakage and discard.When compared with data from small site trashdeposition, Windes (1987[11]:615) thought that thelong and wide Pueblo Alto trash mound layers werenot representative of typical year-round habitation. Atsmall sites, the deposits were mixed and the stratigraphyunclear (Windes 1987(II]:588-608). YetAkins's (1984:234, 1987a:588) analysis of the faunalremains from the Pueblo Alto trash mound indicatedyear-round use; she estimated the meat would havesupported approximately 100 people, the number thatWindes estimated lived in Pueblo Alto (see also Wills2001, and discussion below).At Pueblo Alto, the unusually high number ofceramics (H. Toll and McKenna 1987) and Iithics(Cameron 1987), plus the discrete layers that werenoted in the profiles, led to the proposal that this sitewas used intermittently or was the location of largeperiodic gatherings during which many vessels werebroken and many stone implements were discarded.Additional evidence to support this conclusion is thepresence of six intentionally smashed Gallup Black-onwhitebowls found in Level 10 of Grid 183. Windes(1987[II]:602) suggested that they were part of aninitial trash deposit that occurred after the constructionepisodes. H. Toll and McKenna (1987: 178-181) citea Zuni example in which rare vessels are intentionallysmashed by religious leaders in a ceremony that takesplace every four years during the winter months. Thebowls were recovered from layers that Akins assignedto winter or fall. Another ethnographic possibility isthat the bowls may have been used for ritualcleansing. A large Forestdale Smudged bowl fromGrid 239 also occurs at the bottom of the mound. H.Toll and McKenna indicate that this pottery easilybreaks into numerous fragments. They asked whythere were so many fragments in the same place.The unusually high number of ceramics presentin the trash mound led H. Toll and McKenna (1987:205-209, Table 1.51) to compare Pueblo Alto'sremains with those at small sites and to estimate thenumber of vessels per household. Assuming that 10percent of the trash mound had been excavated andthat 20 families may have lived in the site during theClassic Bonito phase (Gallup ceramic assemblage,A.D. 1050 to 1100), they concluded that the permanentpopulation at this site was inadequate to accountfor the ceramic deposits. They suggested that PuebloAlto was the scene of very large gatherings.Because Pueblo Alto was occupied for some timeafter deposition on the trash mound ceased and thetrash was not disturbed, Windes (1987[11]:667)suggested a special meaning for this feature at this andother great house trash mounds, all dating to the sameperiod, ca. A.D. 1050 to 1100. Later period trashwas deposited in unused rooms, kivas, plazas, or overback walls after A.D. 1100. Windes, therefore,suggested that these features were part of periodicevents that were part of the planned ritual landscape inand around great houses (Stein 1987) during thisperiod. The concept that these large mounds associatedwith Pueblo Alto and other large sites wereintentionally constructed ritual architecture becamepart of the model of Chaco as a ritual center (Lekson1984a; Marshall 1997; Nials et al. 1987; Stein andLekson 1992; Stein et al. 1997).

The Florescence 157Recently Wills (2001) questioned the interpretationof the trash mounds at large Chacoan sites asevidence of intentionally constructed ritual or sacredarchitecture. He evaluated several propositions: theseasonal or cyclical deposition of materials on thetrash mound; the calculation of the number of vesselsdeposited on the mound, based on the assumption thatan unmatched rim sherd represented a whole pot; andthe proposal that feasting events account for the largenumbers of ceramics and lithics recovered. Heargued that the faunal remains recovered do notrepresent seasonal discard (Akins 1984), but insteadsuggest year-round use of Pueblo Alto. Based on thesample of sherds from a single trench through thetrash mound, he questioned whether we can assume a1: 1 relationship between a rim sherd and the numberof vessels estimated for the entire mound. Based on a10 vs. 2.2 percent sampie, even H. Toll and McKenna(1987:207) provided a lower estimate (33,130) of thenumber of vessels than the 150,590 that has beencommonly accepted. Wills suggested that largenumbers of ceramics and lithics most often recorded inthe trash mound are found in layers that are associatedwith construction, thus indicating that they areassociated with feeding of the labor force rather thanritual breakage and discard. Instead, he proposed thatconstruction-related activity accounts for the formationand growth of the trash mound. He does agree thatritual played a major role in Chacoan life; the ritualactivity was in the construction activities elsewhere atthe site that contributed to the deposits on the trashmound and not the construction of the trash mounditself.In conclusion, excavations at Pueblo Alto documenttwo major periods of change: The first changefrom the use of a Red Mesa to a Gallup ceramicassemblage took place around A.D. 1040 to 1050, atwhich time a greater number of materials were importedfrom the Chuska Mountains to the west; e.g.,Narbona (formerly Washington) Pass chert (Cameron1987, 1997b); timber; many culinary vessels; andsome white-ware vessels (H. Toll and McKenna 1987,1997). Construction and use of prehistoric roadsaround Pueblo Alto took place while there was muchconstruction and remodeling of great houses throughoutthe canyon (Lekson 1984a, 1984b). Despite theseevents that are the characteristics of the Classic Bonitophase, several features from earlier times continue tobe seen; e.g., the use of large pits in the Early andClassic Bonito phases (Windes 1987[1]:333). Thesecond shift, around A.D. 1100 to approximatelyA.D. 1150, is characterized by a Late Mix ceramicassemblage. Although Pueblo Alto remained a communitycenter and two new sites, including theMcElmo-style structure at New Alto, were built, newconstruction in this great house no longer followed thesymmetry of earlier times; trash was placed in emptyrooms; and a special-use room was identified next toa kiva in the central room block. These shifts indicatecontinuity and major changes in social organizationwithin approximately 60 years.Studies at Other Related SitesOther Great HousesLekson took on the responslbillty for thearchitectural studies, especially at Chetro Ketl, wherethe architecture and dendrochronology were examinedin detail (Lekson 1983b). He also revisited Talus UnitNo. 1 (Lekson 1985). Akins and Gillespie reexaminedUna Vida prior to backfilling (Akins andGillespie 1979; Gillespie 1980a, 1980b, 1984c).Windes and Mathien prepared a historic structurereport on Kin Nahasbas (Mathien and Windes 1988,1989). Windes also documented an early great housein the Chaco East community, up canyon from thepark boundaries (Windes et a1. 2000), and continuedresearch at the Pueblo Pintado community (Windes1999, 2001). Each activity expanded the availabledatabase on Chacoan great house construction and use,as well as community organization.ehetro Ketl. This great house (Figure 5.18)was partially excavated in the 1920s and 1930s(Hewett 1936). Hawley (1934) correlated ceramictypes, masonry styles, and tree-ring dates that suggestedconstruction periods for the various roomblocks and additions to this site. Sixty percent of alltree-ring dates from great houses in Chaco Canyoncame from Chetro KetI, yet no comprehensive reporton this site had been prepared. Lekson searched fornotes, reports, maps, and other extant data. He andMcKenna re-examined each room to create detailedwall maps. Difficulties correlating published tree-ringdates with architectural information led to a restudy ofthe tree-rings by Dean and Warren (1983). Lekson's(1983b) report includes a history of previous research

I I Ir - - - - - j - _.J_ - -'- ----''---t--::-I,:::-m~~~T,:;::;:=:~'l==ibc:::~::r_\~----'-----'---I1I(IIII,,IJ,~"''''I ....... - ...'-....... -- ...... " ..........I , IIII I\ , I, I......_J'II~/II,IIoIIII,III II,III__________ .1,"\ \ ,," ,\~\ ,t:S

The Florescence 159Figure 5.19.Early type I masonry beneath Room 62 at Chetro Ketl. (Chaco Culture NHP MuseumArchive, no. 101578. This photograph also appears in Gwinn Vivian et al. 1978:FigureE.6. Charles VoU, photographer.)and the interpretations of Chetro Ketl that arosethroughout the years; the results of his and McKenna'sresearch; a comparison of his dating of the constructionhistory of Chetro Ketl with a re-evaluation of theolder tree-ring data reviewed by Julio Betancourt;additional collections and analysis of tree-ring data byJeffrey S. Dean and Richard Warren; and a revisedconstruction sequence for this site.Overall, more than 200 additional tree-ringsamples were collected. The three construction phasesfor Chetro Ketl proposed by Hawley (1934) (A.D.945 to 1030, A.D. 1030 to 1090, and A.D. 1100 to1116) were verified, with minor modifications. Althoughthere is architectural evidence of an earlierbuilding beneath the visible structure (Voll 1978)(Figure 5.18), there was no way to tie some early treeringdates obtained by Hawley (A.D. 945 to 1030) toextant rooms. Dean and Warren (1983: 107) thoughtthat some samples represented salvage and reuse of oldwood or the presence of isolated rooms that were nolonger visible. Lekson (1983b:241-271, and FiguresVI: 1-12; 1984a: 152-192) discerned 15 constructionstages for the visible structure, with the earliest datedat A.D. 1010 to 1030. After initial construction ofthe north room block, there was considerableremodeling and numerous additions to the site, someof which overlapped other construction stages. Somefeatures, including the court kiva, great kiva, andcolonnade, could not be precisely dated.Dean and Warren (1983) were able to discernmajor tree-cutting clusters and suggest stockpilingevents. The need to assess problems that result fromstockpiling of wood by the early Pueblo people, thereuse of timbers from one site or section of the site byearly Pueblo people, and the impact of modernstabilization practices were all evident. In addition,between A.D. 1018 and 1077 there was evidence forannual activity; but in A.D. 1054, there was a declinein the cutting activity. Dean and Warren (1983:198-199) proposed that reuse of salvaged wood, poorpreservation of upper story logs, or small numbers ofsamples from units post-dating the north room blocksB and C may have contributed to these observations.These issues were further elaborated upon during theChaco Wood Project (Windes and C. Ford 1996;Windes and D. Ford 1992, 1996; Windes et al. 1994).

160 Chaco Project SynthesisThe number of trees used during 125 years ofconstruction was estimated at 26,000 (Dean andWarren 1983:202~207). Dean and Warren thenestimated tree use at five other large sites to beapproximately 25,000 trees each, with 15,000 treeseach at five other smaller great houses. Thus, theyarrive at an estimate of 200,000 trees for the roofingof just 10 great houses in Chaco Canyon. The impactof this activity on forests, plus the need for firewood,must have had environmental consequences, especiallyafter A.D. 1020, when major construction was underway in the canyon. Samuels and Betancourt (1982)estimated that local wood resources would have beenaffected even earlier-by the A.D. 900s.Six tree species were used in construction ofChetro Ketl (Dean and Warren 1983:Table V:7). Themost abundant species was ponderosa pine (16,146logs used as primary ceiling beams), followed byspruce-fir (5,928 logs used as non-primary ceilingbeams and aperture elements). Both species growtoday in areas in and around Mount Taylor and theChuska Mountains, a distance of approximately 75 kmfrom the canyon (Betancourt et al. 1986; English et al.2001). These numbers suggest considerable labor ortrade to obtain sufficient numbers for annual orscheduled construction episodes. Douglas~fir (2,132logs used as secondary ceiling beams and apertureelements) could have been obtained from ChacraMesa. Cottonwood or aspen (884 logs used in ceilingsand apertures) is a local species that would havebeen depleted. Pinon (468 logs) and juniper (338logs), both of which were used for firewood, are alsolocally available.Although the focus of this project was not onportable artifacts, Lekson (1983b:317) indicated thatevery excavated room had several items; that perishablematerials were well-represented; that diggingsticks (similar to those from Pueblo Bonito) werefound in the ceilings of several rooms; and thatceramics in the trash mound indicate a strong McElmophase occupation. The most spectacular artifacts werethe beaded necklaces recovered in the niches of thegreat kiva (Hewett 1936), and over 200 items ofpainted wood (plus cordage, parts of arrows, gourdrind disks, worked sticks and worked stones, andcornhusk packets) recovered from Room 93 (GwinnVivian et al. 1978). Vivian et al. (1978:59-64) sug~gested that this room had been used to store ritualobjects placed there not long after drift sand accumulatedtoward the end of the occupation. Signs ofintentional breakage of some items and an incompletecollection (a few other pieces were found by Hewett insurrounding rooms) indicate that these items mayrepresent more than one assemblage. Vivian recog~nized similarities between these artifacts and thoseobserved historically and thought that Chetro Ketlmight represent a public space that could be used forceremonial purposes by inhabitants of both large andsmall sites.Talus Unit No.1. Just west of Chetro Ketl isa much smaller site with core~and~veneer masonry (M.Woods 1933, 1934a, 1934b, 1938)(Figure 5.20).Excavated in the 1930s, rooms 7 and 8, which arelocated in the East Block, include several steps thatseparate the lower unroofed area from a platform(Woods 1934b). This is the section that Ferdon(1955) considered as evidence of possible Mesoamericaninfluence. Lekson (1985a) indicated that thisarea represents initial construction at the site, which islocated below the cliff face and in front of Area H.Hayes (1981:57) and Gwinn Vivian (1983b) suggestedthat this area of Talus Unit No. 1 was the base for aladder or scaffolding up the cliff to connect with aprehistoric road (Figure 5.16). Closeness to ChetroKetl suggests a road-related function for these rooms,which were probably constructed in the mid-A.D.1030s. Rooms 3 to 6 in this east block probably wereconstructed slightly later around A.D. 1076. The oldbuilding in the west block is a two- or three-storystructure with a large kiva (Kiva J)(Shiner 1959); it issimilar to the original building at Pueblo del Arroyo.It was probably built in the A.D. 1065 to 1070 period,and was probably not for domestic use. Late modificationsto the site, probably in the A.D. l100s, addedsmall kivas and domestic trash that suggest use as aresidence. Re-examination of this site refuted claimsfor Mesoamerican presence; this small great houseprobably represents a special-function site during itsearliest period, as well as a late habitation site (Lekson1985a).Una Vida. Gordon Vivian cleared 15 rooms atUna Vida in 1960 because the site (Figure 5.21) wasto be an interpretive tool located close to the newvisitor center (Windes 1987[1]: 10). Although he wasunable to complete a report prior to his death in 1966,the ceramics he collected were used to test the

"I----_\---~~--.-';--_:::::'y',..~fCliff--~~----------,.,.

--------162 Chaco Project Synthesis---------tIIIL._,III,IIIIIIIIIIIIIItIIII,.'--',, II, \ I, I I\ 'I I\ I I I" ,. I I...... , ....._-' I I,..... I I.... -...( I...../O~I ______'~?______ ~~_O ___ ~3pmFigure 5.21. Map of Una Vida (2951391). (Taken from Lekson 1984a:Figure 4.1.)

The Florescence 163rough-sort method used during the Chaco Project.Based on this test, Windham (1976) was able tosuggest three construction periods that are roughlysimilar to those defmed later by Gillespie (1984c:79-94). Once Una Vida was scheduled to be backfilledin May 1979, Gillespie and Akins cleared floors,completed room excavations, and prepared detailedmaps of the exposed rooms. They focused on a roomblock in the northern comer of the site, paying specialattention to early features in nine of 15 rooms;collected pollen and flotation samples; took archaeomagneticsamples; and provided an accurate descriptionof all floor features (Akins and Gillespie 1979).Construction at Una Vida took place in severalstages. Like Pueblo Bonito and Penasco Blanco, UnaVida has early tree-rings dates in the A.D. 800s(Bannister 1965). Gillespie (Akins and Gillespie1979; Gillespie 1984c) indicated that the tenth-centurylayout and masonry (Judd's type I; thin slabs withcopious mortar) was probably representative of twoconstruction episodes, each with two stories. Stage I(Lekson 1984a:Figure 4.4a) is a small arc of rooms onthe northeast side with two mid-A.D. 800s dates. Thebulk of the western block or lower arc and three suitesin the northeastern section (Lekson 1984a:Figure4.4b) were constructed around A.D. 930 to 950 (stageII). Areas beneath rooms 23, 83, and 84 were identifiedas belonging to an early plaza that may havebeen associated with this early room block (Akins andGillespie 1979). Stage III (A.D. 950 to 960) isrepresented by type I masonry additions to the existingstructure (Lekson 1984a:Figure 4.4c). Stages IV andV occur nearly a century later (A.D. 1050 to 1055,and A.D. 1050 to 1095), when a front row of roomsand kivas was added to the plaza side of the westernsection and several rooms were added onto the originalarc of rooms (Lekson 1984a:Figure 4.4d). Stage VIrepresents construction around A.D. 1070 to 1075,when the southeast block was added and somemodifications were made to the existing structure.Stage VII construction enclosed the plaza sometimeafter A.D. 1095 (Lekson 1984a:Figure 4.4e and f).A range of room functions was documented byAkins and Gillespie (1979), who classified two ofthenine rooms (rooms 18 and 65 built during stage I) asstorage rooms. Rooms 21 (stage I), 23 (stage III), and60 (stage III) were originally built as habitationrooms; Room 60 was later modified into a special-useroom, possibly a kiva. Room 83 (stage V), althoughsquare, possibly functioned as a kiva. Rooms 63(stage III), 64 (stage I), and 84 (stage V) alsocontained floor features indicative ofliving areas. Asat Pueblo Alto and Pueblo Bonito, much evidence ofreuse and change are visible at this site.Kin Nahasbas. In 1935, as part of inquiriesinto the standard features of great kivas, Hewett entrustedthe excavation at Kin Nahasbas to DorothyLuhrs (1935). After clearing the great kiva to the firstfloor and excavating in two rooms in the house moundon the hill above, this site (Figure 5.22) was left open.Information on the great kiva was incorporated intothe report by Gordon Vivian and Reiter (1960), but noother data were published. In 1983, Windes andMathien prepared a historic structure report prior tobackfilling (1fathien and \A/indes 1988). Documentationof the great kiva, the house above, andsurrounding features was undertaken to understand itsrelationship to Una Vida and other structures in thearea (Mathien and Windes 1989).Initial construction at Kin Nahasbas probablyoccurred during the A.D. 900s. A 44 m 2 pit structurefound beneath the earliest great kiva is similar inlayout to other tenth-century pit structures (Truell1986). Although much of the pit structure had beendestroyed by later construction, it contained a firepit,heating pit, two postholes, and possibly sets ofladderrests that would indicate entry through a hatch in theroof.Oriented southeast to northwest, this pit structuresits downslope of a set of rooms designated as OldHouse. The set of rooms is a 283 m 2 irregular roomblock constructed of type I (Hawley 1934) masonryfor which two styles were recorded: a large, crudelyshaped, lenticular set of ashlars that spanned the widthof the wall, and a set of smaller squarish stones. Asmall circular room (1. 8 m in diameter) and a possibletower (4 m in diameter) may represent observationposts (Windes in Mathien and Windes 1988:73).Contemporary with the Old House is Great Kiva 1,also constructed of type I masonry. Today only thenorth wall and a narrow adobe band along thenorthwest side of the structure remain. The size ofthis great kiva is estimated to have been about 136 m 2 •Standard floor features (roof supports, vaults, firebox,and deflector) were present. Because of its location on

---------------------------------------------------------164 Chaco Project Synthesis~ BOULDERS==:: ANASAZI WALLS (VERIFIED)==-= NAVAJO WALLS (VERIFIED)HOGANS"ILl0':, , S 6,GREATKIVAS"WALLau.aLI' .-\l~~ ..."'.~0 1 0 ...A'Figure 5.22. Map of Kin Nahasbas (29SJ392). (Taken from Mathien and Windes 1988:Figure 4.)the hillside, a wall buttress extended downslope forapproximately 8 m in a step-like manner; two instancesof type I masonry facing were recorded as partof this feature.Type III, or inferior type III, masonry characterizesthe walls of New House, a 13- to 14-roomstructure with two kivas. Great Kiva 2, also constructedof type III or type IV masonry, was placed inthe same location as the earlier great kiva, butenlarged to approximately 162 m 2 as measured fromthe floor or 187 m 2 at bench top. The wall buttresswas revamped. An antechamber of type II or type IIImasonry that appears on the north side may haveserved both great kivas.Because of remodeling, dating of materials fromtwo pits in the northern section of the great kivas isdifficult. Other Pit 18 contained a cache that included"punches" and flakes; Other Pit 19 held a concretionin the fill. Both had been covered with stones andadobe.

The Florescence 165Ceramics dating to the A. D. ll00s were foundin several transects across the site, including the OldHouse. These late sherds, plus subdivisions of thevaults in Great Kiva 2 and crude masonry modificationsto the firepit, indicate late use of this site.Viewed within a community context, KinNahasbas is thought to have been part of an earlycluster of sites near Una Vida (Windes 1993d). Bothgreat houses were built using similar masonry stylesthat indicate construction by the A.D. 900s; both hadsimilar ceramic types. Una Vida, however, tended tobe approximately eight times larger during this earlyperiod (2,330 vs. 283 m 2 ). Four small sites foundnearby (Mathien and Windes 1988:Figure 3) representthe entire span of occupation of the great houses.Within a 2-km radius, there are 65 contemporaneousPueblo II and Puebio III smaii houses; these greathouses are considered part of the Fajada Butte community(Windes 1993).The function of two nearby and contemporaneousgreat houses merits discussion. Althoughfactionalism and proximity toa water source or waterand field system were considered, Windes (Mathienand Windes 1988:100-101) suggested visibility as thereason for the location of Kin Nahasbas. During theA.D. 900s, the earliest great houses in the canyon(Pueblo Bonito, Penasco Blanco, and Una Vida) wereall visible from Kin Nahasbas. In contrast to UnaVida, during the A.D. lO00s this site also could beenpart of the signaling system and shrine network. Thenumber of rooms in the Old House did not suggest aneed for a great kiva at this site; if this great kiva wereused by other inhabitants of the community, KinNahasbas may have served more than one specialfunction within this community.Chaco East Community. Another great housewith early masonry that suggests construction duringthe A.D. 900s is located up canyon and outside of thepark boundaries where a major drainage empties intothe Chaco Wash (Windes et al. 2000). Although astraight line of visibility between this site and those inthe main section of the canyon did not exist, Windeset al. (2000:39, Figure 4.1 and Figure 4.2) suggestedthat this community was linked with four othersthrough a system of communication shrines describedin Hayes and Windes (1975). No excavations havebeen conducted; survey at local small sites andanalysis of sherds and lithics indicate mobility amongthe inhabitants who abandoned the early community.Closer ties to the Pueblo Pintado community than themain canyon are suggested (Windes et al. 2000).Shrines, Signaling Stations, and a CommunicationSystemDuring excavation of the Basketmaker III pitstructures and great kiva at 29SJ423, an unusualarcuate wall (Figure 5.23), 15 m long and 30 em high(possibly rising to 52 em), constructed of coursedcompound masonry set in mortar, was discovered(Hayes and Windes 1975). The crudely scrabbledstones and irregular width, plus the presence of somemetate fragments in its construction suggested a latedate, but there were no sherds from the Pueblo II toIII periods to further refine its chronological placement.Approximately 6.5 m south of the middle ofthe gentler arc was a pile of shallow mounded trash.In this pile was a pecked sandstone bowl with a flatbottom. It was surrounded by tabular dry-laid sandstoneslabs rising as high as the rim, and it wascovered by a rectangular sandstone slab that had arectangular hole in its center (Figure 5.24). When theshaped cover for this hole was removed, 146 turquoisebeads and three turquoise chips were found in a bowl.Also recovered in the area adjacent to the mound andwall were 184 turquoise beads, two black shale beads,one shell bead, 148 turquoise chips, and a smallMcElmo Black-on-white bowl that contained oneturquoise bead. Because this arc arrangement iscommon in Historic Pueblo shrines, a ritual activity(possibly a sun-watcher's station or signaling station)was inferred.Clear visibility from 29SJ423 extends 90 milesto the north, past Huerfano Butte to the La PlataMountains, as well as to the Chuska Mountains in thewest. Within Chaco Canyon, only three of the largepueblos or great houses could not be seen (Una Vida,Chetro Ketl, and Hungo Pavi). However, two featuressimilar to the one at 29SJ423 (29SJ1207, locatedon top of South Mesa due south of Pueblo Bonito, and29S1706, at the east end of South Mesa) provide sucha line of sight for all but Una Vida. As a result,Hayes and Windes (1975: 152) suspected that KinNahasbas was part of the larger Una Vida settlementor that the raised kiva in the west wing of Una Vidamight have been a possible linking station. All of the

166 Chaco Project Synthesis# 0n?Po(:eri38!Cf£9u~gD~VO~~l.Y()'0Figure 5.23.Shrine at 29SJ423: A) overview of site (Chaco Culture NHP Museum Archive, Photo no.5700. Thomas C. Windes, photographer); B) Plan of shrine (taken from Hayes and Windes1975:Figure 22).

The Florescence 167Figure 5.24.Altar box at shrine at site 29S1423. (Composite from Chaco Culture NHP MuseumArchive, photo nos. 5697, 5768, and 5696. Thomas C. Windes, photographer.)

--'.Y/o~1Figure 5.25. Shrines, stone circles, great kivas, and great houses in Chaco Canyon. A Stone circle. [Shrines. 1) Penasco Blanco,2) Casa Chiquita, 3) Kin Kletso, 4) New Alto, 5) Pueblo Alto, 6) Pueblo del Arroyo, 7) Pueblo Bonito, 8) Chetro Ketl,9) Casa Rinconada, 10) Tsin Kletzin, 11) Hungo Pavi, 12) Kin Nahasbas, 13) Una Vida, 14) Wijiji, 15) Kin Bineola,16) Kin Klizhin, 17) Great kiva 1253, and 18) Great kiva 1642. (Taken from Windes 1978:Figure 1.)

The Florescence 169Bonito phase structures in Chaco Canyon could also betied into a single system (Figure 5.25) linked by lineof site from the three elevated kivas at Tsin Kletsin tothe raised kiva at Kin Klizhin and a tower-likestructure (29S11578) above Kin Bineola. 29S1706also provided a visual link with the tower kiva at KinYa'a. If anyone of these shrines had been locatedfrom 30 to 70 m in any direction, such a system wouldnot have worked. It was inferred, therefore, that sometime and labor had been invested in determining thelocations of the shrines/signaling stations.Since the mid-1970s, Windes added 29Mc183and 29Mc186 on Chacra Mesa (Drager 1976a: 12).Another U -shaped shrine (29Mc567) was found on topof the mesa just west of the Chaco East community, atthe confluence of Wild Horse Canyon and the Chaco\Vash ('yVindeS 1993:459 a..~d Figure F.l; Windes etal. 2000:43, Figure 4.2.). Site 29Mc187, on ChacraMesa near the Chaco East community, ties PuebloPintado into the canyon system as well. The eleventhortwelfth-century masonry in the shrines suggests awidespread communication system within the Chacocore (Drager 1976a).Stone CirclesTwenty stone circles differ from shrines (Hayesand Windes 1975). Windes (1978) described thesefeatures as oval or circular walls up to 1 m high thatusually enclose circular or rectangular basins cut intothe bedrock. Although basins are randomly distributedwithin the stone circles, the larger circles hadmore basins and are located closer to Bonito phaserums.Recovered artifacts only hint at their date andfunction. Ceramics suggest a Pueblo II-Early PuebloIII use (80 percent of the sherds vs. 12.5 percentdating to the Basketmaker III -Pueblo I period, and 7.5percent to the Pueblo III period). The low numbers ofsherds suggest nonceramic activities. Siliceous stonewas rare; where present, there was a high percentageof imported materials (obsidian, Brushy Basin chert,and Narbona [Washington] Pass chert). The mostabundant ground stone artifact recovered is theweathered abrader, which is consistently found inassociation with walls or wall rubble. All 229abraders had similar wear patterns. Unlike those fromhabitation sites, they may have been used to smooththe bedrock on which the stone circles were built. Ofthe abraders, 95.6 percent showed no modificationother than wear patterns that could not be assigned toa specific task. Only a few other ground stone objects(manos, a shaft smoother, metate fragments, and apossible pot cover) were recovered. At 29S11974,three stone pendants, found in the rubble northwest ofthe stone circle, were crudely shaped and drilled fromtwo sides.All stone circles are located on cliff edges thatoverlook the canyon; most appear on the first bench,at an average of 693 m from a Bonito Phase site(Figure 5.25). Visibility to the nearest great house israre, but great houses can be seen from nine of 13sites. From all, a Pueblo II to III great kiva is visible.Because stone circles were placed in precise locationsthat allowed visibility between them and great kivas,their function was probably integrative. "Towns withonly a single circle nearby might be indicative ofoccupation by a single social or religious group, orsimply that other circles nearby escaped detection"(Windes 1978:65). Even though similar basins inother areas could be used for water catchment, thestone circles were not built for water control. Theycould represent areas where manufacturing of religiousitems occurred; they could have been hide-processingor wood-processing centers. Public dancing areas orstaging areas for dancers were also postulated, buttheir exact role within the system remains uncertain.Windes (1978:65-69) concluded that stone circlesappeared primarily between A.D. 1000 and 1150.Roads and Road-related FeaturesRoad segments in the San Juan Basin weredocumented by Holsinger (1901) and Judd (1964),among others, but it was not until the 1950s and 1960sthat they received much attention. Gordon Vivianbegan to examine linear features, some of which hethought were canals (Obenauf 1980a; Gwinn Vivian1983b). Continuing studies by Gwinn Vivian (1972;Vivian and Buettner 1973) identified six major routesthat started in the canyon and extended outward,including the North Road (called the Great NorthRoad by C. Randall Morrison; Vivian 1983a:A-12).Chaco Project staff documented additional linearfeatures on aerial photographs, both in the canyon andthroughout the San Juan Basin (Ebert and Hitchcock

170 Chaco Project Synthesis\ IDA nANWALLACE.--'.

The Florescence 171Three road-related excavations were conducted.As part of initial field research on the road system,Ware and Gumerman (1977) placed several trenchesacross road segments leading into Pueblo Alto. Roadbeds were difficult to frnd; most trenches providedlittle evidence that the roads were intentionallyprepared. Formal attributes of the roads includedcurbing (not always present) and peripheral sandstonerubble mounds (discontinuous and nonlinear). Approximately40 m east of Pueblo Alto, a I-m-widegate in the north wall was exposed (Obenauf 1980a:Figure 10). It is here that three roads converged; butthe trench that extended for 2 m north of the gaterevealed no evidence of a prepared road surface. Onlya hard-packed caliche surface sloped away from thegate.In 1974, Richard Loose examinea me biockhouse, a jog in Major Wall 1 that connects PuebloAlto to the East ruin (Camilli and Cordell 1983:Figure27; Obenauf 1980a: 145; Windes 1987[1]: 16, Figure4.1). Although initially thought to represent a smallroom or ramp over the wall, the results of excavationswere inconclusive.The Poco site, 29S1101O, was discovered in1972 during field checking of road segments found onaerial photographs. Located along a spur of the"Sandspit Road" between Chetro Ked and theEscavada Wash, this site consists of six circularfeatures, linear features, and mounds along the eastand west side of the site (Figure 5.27). Excavationwas designed to determine whether features identifiedon the photographs would be similarly classified onceexcavated; the accuracy of orthophoto maps; the siteconstruction date, and whether it preceded or succeededthe road construction, and therefore when theroad was built; and the function of the site structures(Drager and Lyons 1983a). Initially the circular structureswere designated as kivas; excavation of three ofthe circles that were linked to one another indicatedthat walls probably never exceeded 1 m in height andlacked evidence for roofs. Masonry walls in all threecircles were very similar; tabular sandstone coursedwalls with adobe mortar were approximately 1 m thickand less than 1 m high. Although two of the three hadfirepits on their plastered floors, other features typicalofkivas were lacking (Figure 5.28). Because the roadsurface butted the Circle B wall but did not go beneathit, there was no way to determine which feature hadbeen constructed first. One archaeomagnetic datefrom the firepit in Circle A suggested use aroundA.D. 1210 ± 11. Windes (in Drager and Lyons1983a) thought this date was too late, based onexperience at dating Pueblo Alto; he suggested that theceramics indicated a Late Pueblo II-Pueblo III use,possibly as a signaling station, because it was on ahigh point of the mesa. Although road-related, thefunction of this site had not been satisfactorilydetermined (Obenauf 1980a: 146).Continuing studies of roads and road-relatedfeatures outside of Chaco Canyon conducted by theBureau of Land Management (Kincaid 1983; Nials etal. 1987) identified the Poco site as an example of aHzambullida" (Kincaid 1983:9-11 to 9-14, C7 to C9).In addition to increasing our knowledge about theextent of the road network, excavations demonstratedthe differences between historic and prehistoric roads;ceramics provided dates for the use of some of thesefeatures; and a number of road-associated masonryfeatures were identified and named (Kincaid 1983;Nials et a1. 1987). More recent evaluation of theroads led Roney (1992) to question their function; heproposed that the short segments documented aroundmany of the Chacoan great houses and great kivas mayrepresent ceremonial tracks.Irrigation Systems and Agricultural FieldsIdentification of both Navajo and Anasaziagricultural features in and around Chaco Canyon hasa long history (Gordon Vivian and Mathews 1965: 11-14). Holsinger's (1901: 11-12) descriptions of Navajofields and the small ditches used to bring water tothem contrasts with his description of five "artificialreservoirs, " each associated with a system of irrigationditches. Hewett (1905) relocated these "reservoirs"the following year, but by the 1920s, visibility ofthese features had decreased due to alluviation in someareas (Judd 1954:55-59). Gordon Vivian's examinationof aerial photographs did not reveal the watercontrol features described by Holsinger (1901) atPueblo Pintado and Kin Ya'a, but those at Kin Klizhinand Kin Bineola were identified and studied. Additionally,a complex near Casa Rinconada wasidentified. Today the only visible fields in the canyonbottom attributed to the Pueblo people are those nearChetro Ked and Casa Rinconada.

'oE3SCALE:Nr15METERS30ICIRCLE BOFIREPITCIRCLE C0,SCALE:N\2 3 4METERS5....--Figure 5.27.Map of the Poco site, 29SJlOlO. (Takenfrom Kincaid 1983:Figure C-2.)Figure 5.28.Map of three excavated circular masonrystructures at the Poco site. (Taken fromKincaid 1983:Figure 9-8.)

The Florescence 173Figure 5.29.Aerial photograph of the Cherto Ketl field, indicating placement of test trenches excavatedby Richard Loose. (NPS office, Santa Fe.)Pursuing his father's lead, Gwinn Vivian (1972:8, 1974b: 104-105, in preparation) documented a 14.5-km (9-mi)-long system of canals that extends along thenorth side of the canyon from the Gallo Wash to theEscavada Wash. Earth and stone dikes channel runofffrom side rincons to major gates that lead to smallercanals and gridded fields (Gwinn Vivian 1972:5,Figure 9.4). In Cly's Canyon, a large masonrydiversion dam impounded greater volumes of water.Two reservoirs at Tsin Kletzin and some pond areasalong the Gallo Canal near Una Vida were observed(Vivian 1972:4-5). Bromberg (1961) documented adiversion wall (Bc 364, 29S11095) on the south sideof Chaco Wash just upstream from Penasco Blanco.This feature would have diverted water into alluvialflats. Based on masonry style, all are attributed to theClassic period.In addition to grid gardens associated with thewater control features on the north side of the canyon,terraced gardens were recorded between Pueblo Alto,Chetro Ketl, and Kin Kletso. At the base oflow cliffseast of Tsin Kletsin, several walled gardens wereidentified.During their evaluation of aerial photographsused to prepare a vegetation map of the canyon, Potterand Kelley (1980:Figure 8) identified a number of oldfields. The one southeast of Chetro Ketl was thelargest and the easiest to distinguish (Figure 5.29).

174 Chaco Project SynthesisEvaluation of seven trenches in this field (Loose andLyons 1976a) suggested intentional flattening of thesurface, earthen levees, and probably intermittentfloods across the area. Two possible laminated strata,the lowest associated with Pueblo I sherds, wereattributed to overbank flooding of the wash. Two gatesystems suggest continued use. A single archaeometricdate of A.D. 1250 from the upper layer byNichols (1975:4-8) does not correlate well with thelatest Bonito phase sherds recovered in the testtrenches (Loose and Lyons 1976a).Lagasse et al. (1984) do not believe that the largerainfall events flowing through the major watershedscould have been controlled by facilities such as thosein Rincon 4 near Penasco Blanco (Gwinn Vivian 1972:Figure 5.4). Vivian (1992) suggested that the captureof all water, especially that from ,small precipitationevents, would have provided some moisture that mayhave been sufficient to soak some gridded garden plotswithin the system.SummaryWith the new data from survey and excavation,Chaco Project archaeologists were able to better definethe chronological sequence for the Classic period.Pueblo II sites were divided into early and latesegments, as were Pueblo III sites. The Classicflorescence was described in three phases: The EarlyBonito phase (Red Mesa ceramic assemblage); theClassic Bonito phase (Gallup ceramic assemblage);and the Late Bonito phase (Late Mix ceramicassemblage), which included Early Pueblo III sites.Although the calendrical dates assigned to theseperiods shifted slightly (Appendix B, Figure B.l), thearchitectural styles and artifacts assigned to themprovided a basis for more detailed discussions ofchange through time, including the movement ofmajor settlements in the canyon. The distinct differencesamong large and small sites in the adoption ofwall masonry, wall foundations, ventilator shaft construction,and location of trash disposition, as well asformalization of features in great kivas and enclosureof plazas, will be presented in the following chapter.By approximately A.D. 850, communitiesaround three great houses were established. Not onlywere additions to these three great houses built duringthe A.D. 900s, but several other great houses withtype I masonry were constructed during the tenth century;e.g., Chaco East. Una Vida and Kin Nahasbaswere contemporaneous and close together. In thelatter case, participation in a communications systemand not location next to a major drainage seems amore likely explanation for placement on the slope ofthe north mesa. The burst of construction at greathouses during the mid- to late-lOOOs and early l100s,the diversity that appears in small site rooms in theearly A.D. looos, and the changes in room sizes andfunction at Pueblo Alto suggested two major shifts insocial organization around A.D. 1050 and 1100 thatwere marked by the beginning and end of thedominance of Gallup Black-on-white in the ceramicassemblage (H. Toll and McKenna 1997). Thesefiner-grained chronological distinctions, which dividedthree phases of the Bonito period, would be correlatedwith climatic fluctuations and changes in materialculture. Some results of those analytical studies onlybecame available recently.With new data come new questions. Once thegreat houses were found to have different types ofrooms, not all of which were living quarters, thenumber of families using these structures year-roundbecame an issue. The differences in big-room suitesbetween those with firepits vs. heating pits and thepresence of road-related rooms suggested multiplefunctions for the great houses during the ClassicBonito phase between A.D. 1050 and 1100. Thefunction of trash mounds and roads, both associatedwith the great houses during this period, are alsounclear. Are they ritual structures?At great houses such as Pueblo Alto, Windes(1987[11]:605) described the trash mound as havingdistinct layers separated by a thick layer of aeolianfill, which led to the interpretation of deposition asbeing cyclical and different from that at small siteswhere no such definite divisions are apparent. Truell(1992:209-210) acknowledged that there are differencesin exotics and bone frequencies at small housesite trash middens, but she did see internal layering.She suggested that the mounds had different functions.The mounds at small sites represent a slow accretionof regularly accumulated debris; those at the largesites contained large quantities of construction debrisand very little trash. Wills's (2001) recent reevaluationof the trash mound came to a similarconclusion about the function of trash mounds; their

The Florescence 175construction could be the result of a ritual activity thatis being carried out elsewhere, but the mounds are notintentional ritual structures. Under the direction ofWills, re-evaluation of earlier trenches at PuebloBonito is currently under way.The function of roads is also unclear. Roney(1992) found that only a few major roads (e.g., theGreat North Road) can be traced for long distances.Most other known segments are found around greathouses in communities outside of Chaco Canyon. Hesuspects that they may have had ritual meaning.Do small sites represent seasonal occupation(Windes 1987[1]:405)? Data from 29SJ627 (Truell1992:240) do not provide a clear answer. Analyses ofmacrobotanical and pollen remains (M. Toll 1985aand A. Cully 1985b) indicate use from spring throughautumn. Truell considered Akins's study of faunalremains insufficient to shed light on this topic becauseeither procurement practices or later disturbances byanimals could have affected the data. Truell (1992:241) stated: "One thing that seems apparent from thesite use through time is that if the inhabitants of29SJ627 were there intermittently or seasonally, therewas some consistency in the group who occupied thesite." They made similar use of space and constructionmethods through time. Without answers to thesequestions, models for social organization will remaindifficult to evaluate.The shift in popUlation concentrations toward thecentral canyon after A.D. 1050 needs further clarification.The presence of A.D. 1100s features at someof the small sites in Marcia's Rincon and elsewheremay indicate a reuse of earlier areas or a problem withthe sample of excavated sites. Windes (1993:404)indicates that five PUeblo II srr.all sites in the FajadaGap community were occupied during the ClassicBonito phase, but that many others were abandoned.He suggests that some of the abandoned houses wereformally closed with the smashing of the latestcooking jars in the primary pit structures. We do notknow why some people moved away while othersremained.Some of these issues will be explored further inthe following chapters; others remain for futureinvestigation. But any models for social organization(Chapter 9) must consider these data and questions.

--- -----------------------------------

Chapter SixThe Classic Adaptation Within Chaco CanyonWhat may have been the purposes of many of their marked peculiarities; what the numbers andcharacteristics of their buildeis; what the relationship, if R..1J.y, bet\veen their in.habit~'lts a..nd the otherfamilies of the great race of early community dwellers, are queries which may be answered in part whenthe investigator shall go back with pick and shovel to uncover the buried rooms, and lay bare that whichhas remained concealed since the death of departure of the ancients. (Bickford 1890:896-897)The Chaco Project staff focused on anexamination of data pertaining to the Classic period inChaco Canyon, including the effects of environmenton culture. Determining the parameters within whichthe people lived and worked was especially relevant tounderstanding this period with the largest population,the great houses and their communities, and the mostspectacular artifacts. This chapter outlines the environmentalparameters within which the Chacoanslived, evaluates the population and its health, andpresents aspects of material culture and practices thatprovide clues to social organization. Other colleaguesstudied astronomy and cosmology to flesh out themodels discussed in Chapter 9.Environmental Parameters AffectingAgricultureBased on research synthesized by Gillespie(1983, 1984b, 1985), the climate of Chaco Canyonduring the Bonito period is assumed to be similar tothat of today. Although average rainfall is approximately22 cm (8 in), it varies considerably from yearto year. Extended periods of above- or below-averagerainfall would have affected crop production; but evenduring wetter periods, dry farming on mesa topswould have been limited. Vegetation would have beensimilar to that of today. Pinon and juniper wereprobably present within the area. Some ponderosapine would have been imported from long distances;and spruce, Douglas-fir, and subalpine fir, whichrequire cooler and wetter climates, would have beenfound only on the perimeters of the San Juan Basin.Because of the low annual rainfall, water wasconsidered the most limiting factor for the agriculturalistswho farmed within Chaco Canyon and itsimmediate surroundings. Regional summer precipitationvalues reconstructed by Robinson and Rose(1979) provided the initial data against whichcomparisons of cultural events could be made. Basedon the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) calculatedby Rose et al. (1982), the dry interval betweenA.D. 1030 and 1060 and the protracted and severedrought between A.D. 1130 and 1180 are thought tohave affected agricultural production (Dean 1992).Windes (1987[1]:30-37, Figure 2.2) interpretedthe July PDSI values as an indicator that overall theA. D. 900s represent a century of above-average moisture,followed by interspersed dry periods betweenA.D. 1006 and 1029. This period correspondsarchaeologically with the predominance of Red MesaBlack-on-white pottery in the ceramic assemblage.Mild drought conditions from A.D. 1031 to 1050,thought to coincide with the beginning of the Gallupceramic assemblage, were worst in the eleventhcentury. Increased moisture in the A.D. 1060s and1070s was followed by a low from A.D. 1081 to1099. The early twelfth century (A.D. 1100 to 1129,the Late Mix ceramic assemblage) was a wet period,followed by moderate drought conditions from A.D.1130 to 1180-the most severe drought that occurredduring the 250-year Bonito phase (Figure 6.1).When Windes (1993:Figure 2.6) constructed athree-years-running mean for the San Juan Basin, there

31-----------------------------------------------------------------------------~~------__,Moderately wet1.8~ 0.6-.J§

The Classic Adaptation 179were above-normal PDSI values for fewer years thanthose below normal. Thus, farmers contended withincipient drought and mild drought more often thanthey had with either wet spells or moderate to severedroughts. Six severe droughts (A.D. 907 to 908,924,980 to 982, 992 to 994, 1035, and 1047) were followedby rebounds in precipitation. He concludedthat a three-year storage capacity would have carriedpeople through any crop failures.That the storage would have been sufficient toover-come most environmental perturbations is supportedby two other studies. Bums (1983) examinedthe effects of several variables on com and dry beanproduction. His simulation indicated that dry beancrop yields are more susceptible to variation in precipitationthan com. He used three years of storage and24 years of shortfalls to indicate fawine. Althoughseveral periods of famine were identified, noneoccurred during the Chaco florescence. However,Bums (1983:232-235) suggested that two periods(A.D. 995 to 1041, and 1146 to 1193) were timeswhen agriculturalists would have faced severe agriculturaland nutritional problems. Years of surpluscrops also occurred at A.D. 730 to 737, 785 to 787,797 to 808, 820 to 822, 832 to 839, 899 and 900, 987to 989, 1050 to 1065 (the second largest surplus in theseries), 1112 to 1118, and 1201 to 1213. In a laterstudy, Sebastian (1992: 106-114) based her simulationon com units. Allowing for a five-year surplus, yearsof low production or little or no social surplus occurredfrom A.D. 937 to 942, from 1142 to 1154,from 1167 to 1178, and from 1190 to 1195. Cropsurpluses would have occurred around A.D. 990, andfrom A.D. 1050 to 1130.In summary, although precIpItation was alimiting factor, the Chacoans would have been able tofarm and store crops successfully during incipient ormild drought. During three major periods of stress(identified by Bums [1983] as around A.D. 705 to726, during the mid-A.D. 11 OOs , and again aroundA.D. 1276 to 1299) one expects major cultural disruptions.Other fluctuations in precipitation wereprobably overcome by changes in storage practices andother adjustments.To better understand the constraints of precipitationon agricultural production, Chaco Project archaeologistsplanted crops in nine locations during1977, 1978, and 1979 (H. Toll et al. 1985). Due toa lack of success with beans and gourds during thefirst year, only com was planted during the followingtwo. Com plots were located in several topographiclocations. Some were not watered; some were wateredonce a week; and some were watered twice a week.Differences in results between plots were marked.Com did grow in the sodium-rich black alkali soilsfound on the main canyon floor. Dunes along thesouth side of the canyon produced com but seemedmore prone to destruction by pests than plots on valleyfloor. There were greater high and low temperatureextremeS on the north side of the canyon. Preci=pitation events varied at three different stations. Eventhough watering helped, natural precipitation wasrequired. Based on their experiences, H. Toll et al.(1985) concluded that Chaco is a marginal environmentin which to grow com. Even with irrigationsystems, there is no guarantee of success because thetiming of precipitation events is crucial. Farmerswould have to have been very attentive to precipitationevents in order to provide extra water when needed.The horticultural methods employed on the south sideof the canyon may have been more reliable on a longtermbasis.Precipitation is not the only factor that wouldaffect crop production. Gillespie (1985:18-19) consideredtemperature and a frost-free season crucial toagricultural success. He indicated that the frost-freeperiod in Chaco Canyon is between 110 and 130 days,which is quite close to M. Bradfield's (1971) estimateof 115 to 130 days needed for historic Hopi com.Faster maturing strains of com may have beenavailable to the Chacoans.Although the species of com grown in ChacoCanyon have not been determined, general patterns ofchange have been described. For the Southwest, M.Toll (1985:260-263) indicated that a new type introducedby A.D. 500 probably increased yields. AfterA.D. 700, the number of cob rows also shifted. The"broad pattern of continuity in com morphology fromlate Basketmaker through Pueblo II, followed by achange to a lower-rowed Pueblo III type" in the SanJuan Basin did not accurately model what she observedin Chaco Canyon samples (M. Toll 1985:260). Sitesin Chaco Canyon generally average 1O-rowed cobsfrom Basketmaker III through Pueblo III. At PuebloAlto, however, the Red Mesa ceramic assemblage had

180 Chaco Project Synthesispredominantly eight-rowed cobs, while the Gallup andLate Mix ceramic periods had lO-rowed cobs. Largercobs and more I2-rowed than 8-rowed cobs appear inone Basketmaker III site (29SJ628) and one Red Mesasite (29SJ1360).During the Red Mesa ceramic period, there was. wide use of all categories of wild plants. Economicannuals (i.e., goosefoot, winged pigweed, pigweed,purslane, cocklebur stickweed tobacco, and possiblygroundcherry, stickleaf, and beeweed that appeared inBasketmaker III and Pueblo I sites) were found ingreater numbers and less patchy patterns (M. Toll1985, I993b). Com ubiquity is at its lowest levelduring the Early Bonito phase. Data from PuebloAlto indicate a steady and perceptible increase inubiquity of com through time; at the same time thereis a diminution in the presence of some perennials. Bythe Late Mix ceramic period (Late Bonito phase, earlyA.D. lIOOs), a robust type of com is found in threegreat houses: Pueblo Bonito, Pueblo del Arroyo, andTalus Unit No.1. In contrast, com remains from UnaVida, Kin Nahasbas, and Pueblo Alto, plus cobs fromthe Bis sa'ani great house, are much smaller (M. Toll1985, 1987).Variability is also present in the San Juan Basinat Salmon ruin, where the Chacoan occupation wascharacterized by cobs with 12 rows versus the 10-rowed cobs among later remains. When ChacoCanyon data are compared with Salmon ruinspecimens, however, the cobs and cupules from theChacoan occupation at Salmon are even larger as therow number decreases. Toll attributed these morphologicaldifferences to variability in growing conditionsand redistribution rather than racial variation. Thelarger cob sizes may reflect better growing conditionsin an area that has a permanent water source.There is no information on when and how agriculturalpests or other perturbations affected cropproduction (Gillespie 1985). The severity of anyproblem would depend on how much land wasavailable for multiple planting and overplanting,population density, improvements in technology,ability to increase reliance on hunting and gathering,or the ability to rely on inhabitants from other areas ofthe San Juan Basin through food exchange.Land Available and Used for AgricultureNot all lands in Chaco were equally good foragriculture.The tilt of the rock strata ... has resulted inthe exposure of eroding shale at the foot ofthe southern cliffs, and deep alluviation onthe north side where the floodplain in someplaces laps the foot of the rock.... Soildeposited around the walls of Bonito andChetro Ketl and stratigraphy exposed in thechannel demonstrated that from 2 to 5 feetof soil were added since those walls wereerected.... When the wash was still a shallowchannel, occupants on the north side weremore subject to the danger of occasionalhigh water than the people across thevalley, but the southern exposure made forshorter winters. (Hayes 1981:61)Soils were not uniform on the canyon floor (D. Love1977b, 1980). Those along side canyons and nearside-canyon mouths were locally derived; they weresandier and contained well-crystallized kaolinite. Incontrast, soils from the Chaco drainage had poorlycrystallized illites and montmorillonites (Ross 1978).Soil samples taken from the "post-Bonito channel" andanalyzed for Judd (1964:230-231) were impervious towater and contained an excess of sodium and a scarcityof soluble calcium. A. Cully and Toll (1986) assessedconditions as follows:Geomorphic conditions during the Anasaziperiod provided an additional environmentalaspect temporarily favorable tofloodwater and dry farming. D. Love(1977a) suggests that shallow, anastomosedchannels characterized most natural drainagebasins in this period. Flow in thesechannels (concentrated from a wider area)was spread over 30-60 centimeters ofwindblown sands and silts trapped byvegetation, and kept within root depths ofcrops by underlying finer-grained alluvialdeposits. Large-grained eolian deposits in

The Classic Adaptation 181upland areas during this period alsocontributed to ready absorption of rainfall.Where such deposits overlaid fine-grainedmaterials, the percolated moisture wasagain kept within a range useful to plants,while the sands acted as an evaporationretardingmulch and prevented soils buildup.(A. Cully and Toll 1986)Studies of current conditions in the Kin Bineola andKin Klizhin sections by A. Cully and Toll (1986)indicated that both areas have a mix of saltbrushspecies tolerant of alkaline and saline conditions onthe floodplains. Although a similar mix of species ispresent on the slopes and in side drainages, these areascontain more ricegrass and sand drop seed than theuplands, which have more grasses and shrubs. TheKin Bineola lowlands are better for agricultuie tha..~those along Kin Klizhin Wash because they are lessalkaline or saline and have a higher water table.However, because soils can collect salts throughagricultural use, retrodicting today's conditions intothe past and making inferences about the potential foragriculture must proceed with caution.Several investigators provide evidence forPueblo use of three types of agriculture (dry farming,floodwater farming, and use of water control systemsto direct water to gridded fields). Akchin gardens onthe south side of the canyon and planting in dunes, onthe talus, or alongside channels would have beendependent on natural precipitation (Gwinn Vivian1992). Dry farming would have been a viable optionduring wetter periods that occurred between A. D. 900and 1150. "The persistent location of small housesnext to dry farming areas indicates that localagriculture continued to be attempted. Despite highsite density, small houses rarely encroached on dunelocations, possibly for reasons other than theirpotential for agriculture" (Truell 1986:319).Although few fields in Chaco Canyon are visibletoday, small site clusters occur at the mouths of sidedrainages and adjacent to dune deposits that mayrepresent the best dry farming areas in the canyon.Although Gillespie (1985) and Gwinn Vivian(1992) did not consider mesa tops a good location forfarming, Windes (1987[1]:120-124, Plates 5.15 and5.16) documented four areas on terraces south ofPueblo Alto where masonry walls, backed by alluvialsand, would have been well situated to enjoy morningsun, afternoon shade, and ground water seepage. Onetchamahia and a predominance of jar forms suggestagricultural activities in these areas (Windes 1987[I]:Table 5.5). Ceramic types include a few from theA.D. 900s, but the sherds date predominantly to theearly A.D. lO00s through the early A.D. 1100s.Floodwater farming was proposed for theinhabitants ofBc 362, a small site located on the southside of the Chaco Wash and on the eastern edge of anaiiuviai fan that resuited from outwash from thearroyo in Cly's Canyon (Voll1964). Voll suggestedthat sediments created a dam across the main ChacoWash during a period of aggradation. The house waslocated on a small mound composed of sandy, silty,and clayey alluvium that was topped by 0.6 m (2 ft) ofcultural material. Below this was a layer that exhibitedfine charcoal in sandy soil. At about 1.5 to 2.1 m(5 to 7 ft) was agray silty clay strata that Voll attributedto water deposition from the main channel. Theinitial occupation of five rooms and a kiva on top ofthe mound was tentatively dated around A.D. 1088based on the presence of Chaco, Escavada, Gallup,and McElmo black-on-white sherds. Expansion andremodeling around A.D. 1100 resulted in a 20-roompueblo with two kivas. The latest tree-ring dates,around A.D. 1113, suggested short use and abandonmentduring the early A.D. ll00s.Vall was unaware of the major diversion andcollection system that Gwinn Vivian (1991) documentedfor the arroyo in Cly's Canyon, where amasonry dam crosses it. Masonry at 29S11731(Vivian's B2, B4, B5, and B8) recorded by the ChacoProject survey crew was cruciform in shape andcomposed of unshaped sandstone rocks, probablyrepresenting a headgate. The masonry veneer was notMcElmo style, but was more like Classic Chacomasonry. A long depression extended from the mouthof the rincon and included sites 29S11741 and29S11750. Vivian (1991:51) identified this area asone of three examples of larger water control featuresin the canyon. During testing, Vivian (personalcommunication, 2002) recovered very few sherds;types could support either a mid- to late lO00s or amid- to late 1100s use. Vivian is fairly certain that thesystem was built by at least A.D. 1080.

182 Chaco Project SynthesisTable 6.1. Estimates of land in Chaco Canyon available for crop production.Investigator Criterion Acres HectaresHayes (1981) Canyon floor alluvium 3,200 1,295Loose and Lyons (1976a) Vegetative zones associated with old fields defmed by Potter and 3,584 1,451Kelley (1980)Gwinn Vivian (1974b, Area covered by floodwater from side canyons 2,667 1,0801991:66)If lower moisture levels charted by Windes(1987[I]:Figures 2.2 and 2.3) prompted farmers toconstruct Bc 362 around A.D. 1088 on an alluvial fanat the bottom of a major side drainage during a periodof stress (ca. A.D. 1081 to 1099), later expansion ofthe site in the early A.D. 1100s would have allowedthe inhabitants to take advantage of a longer andwetter period that followed. The demise of the site inthe early A.D. ll00s may correlate with the onset ofa long-term drought beginning around A.D. 1126.The late sherds obtained from the water control featureby Gwinn Vivian suggest that this system may havebeen reused by people living at another site in anattempt to alleviate effects of the A.D. 1130 to 1180drought.Dating of the water control system and associatedgardens is difficult to establish. Of the systemslocated on the north side of the canyon in the 15-kmstretch from Wijiji to the confluence of the Chaco andEscavada washes (Gwinn Vivian 1974b, 1984, 1990:309-313, 1991, 1992), we know the most about theChetro Ketl field (Loose and Lyons 1976a) that Vivianused to model the Rincon-4 system (Vivian 1974b,1992:51). Near Chetro Ketl, one of the gates that funneledwater through the gardens had been remodeled,reconstructed, or repaired at least once, probably dueto a flood that washed out the structure. Vivian(personal communication, 2002) thinks that this repairoccurred soon thereafter and is not representative ofdifferent periods of use. He reasoned that if the gridborders were being constructed in the early to midA.D. l100s using earlier refuse, the occasionalMcElmo sherd might represent refuse washing downfrom the pueblo. Vivian indicated that sherdsrecovered from this system span the period from A.D.1050 to 1200. The mid- to late-A.D. 1200s archaeomagneticdate obtained by Nichols (1975) anddiscussed by Loose and Lyons (1976a) might suggesteven later use of the fields than the Wingate Black-onredsherds indicate. At Casa Rinconada there issimilar evidence for one instance of change in the useof features. Here the latest canal orientation runsapproximately at a 45-degree angle from an earlier,deeper canal (personal communication, 2002). Vivianis currently preparing an in-depth report on hisresearch, which hopefully will help clarify the use ofthese features.In summary, the Chacoans used several differentfarming techniques, mainly along the canyon bottom.Table 6.1 summarizes estimations of possible cropproduction areas on the canyon floor. Hayes (1981)calculated the area of the canyon floor covered byalluvium. The range of numbers (from 1,080 to 1,451ha [2,667 to 3,584 aD probably encompass the actualarea under cultivation, yet not all of this area wasnecessarily in use contemporaneously. Schelberg(1982a: 116-118) introduced fallowing ofland into theevaluation of Chacoan agricultural practices. He suggesteddecreasing the available acreage by either 40 or50 percent to allow for renewal of soils. Is fallownecessary? Perhaps not; natural accumulation of newsoils probably occurred during certain periods. Judd(1964:224-225), Jackson (1878), and Bryan (1954) allindicated accumulation of from 1.2 to 4.8 m (4 to 16ft) of soil in the Chaco Wash between Pueblo I andPueblo III. The deposit of several feet of soils abovethe lower clay level where Pueblo I sherds wererecovered to the upper clay levels in the Chetro Ketlfields (Loose and Lyons 1976a) also indicated thatfallow may not have been necessary. Any discussionof agricultural practices, however, should not dismissthis consideration.

The Classic Adaptation 183Estimated Population Supported by AvaUableAgricultural LandBased on observations at historic Pueblos, Table6.2 suggests a range of acres cultivated per person.Table 6.2. Estimated acres of farm landneeded per person.Pueblo Acres PerGroup Person ReferenceHopi 3 Stephen (1930)Hopi 3 Hack (1942)Hopi 2 W. Bradfield (1971:36)Zia 1.09 White (1962:85)Zuni 1.06 Tyler (1964:xvi)Various 0.89 Jorde (1973)As A. Cully and Toll (1986) pointed out, most ofthese studies include populations that consume manydietary supplements and may not accurately reflectpast needs. Only the calculations made by Jorde(1973) included variables such as metabolic rates, ageand sex structure of the population, stature, prehistoriccultigen production, and proportion of diet. Bycombining the available acreage estimated by differentresearchers, as well as estimates by Schelberg (1982a)for the Escavada Wash and by Cully and Toll (1986)for the additional lands and the Bis sa'ani communitythat is located along the Escavada Wash, with the variousnumber of acres needed per person, Table 6.3 wasconstructed. Although there is a range in the numberof people that could be supported by agriculture, themaximum number for the canyon bottom isapproximately 4,000. With fallowing, this numberwould be reduced to 1,880 at 40 percent fallow, andto 1,567 at 50 percent fallow (Schelberg 1982a:Table12). Depending on the density of settlement along theEscavada Wash, these numbers could be increased.However, the Bis sa'ani community was presentduring the A.D. 1100s; it might have supportedgreater numbers than either Kin Klizhin or KinBineola at this time.These popUlation estimates are considerablyhigher than those derived from estimates of the availablemammalian remains (Akins 1985:403). Akinsassumed that each person needs 200 calories of proteinper day. Based on estimated rabbit and deer harvestrates for the Chacoan landscape, she calculated thatonly 702 people could have been supported usingavailable fauna from within what is now the parkboundary. By extending her range to include a lO-kmradius, 2,727 people could be supported (Akins 1985:404). This latter estimate assumes that no one livedwithin the perimeters of this larger area so thatresources wouid be avaiiabie to those in the canyon.Even if this were true, the numbers fall below severalestimates of the canyon population (see below).Using the same assumptions for caloric need,base.d on faunal reInains re..covered from excavatedsites (Table 6.4), Akins (1985:400-401) calculated thenumber of people that could have been supported. Shefound that none of the inhabitants of small house siteswould have had sufficient protein in their diet. Evenif the number of calories per day were cut in half (to100 per day), there would have been too little proteinto meet their needs. Although Akins recognized thatthere are a number of problems (such as exact lengthof site occupation and whether the site was usedintermittently), the situation seems bleak. Only forPueblo Alto did estimates come close to supporting theproposed population; here, the method for determiningthese estimates was based on data from the trashmound. When she based her calculations on othertrash areas at this site, the estimated protein waslower.There are several factors that could affect theseresults. Dried meat could have been imported. Althoughit would be easily storable and portable, itwould not be visible in the archaeological record(Akins 1985). Such meat could be acquired directlyby hunting or through trade. The presence of elk,bear, tassel-eared squirrel, snowshoe hare, and Easterncottontail, all available at a distance of 60 to 70 kmfrom Chaco Canyon, suggests that this occurred.Some deer and pronghorn could have been obtainedfrom closer locations. Fresh meat would keep throughthe time involved in foot transport from areas between16 and 32 km away, but meat would need to be concentratedif the source was at 80 km or more. Deer,

184 Chaco Project SynthesisTable 6.3. Estimated population in Chaco Canyon that could be supported by agriculture.Acres per PersonReference Area Acreage 3 2 0.89Hayes (1981) Main canyon alluvium 3,200 1.067 1,600 3596Loose and Lyons (1976a) Main canyon, two vegetative 3,584 1,195 1,792 4,026zonesGwinn Vivian (1991) Main canyon; side drainages and 2,667 889 1,334 2,997their alluvial fansSchelberg (1982a) Main canyon 3,584 1,195 1,792 4,026At 40% fallow 717 1,075 2,416At 50% fallow 598 896 2,013Escavada 1,000 ft 2,788 929 1,394 3,133Escavada 500 ft 1,394 465 697 1,566Escavada 250 ft 697 232 348 783A. Cully and Toll (1986) Kin Klizhin 123.2 41 62 138Kin Bineola 218.2 73 109 245South Addition 155.9 52 78 175Chacra Mesa 432.9 144 217 486Bis sa'ani community 380-470 123 153 426-528Table 6.4. Estimates of populations at excavated sites based on faunal remains. aEstimated length ofEstimated faunal Estimated site time population could Estimated occupationSite Number remains in man years population be supported of site298J299 2 9 81 days 150 years29SJ628 14.1 5 2.8 years 75 years29SJ724 1 9 40.5 days 30 years29S11360 7.9 20 145 days 50 years298J627 50 10 5 years 150 yearsPueblo Alto Trash 6,360 100 63 years 70 yearsMound• Estimates taken from Akins (1985:400-401).

The Classic Adaptation 185which are 74 percent water, would have been mucheasier to transport in a dried state (Akins 1985:409).After reviewing studies examining energy and thetransport of food, Akins (1985:408) suggested thattrade probably was involved in the acquisition of meatfrom distances in excess of 10 km.Estimates of Available WaterNo matter how much arable land was available,it would be useful only if there was sufficient water tocover domestic use and construction needs, as well asfarming (Gwinn Vivian i992). Today, surface watercollects in pools at the confluence of the Chaco andEscavada washes. Ground water collects in seeps, inrincons, and in side canyons. Seasonal runoff collectsin potholes and tanks; it can be captured or diverted tofields.Drinking water may have been sufficient.Windes (1987[1]:39) identified four seeps in Cly'sCanyon. Samples from the Great Gambler's Spring(29S11791) had been analyzed by Judd (1954: 12), andby Windes. Both indicated that this water was exceptionally pure. Discharge rates calculated from samplescollected by Windes in mid-October were 4 L per day.At nearby seep 29SJ1752, discharge rates were 59 Lper day (in mid-May) and 69 L per day (in midOctober) during a wet year. Based on documentedneeds of soldiers in a dry environment and NewMexicans at rest, Windes thought that the four seepsin Cly's Canyon would support between 100 and 200permanent residents. Other seep basins appear alongthe cliff bases where the Cliff House Formation isexposed on the north mesa bench. Shallow wells inthe Escavada Wash would have provided considerablewater. The Chaco Wash could have been used, but itshigh mineral and salt content would have made itswater much less desirable to drink or use for irrigation(Windes 1987a[I]:37-42). Assuming a population of5,566 people living in the canyon, Gwinn Vivian(1992) thought that domestic needs could be met byutilizing the numerous seeps, shallow wells, bedrocktanks, and manmade reservoirs. If rules of use weresimilar to historic Hopi, members of either greathouses or small house sites could have managed theirown local supply. Hopi women are known to stay upall night to capture every drop of water during periodsof drought; they also manage water sources withlimited flows. Larger springs are under the control ofindividual clans who develop and clean the areas on aregular basis (Vivian 1992).Because construction could be delayed, GwinnVivian (1992) thought the timing of construction wasflexible. Using Lekson's (1984a) estimates for waterneeds during great house construction periods, Vivianproposed that small houses and class 1 great houseconstruction (a fairly regular, ongoing event) needscould have been met by using the water sources listedfor domestic use. Class II, class III, and class IV constructionneeds, however, would have requiredadvance plan,.ing, scheduling of seasonal labor, 3...Wldstorage of water in temporary ponds or reservoirs forshort periods. Ownership of stored resources by asocial group, such as a clan, for communal purposes,and a manager for great house labor units wereproposed.SummaryChaco Project investigators (e.g., Judge 1989;Schelberg 1982a) considered the canyon a stressfulenvironment in which to earn a living as anagriculturalist. Although storage of foods wouldprobably buffer short-term shortfalls in crop production,there were periods when decreased rainfallprobably induced at least minor changes in behavior toalleviate problems. Planting of crops in dune areasand locations where side drainages brought additionalwater to the land was practiced, but rainfall alone wasprobably insufficient to ensure crop production at alltimes. Construction of canals and gridded gardensmay have begun early and continued throughout theentire period, but dating these features is difficult. Nomatter how the land was used, the total acreageconsidered suitable for agriculture probably would nothave supported more than 4,000 people in the best ofcircumstances. People were able to make adjustments,either through increased mobility or trade, duringperiods of stress. The feasibility of these optionsdepends very much on the number of people living inthe canyon and the control they may have had overresources in the larger region.The Chacoan PeopleHow many people lived in Chaco Canyon, andhow healthy they were are topics that have intriguedvisitors and researchers since the great houses were

Table 6.S. Bonito phase population estimates.Population EstimatesInvestigatorGreat HousesSpecific Great House SiteSmall SitesCombinedCommentsCope (1875: 1093)1,500 to 3,000Loew (1875: 1096)400 Pueblo PintadoAssumed each room was inhabited by afamily of four.Jackson (1878:436)2,500200 Pueblo PintadoAssumed each family of five occupied fourrooms.Hewett (1921a:3)10,000Fisher (1934:21, andin Hewett 1936:159)10,000800 Pueblo Pintado600 Wijiji700 Una Vida1 ,200 Chetro Ketl1,200 Pueblo Bonito800 Pueblo del Arroyo1,000 Pueblo Alto800 Tsin Kletsin100 Kin Kletso100 Cas a Chiquita1,200 Penasco Blanco800 Kin Bineola10,000 to 15,000 25,000Combined estimate covers entire ChacoBasin.Judd (1921a:640,1925b:227,2531928a:141,1930b:70)1,100 and 1,200-1,500Pueblo Bonito475 Pueblo del Arroyo10,000Pierson (1949)4,400Survey of211 small sites and great houses forA.D. 950 to 1075. For other periods fromA.D. 700 to 1200, see Table 10.6. Assumed1.9 people per room.

Table 6.5. (cont'd.)Population EstimatesInvestigatorSpecific Great House SiteGreat Houses Small Sites CombinedCommentsDrager (1976b) 2,889 498 Pueblo Bonito 2,947 5,836 Used Hayes's estimates for small sites. Great438 Penasco Blanco houses outside~ of Chaco Culture NHP central333 Una Vida canyon boundaries removed from great house485 Chetro Ketl estimate.300 Kin Bineola274 Hungo Pavi263 Pueblo del Arroyo33 Casa Chiquita92 Kin Kletso181 Pueblo Pintado48 Kin Klizhin94 Kin Ya'a78 Tsin Kletsin94 Wijiji317 Pueblo Alto42 New AltoHayes (1981 :49-51) 2,889 800 Pueblo Bonito 2,748 5,652 Inventory survey of small sites and great285 Pueblo del Arroyo houses used.130 Pueblo AltoWindes (1982, 2,000 100 Pueblo Bonito 2,889 Great house e:stimates based on documented1984a:84, 1987[1]:383- 40-60 Pueblo del Arroyo fll'epits (one per household of six persons).405) 300 to 600 50-100 Pueblo Alto 1,000 1,600 Individual gr('.at house estimates from Windes ;i50-100 Hungo Pavi (1984). (IlLekson (1984a:270 4,100 Between 2,100 and 2,700 people estimated for ~C"Il1988a: 129) 300 to 425 1,600 2,025 "downtown" Chaco (Lekson 1984:272).(1'c..>~(')-....~o·:;,-00-...J

188 Chaco Project Synthesisfirst discovered. This section will review data andproblems associated with population estimates andhealth that need to be resolved.Population EstimatesPopulation estimates for Chaco Canyon varyconsiderably (Table 6.5). The most common methodcounts the number of rooms and multiplies by areasonable factor. The use of architecture, however,is fraught with pitfalls, even when based on the samedata. For example, Loew (1875: 1096) assumed thata family of four inhabited each room at PuebloPintado. In contrast, Jackson (1878:436) thought afamily of five would use four rooms. Thus, their estimatesfor Pueblo Pintado were 400 and 200 ,respectively.Prior to the 1970s, most population estimatesconsidered only the occupation of great house sites(Table 6.5), and investigators assumed these werehabitation sites used by the local agricultural population.In contrast, Fisher's (1934:21) estimate wasbased on the amount of irrigable land and availablerunoff for the entire Chaco Basin.The first to examine popUlation by period and toinclude small site data was Pierson (1949), whorecorded 211 sites along the Chaco Wash. He estimatedthe number of rooms at each site and apportioned1.9 people per room based on contemporaryPueblo room use. Although his small-house surveywas incomplete, he concluded that 4,400 people livedin the canyon during its peak occupation betweenA.D. 950 and 1075 (Table 6.6).Based on the Chaco Project inventory survey,Hayes (1981:50-51) calculated that a family of 4.5individuals would use a three-room suite; thus,accurate numbers of rooms in a site were critical to hisresults. Hayes was aware of complicating factors thatwould affect his results (including sites buried underlater deposits or occupations) and tried to compensatefor such problems. During the period of maximumpopulation, his Early Pueblo II period (A.D. 1050 to1175), his total of 5,652 included 2,889 people insmall sites and 2,748 in great houses.Other Chaco Project investigators used differentapproaches. Drager (1976b) measured the areas of 12Table 6.6. Pierson's population estimates forChaco Canyon. aPeriodEstimated(A.D.) Total Rooms Population700 - 800 101 191800 - 850 923 1754850 - 950 1,837 3,490950 - 1075 2,316 4,4001075 - 1130 1,889 3,5091200 - 1300 168 391• Taken from Pierson (1949:Figure 4).Bonito and McElmo great houses on photogrammetricmaps. NaroWs (1962) formula (which he compared tomodem Pueblo use) depended on room area; it wasapplied to covered roof space to suggest a populationof 2,947 for the central canyon great houses. This isan increase of 201 over Hayes's (1981) estimate, anumber not unlikely given that two different methodsand formulas had been used. Drager used Hayes'snumbers for small sites to obtain a suggested total of5,836 as a maximum popUlation living in the canyon.The assumption that great houses were habitationsites, however, came into question. Windes (1982a)recognized that Hayes's population figures differedconsiderably from the popUlations that could besupported by the economic estimates of local woodresources (Betancourt and VanDevender 1981), arableland (Schelberg 1982a), and faunal remains (Akins1982b). Based on his work at Pueblo Alto, Windesproposed that big-room suites that lacked true firepitsmight represent single-use or short-term use forlimited functions. Other rooms probably were associatedwith road-related activities. As a result hequestioned whether these great houses were usedseasonally or year-round.Estimates of populations at great houses mustaddress several other considerations. Windes (1984a:83) recognized that excavations at Pueblo Altoindicated that the small site pattern of plaza-facing

Table 6.7. Windes's small-house population estimates, based on adjusted inventory survey. BEstimatedEstimatedNo. of percent Predicted number of Percentpueblos unaccounted number of abandoned contem-Period surveyed for pueblos pueblos Total rooms poraneousPueblo I 373 33 497 9 4,473 25700 - 900Early Pueblo II 353 15 406 9 3,654 50900 - 1050Late Pueblo II 323 15 371 9 3,339 501050 - 1100Early Pueblo III 270 7 289 10 2,890 67'1100 - 1150Late Pueblo III 172 7 186 10 80" 671200 - 1300Combined Early and 415 7 480 9 4,316 50Late Pueblo IITotalcontemporaryrooms1,1191,8271,6701,9265862,158Populationestimate1,6792,7362,5052,8898793,237• Minus great houses (980 rooms)......00\0

190 Chaco Project Synthesisresidences held true for great houses. He acknowledgedthat if lower floor firepits were consideredrepresentative of permanent occupation, the presenceof firepits in multi storied structures could be problematic.He also realized that Hopi populationsmoved seasonally from upper to lower stories toconserve energy (Mindeleff 1891:103). These variablesinfluence the outcome of any estimates. Windes(1984:83) settled on the use of first-story firepits asindications of habitations used by a family of six tosuggest that 2,000 people may have lived in greathouses on a year-round basis. This represents adecrease of 700 to 900 fewer people than estimated byeither Hayes (1981) or Drager (1976b). Reyman(1989:51-52), after reviewing Pepper's field notesfrom Pueblo Bonito, commented that some of Pepper' s(1920) room descriptions were incomplete and did notinclude all floor features, so that Windes's estimatesfor this great house are probably too low. Bernardini(1999) recently provided another low popUlationestimate for great houses.In his initial reanalysis of small site populations,Windes (1982) used the 1972 site survey records, butseparated Pueblo II and Pueblo III into early and latephases. His results (Table 6.7) indicate a fluctuationin popUlation during Late Pueblo II, when a slightdecrease was noted. The drop from 2,736 to 2,505,and then an increase to 2,889, was correlated withchanges in rainfall patterns. Thus, Windes thoughtthat few small-site occupations dated to the LatePueblo II period.Windes (1982b, 1984) also realized that theceramic samples collected during the inventory surveydid not truly represent the occupation periods at anumber of small sites. He attributed part of thedifference to changing patterns of trash depositionthrough time. At sites with long occupations spanningLate Pueblo I and Early Pueblo II, a formal extramuraltrash midden appears, usually to the east orsoutheast of the habitation and work areas. As the siteexpands, this area may be covered by a plaza; latertrash deposits often appear only on house mounds. Atthe large pueblos, trash in the mounds usuallyrepresents construction debris initially consisting of aRed Mesa ceramic assemblage but accrued predominantlyduring the Gallup ceramic assemblage (ca.A.D. 1050 to 1100). At large pueblos constructedafter A.D. 1100, there is usually no midden; but trashwas being deposited in unoccupied rooms in bothsmall and large structures. As a result, the inventorysurvey samples did not always reflect lateroccupations.Resurvey of sample transects on the canyon floorbetween Shabik'eshchee Village and Penasco Blancoin 1985 led Windes (1987[1]:383-405) to furtherreduce his small-site population estimates. Small sitesdated to the Early Pueblo II (Red Mesa ceramicassemblage) period were found along the eastern halfof the canyon floor, but were not visible along thewestern half, possibly because they may be buriedunder a later occupation. Sites with a Gallup ceramicassemblage (Late Pueblo II) also appear in the easternhalf of the canyon. Windes proposed that the drop inpopUlation at small sites between A.D. 1050 and 1100might signify a clustering of people in great houses inthe central canyon. (Yet, as part of his analysis ofgreat house popUlations, above, this is the periodwhen they are least likely to have been strictly habitationsites.) Around A.D. 1100, however, there aremore small sites, and they are now found predominantlyon the western half of the canyon. Basedon approximately two families per kiva and theinference that only about half of the kivas would havebeen contemporary, Windes (1987[1]:392) suggesteda population of less than 1,000 in the small houses,with 300 to 600 people living in great houses for boththe mid-1000s and early 1100s.Mills (1986) noted that Windes's survey (Windesand Doleman 1985) was restricted to habitation sitesof three to four, or more, rooms. In her analysis ofthe proveniences and artifacts documented during theadditional lands survey, Mills (1986:Table 4.14) indicatedthat over 40 percent of both categories wasattributed to the period between A.D. 1030 and 1130.The second highest period was A.D. 890 to 1025, butin both instances there was variability in numbersamong the four survey areas. Sebastian and Altschul(1986:Table 2.32) achieved similar results based onanalysis of habitation structure size.Lekson (1984a 1988a, 1988b:l02-129, 1989)also questioned the use of population estimates basedon room counts; he chose pithouses-kivas as an indexof family counts. Acknowledging that early pit

--_._-- -------The Classic Adaptation 191structures are larger than later ones, he recognized thatan average of four to five people per small-site pitstructure may seem unrealistic until one remembersthat many of the functions of pithouses (storage andmealing facilities) moved into the above-groundstructures. With fewer functions, the smaller spacewould accommodate the same number of people. Thistransformation in pit structures, however, did notnecessarily signify a shift from habitation to ceremonialfunctions, as most archaeologists believe. Hesuggested these structures retained their habitationfunctions through Pueblo III, when the ratio of roomsto pit structures increases dramaticaily.Lekson also noted a correlation between thenumber of pithouses-kivas with the amount of trashpresent at a great house site.Great Houses with many pit house-kivas(e.g., Pueblo Bonito, Chetro Ketl, PenascoBlanco, and Pueblo Alto) have huge trashmounds, while Great Houses with only oneor two pit house-kivas (e.g., Hungo Pavi,Wijiji, Kin Kletso) lack mounds altogether.Indeed, at sites with fewer than three pithouses-kivas one almost looks in vain forsherds, flakes, and other artifacts. (Lekson1988a: 120)Pueblo del Arroyo, on the edge of Chaco Wash, wasconsidered an exception; it is possible that the trashmound eroded into the wash. Gwinn Vivian (personalcommunication, 2003) expects that if there had beena trash mound at Kin Kletso, it would have erodedinto the wash.Using the pithouse-kiva as his basis, Lekson(1984a:270, 1988a: 125) proposed a total popUlation of4,100 for the canyon during Early Pueblo III. Themore dispersed settlement pattern of the east side ofthe canyon is more similar to that seen at outliers; UnaVida, therefore, was not included in the central Chacoestimate-the area extending from a gap between UnaVida and Hungo Pavi to the confluence of the Chacoand Escavada washes. He then recalculated smallhousekivas and derived an estimated small-housepopUlation of 1,600 people, and a great house populationfrom 300 to 425, to bring his overall estimatedown to 1,900 to 2,025 people in this more limitedarea.Windes (1987[1]:384; 1993:378-382, 400-402)addressed the question of year-round permanentresidents at both large and small sites throughexamination of house orientation. When the long axisof a rectangular building runs from east to west andthe living quarters face south, the inhabitants receivemore solar winter heat in their living space, which isbuffered from the cooler north side. Many of thehouses located in the Fajada Gap community are soaligned, but many others are not. Windes's analysisof construction at 29SJ629 suggests that this housewas not originally meant to be a year-round residence,but that around A.D. 900 two additional (unenclosed)living rooms were added at each end so they conformedto the east-west pattern, possibly representinga change to permanent residence. Similar analysis ofsite placement in the Chaco East community ledWindes et at (2000) to infer that this was a seasonallyused community.In summary, different methods for estimatingpopUlation and the smaller numbers of people derivedfrom firepit and pithouse-kiva estimates illustrate amajor issue that engages archaeologists wheninterpreting the data. As Lekson (1988a:88-92),Sebastian (1992:52-53), and Windes (1987[1]:405)indicate, population estimates and determination ofyear-round occupation are critical factors forpostulating Chacoan social organization and interrelationships.Because there are problems with thedata and methods, we do not have an accurate estimationof population size, especially during theClassic Bonito phase. Sebastian (1992:52-53) listedquestions that need to be addressed: How manypeople should be included in a Chacoan family? Howdo we identify a suite of rooms that correctly reflectshabitation use for great houses? How do we determinethe function of great houses? How do we determineseasonal occupation or semipermanent use? And forunexcavated structures, how do we calculate whichrooms or areas were in use at the same time?When current population estimates are comparedwith the range in numbers of people that could havebeen supported by agricultural production in ChacoCanyon (Table 6.3), we see that Schelberg's (1982a)estimate of 4,000 people would severely tax the landif fallowing were necessary. The lower estimates forpermanent inhabitants by Windes and Lekson, andmore recently Bernardini (1999), indicate that these

----------------- -----192 Chaco Project Synthesissmaller numbers could have been supported by localagricultural production.Diet and HealthFloral and faunal remains provide evidence forfoods included in the Chacoan subsistence base.Analyses of coprolites and human skeletal remains'provide clues as to how well this diet nourished thepopulation. Although samples are limited, someinsights were gained.M. Toll (1985:268) indicated that there are lowlevelshifts in wild plant use through time. As notedpreviously, when the ubiquity of com is at its lowestlevel at Pueblo Alto during the Red Mesa ceramicperiod, there is evidence to suggest widespread use ofwild plants. There were more species from outside thecanyon in botanical samples from Chacoan greathouses, which might indicate different household andsubsistence organization (M. Toll 1985:249). Atsmall sites, use of firepits vs. heating pits seemed todiffer; the former contained more charred economicweeds and corncobs, while the latter indicated fewfood processing activities. In contrast, at Pueblo Altothese two features seem to have been used in a similarmanner (M. Toll 1985:266). When samples fromsame proveniences were compared, data from pollenand flotation samples were often complementary innature. Data from pollen analysis confirmed the useof similar domesticated and wild plant species at bothlarge and small sites (A. Cully 1985b:218), yet thedistributions of com pollen at each of the sites wasunique. For example, at 29SJ629, the pattern couldbe interpreted as perhaps being seasonal in nature.Based on her analysis of faunal remains, Akins(1982d, 1984, 1985) indicated major dependence onsmall mammals (e. g., cottontail rabbit, jackrabbit, andprairie dog) and economic rodents (e.g., squirrel),plus three larger mammals (antelope, deer, andpronghorn), over an 800-year period. Yet severaltrends suggested change through time (Akins 1985:389-403). Prairie dog use was always fairly low;prairie dogs tended to show low increased percentagesfrom Red Mesa (A.D. 950 to 1020 or 1040) throughLate Mix (A.D. 1100 to 1150 or 1200). Jackrabbitscontributed more to the diet than cottontails during theClassic period. The largest number of cottontailremains were associated with the Red Mesa andGallup (A.D. 1040 to 1100) ceramic assemblages.The peak in jackrabbit remains correlated with theGallup ceramic assemblage, and remained high thereafter.Around A.D. 920 to 950, there was a shift inartiodactyl remains that suggested less dependence onpronghorn and greater dependence on deer. Althoughthe number of mountain sheep remains fluctuated, noclear pattern could be discerned. Carnivores werepresent in low numbers; their presence increasedbetween A.D. 850 and 1000. Turkeys also appearedin low numbers until very late. The overall pattern atboth small sites and great houses suggested that therewas increased use of animals with larger body sizebeginning around A.D. 950 and continuing throughoutthe Classic period. Akins attempted to quantify thepossible differences between remains found at thesmall sites vs. great houses, but the number of assumptionsthat would have had to be made was toogreat. These species that were recovered are typicalof those found at other sites in the San Juan Basin andon the Colorado Plateau (Dean et al. 1985).Two early studies of coprolites (Bc 288, theGallo Cliff Dwelling, by Callen 1977; Kin Kletso, byConley 1977) suggested that all foods included in theChaco diet may not appear in coprolites, yet someunintentional materials do accompany meat andvegetal selections. Ingestion of several plant andanimal taxa was confirmed by more detailed studies ofbone (Gillespie 1981), macrobotanical remains (M.Toll 1981), and pollen (Clary 1981, 1983a, 1983b,1984) found in coprolites recovered from three sitesexcavated by the Chaco Project.Based on pollen recovered in coprolites, Clary(1983a, 1983b, 1984) confirmed that the diet at thegreat houses (Pueblo Bonito, Pueblo Alto, and KinKletso) between about A.D. 1000 and 1150 was verysimilar. Among the taxa recovered were two cultivars(com [Zea mays] and squash [Curcubita sp.]). Beans(Phaseolus sp.), which are difficult to recover becauseof poor preservation and limited pollen distribution,were absent in these samples even though they arereported from Bc 288 (Callen 1977). Weedy economicspecies that probably were encouraged to growwere also present. Pollen samples included goosefootand amaranth (Chenopodiacea and Amaranthus sp.,including pigweed); mallow (Sphaeralcea sp.); wildsunflower (Helianthus sp.), and other members of thesunflower family (Compositae); beeweed (Cleome

The Classic Adaptation 193sp.); buckwheat (Erigonum sp.); and purslane(Portulaca sp.). Among the macrobotanical remainswere tansy mustard (Descurania sp.) and night shade(Solanium sp.). In addition to these encouraged fooditems, a number of wild edible plants were gatheredand eaten. Grasses were found in pollen (Graminaea);macrobotanical remains indicated that ricegrass(Oryzopsis sp.) and dropseed (Sporobolus sp.) wereingested. Pinon (Pinus edulis), Mormon tea (Ephedrasp.), yucca (Yucca sp.), hackberry (Celtis sp.), cactus(type A Cactaceae) and prickly pear (Opuntia sp.), lily(type B Liliacaea), gooseberry (Ribus sp.), and sedge(cf. Carex sp.) were aiso recovered as poUen.As with the floral remains, fewer faunal speciesappear in coprolites when compared with the excavatedmaterials. Clary (1983b:76) noted three speciesin coprolites vs. 22 in the collection from Room 110at Pueblo Alto. Clary (1983b:36) and Gillespie(1981b) found both cooked and uncooked smallmammals. Sylvilagus sp. (desert cottontail) was recoveredmost frequently (in nine of 47 specimens),followed by Cynomys (prairie dog in two of 47specimens); Peromyscus (white-footed mouse in twoof 47 specimens); small birds (in two of 47 specimens);and Lepus (black-tailed jackrabbit in one of47 specimens). Only one large mammal bone (eitherdeer or pronghorn) was recovered in a sample fromKin Kletso. These data reflect evidence from excavationswhere Akins (1985) indicated the greatestdependence on small mammals, primarily rabbits(cottontail and jackrabbit) and rodents (prairie dogsand mice), plus some large mammals (mule deer,pronghorn, and mountain sheep), as well as birds(hawk and golden eagle) and several other smallspecies. As at Bis sa'ani Pueblo, whole rodents wereconsumed (Clary 1983b:20-38).Because pollen can be ingested unintentionallyduring a meal, a number of noneconomic species wererecovered (Clary 1983b). Remains suggested thepresence of other species either in the local area or inareas where Chaco people had been during the pastseveral days that it would have taken to digest theirfood. Species included ponderosa pine (Pinusponderosa), oak (Quercus sp.), buckhorn (Rhamnussp.), sage (Artemisia sp.), sumac (Rhus sp.), walnut(Juglans sp.), greasewood (Sarcobatus sp.), ash(Fraxinus sp.), juniper (Juniperus sp.), birch (Botulasp.), elm (Ulmus sp.), fir (Abies sp.), smartweed(Polygonium sp.), beardtongue (Penstemon sp.),veronia (Veronia sp.), dock (Rumex sp.), primrose(Oenothera sp.), and plantain (Plantago sp.), as wellas members ofthe bean family (Legumenosae), carrotfamily (Umbelliferae), and lily family (Liliaceae).Clary (1983b:60) concluded the Classic Bonito phasediet depended on cultivated plants, semicultivatedplants, and useful field weeds. Cultivated species andweedy economic species (Cheno-ams and beeweed)were substantial contributors to the diet.When compared with coprolite analyses fromother sites in the area (e.g., Salmon ru.in and Bissa'ani Pueblo) or from the Anasazi region (e.g., HoyHouse and Antelope House), the major dietarycomponents were similar (Clary 1983b). A few of theless important taxa varied. For example, Cattanach(1980:371) recovered juniper bark at sites in the MesaVerde area; these, plus small pieces of maize cobs,were considered famine foods. In Chaco Canyon,com was more abundant than at Hoy House andAntelope House (Clary 1983b:64), while beeweed wasrecovered less often. These data suggest that althoughthe diet was similar for all inhabitants of the ColoradoPlateau, the percentages of different species varied interms of both site and time period.Analysis of human remains suggests how wellthis diet sustained the population. Although Hewett(1936) suggested that burials were scarce, Akins(1986) documented at least 700 individuals who hadbeen removed from Chacoan sites. Burials in smallsites were generally placed beneath house floors, intrash middens, or possibly along the cliff base and inthe talus slopes. Many had been disturbed by localcarnivore popUlations or early relic hunters (Akins1986: 15). The condition of many of the remains waspoor; e.g., Holsinger (1901) and Farabee (1901) bothindicate how fragile bones in "burial mounds" on theflat lands farther away from the canyon were and howthey often disintegrated once uncovered. Great housesgenerally lack burials. The majority of the humanremains recovered from great houses come fromPueblo Bonito, where they were found in two sets ofrooms that became burial repositories during theClassic Bonito phase (Akins 1986, 2001, 2003).There was a notable lack of human remains in thetrash mound. At other large contemporary sites,where only a sample of the structures has beenexcavated, few remains were recovered. Kin Kletso,

---------194 Chaco Project Synthesisa Late Bonito phase site that was completelyexcavated, provided only six complete skeletons andpartial remains of at least five more individuals. Thesmall numbers of burials from all but one great housemay reflect our excavations or sampling strategy, orthere may be differences in the use of great houses andsmall house sites.The remains of 135 individuals from all sitesthrough time were included in Akins's (1986:59-63)biological analysis. Dental pathologies (the presenceof caries, abscesses, and tooth loss after age 30) suggesta diet high in carbohydrates and one that causesnutritional stress. A large number of individuals havehypoplasia lines in the teeth, indicative of "physiologicalstress caused by malnutrition and other diseaseprocesses" (Akins 1986:29). Because of the nature ofthe samples in Chaco and elsewhere, inferencesregarding the effects of these health issues are limited.Some evidence of malnutrition and disease isexpected in a semiarid environment such as Chaco,when the population is sedentary; stress and signs ofiron deficiency would not be unusual (Akins 1986:59). In Judd's western room sample from PuebloBonito, where differences in burial goods would suggestmore wealth and presumably a better diet thanwas available to the general small-site population,Palkovich (1984: 111) noted that evidence of porotichyperostosis and cribra orbitalia is high amongsubadults. This indicates general dietary inadequacies,nutritional stress, and infectious disease. In the largerburial population, Akins (1986) recognized that half ofthe adult population was considered nutritionallystressed.Akins (1986:62-63) acknowledged that lifeprobably was not easy and living conditions were lessthan optimal; yet, in part, cultural practices mayaccount for this evidence, as might local productivityof food items. Infants and young children are expectedto die from infectious diseases between the ageof one and 12 months. Only one out of 12 in theChaco sample had evidence of death from this cause.When compared with other sites in the Southwest, theproportion of infant deaths in the Chaco population(16.3 percent) was considered low (Akins 1986:61).Except at Pindi, where infants only represented 9.8percent of the deaths in the sample, the recorded rangeat other sites ran from 25 to 55 percent. Skeletalevidence for anemia (the presence of cribra orbitaliaand porotic hyperostosis) was seen in 83 percent of thechildren under 10 years of age (Akins 1986:61).Because no periostial reactions were found, Akinsthought that infectious disease was an unlikely causeof death.A study of 20 fecal specimens from PuebloBonito, Kin Kletso, and Pueblo Alto by Reinhard andClary (1986) indicated the presence of Enterobius vermicularis(pinworms) in four instances, two freelivingnematodes, and one larvae, possibly aStrongyloides nematode, in specimens from PuebloBonito. The presence of E. vermucularis in 20 percentof the specimens is similar to that from TurkeyPen Cave (20 percent) and Antelope House (17percent), all of which are higher than those fromSalmon ruin and some Mesa Verde sites. Two ofthree nematode specimens were small and indicative ofnonparasitic forms that enter the specimens afterdefecation. The third nematode was larger, possiblyof the parasitic genus Strongyloides, which wouldsuggest parasitic infection in the human. A concentratedpopUlation and a low level of personal hygieneare suggested by these results. Due to the smallsample size, Reinhard and Clary (1986: 184) consideredtheir results representative of only a minimalcount of possible parasites present. To date, eighthelminth species have been identified in otherSouthwestern site samples. Thus, the presence ofhelminths at Chaco is not unusual. If pinworm wasthe only parasite present, its effect on the populationwould have been limited. If, however, Strongyloidesparasites were also present, anemia would be apossible result.Based on these studies, Chacoan agriculturalistslived in an age when the Pueblo diet was rich incarbohydrates and no one was spared from nutritionalstress. Even though there are slight differences amongthe skeletal remains at several sites through time,malnutrition was a constant problem. Infectiousdisease was present; it is not unusual when peopleaggregate in larger sites. These data, however, are toofew to make more specific inferences about thedifferences among disease manifestations in Pueblopopulations.There are other differences among populationswithin Chaco Canyon and the larger Anasazi region;

The Classic Adaptation 195e.g., a difference in stature (Akins 1986:Table 6.2).On the average, both males and females from thenorthen section of Pueblo Bonito were 4.6 cm tallerthan contemporaries at small sites. Those from thewestern section fell between those from the northernrooms and the small-site populations. Akins (1986:137) noted that in addition to stature, lower infantmortality and better overall general condition of thePueblo Bonito popUlations suggest some dietary andhealth differences among these populations.Palkovich (1984) compared human remains fromJudd's western burial cluster (romus 320, 326, 329,and 330, n = 12) with a burial sample from other smallsites in Chaco Canyon (Bc 51, n=57; Bc 53, n=20;and Bc 59, n=73), as well as Kin Neole (in the KinBineola community, n=68). Based on modem lifetables, Pueblo Bonito had ll..fl underrepresentation ofinfants and children (Palkovich 1984: 107). Within thecanyon, there were no significant differences in theage profile between Pueblo Bonito and the small sites(Palkovich 1984:Table 1). At Kin Neole, however,there was an abundance of infants and children.Females were recovered nearly twice as often as malesat Pueblo Bonito, Bc 59, and Kin Neole (Akins 1986).The presence of more infants and children in the KinNeole population might indicate that more familieslived year-round in outlying communities, with perhapsonly scheduled trips to the center that may havebeen maintained by a small resident population.Craniometric studies by Akins (1986) indicatedthere were two distinct genetic groups buried inPueblo Bonito; her work has been confirmed recentlyby Schillaci (2003; Schillaci et al. 2001). The burialpopulations in the northern section (rooms 32, 33, 53,and 56) and the western section (rooms 320,326,329,and 330) contained both males and females in theirclusters. Because the males and females in eachcluster are most closely related to their burial group,they probably represent members of the same lineage.The presence of two groups suggests the possibility oflong-term use of this site by more than one descentgroup, and might explain the architectural differencespresent in the earliest phase of construction (Lekson1984a; Windes and D. Ford 1996).Results of these studies hinted at possiblerelationships with people in other sites in ChacoCanyon and the larger Anasazi area through time; butlarger samples are needed to support the interpretations.In her initial small sample, Akins(1986:70-75) compared cranial measurements fromskeletal remains from Pueblo Bonito with those fromother canyon sites: two from Pueblo del Arroyo; sixfrom two small sites in Fajada Gap area (four from29S1299, and two from 29SJ1360); and five from Bc59 (a small house site located across the Chaco Washfrom Pueblo Bonito). Those from the western groupat Pueblo Bonito were most closely linked to theburials from Bc 59, while those from the northerngroup were most closely linked to the Fajada Gapsites. Thus, Pueblo Bonito may have functioned as aburial repository for two lineages living in smallhouses in different areas of the canyon. Given thelocation of the sites included in Akins's study, theseties were not necessarily between small sites and theirclosest great house. Schillaci (2003; Schillaci et al.2001) linked the remains in Pueblo Bonito to laterPueblo III and Pueblo IV burial populations with sitesin the Hopi-Zuni area and the Rio Grande, thusproviding evidence for continuity in ties betweenhistoric and prehistoric Pueblo peoples.In summary, the popUlation living in ChacoCanyon during the Classic Bonito phase may havebeen much smaller than earlier estimates suggest. Ifthe lower numbers are accurate, it is more likely thatthey could have grown sufficient crops to sustainthemselves in all but major drought periods. However,their high-carbohydrate diet, which is similar tothat of populations across the Colorado Plateau, wasnot necessarily healthful. Nutritional stress affectedeveryone, but those in Pueblo Bonito had some advantagesover those in small sites, as well as those inseveral other sites within the larger region for whichcomparable data is available. Although the differencesbetween the two burial popUlations in Pueblo Bonitohave been attributed to differences in rank (Akins1986; Akins and Schelberg 1984), we cannot rule outgenetic differences to account for the 2 cm differencein stature between lineages in Pueblo Bonito andbetween Pueblo Bonito and the small house sites. Ifhints of relationships between popUlations in greathouses and small house sites in Akins's (1986)craniometric analysis prove correct, we need to reevaluatethe differences in stature that she thoughtmight represent ranking among social groups.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -196 Chaco Project SynthesisGreat House and Small House DifferencesPrior to the Chaco Project, sites in ChacoCanyon were viewed as discrete entities rather than aspart of a larger settlement. The more detailed architecturalstudies of Lekson (1984a) and Truell (1986)recognized that both the "towns" and "villages" ofGordon Vivian and Mathews (1965) belonged to asingle architectural continuum, and that there wasconsiderable complexity and variability within eachcategory. By the late A.D. 1000s to early 1100s,what were labeled villages often had 30 to 35 rooms,making them comparable to some of the smallertowns; e.g., Talus Unit No. 1. Thus, the dichotomyin site size blurred, and investigators began to thinkmore about community and interaction among inhabitants.Differences in architecture and materialremains still exist between these two general categories,but the inappropriate earlier terms have beenreplaced by the terms "great house" (Lekson 1984a:266-267) and "small house" site (Truell 1986:128-129). Both architectural and material culture analysesinform on the interactions among their inhabitants andsuggest changing interactions through time within thelarger region.Architectural StudiesEarly Red Mesa pottery appears in small housesites and great houses with the type I masonry style;recent tree-ring studies indicate that the earliest sectionsof Una Vida, Pueblo Bonito, and Penasco Blancowere built in the middle to late A.D. 800s (Windesand D. Ford 1996). At this time, great houses andsmall sites both exhibited a similar unit pattern, butthe size of the rooms in great houses is greatly increased,and they are two stories high. This sectionreviews evidence for diverging developments at thesetwo site types.Small House Architecture. During the EarlyBonito phase, there is some correlation betweenchanges in pottery types and architecture, but these arenot always clear cut. Among the small sites, Truell(1986:250) recognized the presence of Red MesaBlack-on-white pottery just prior to A.D. 900; it wasfound on these sites until the late A.D. 1000s. Duringthis long continuum, subtle architectural differenceswere better matched when Truell separated the EarlyRed Mesa from Red Mesa around A.D. 950 (see H.Toll and McKenna [1997:278-297] for detaileddescriptions).To briefly review, during the late A.D. 800s tomiddle 9OOs, typical small house units included twostorage rooms fronted by a partially enclosed workspace or ramada, a plaza area, and a pit structure; andplacement of trash in formal exterior mounds becomesmore common and extensive (Truell 1986:307).Storage rooms were walled and had floors that wererecessed from 20 to 30 cm (Truell1986:251). Otherthan large-volume cists set into the floor, storagerooms generally lacked floor features. Storage roomswere connected to a ramada or living room by doorways.The ramada or living room fronting thesestorage rooms was at the same level as the plazasurface in front, but it lacked full walls. Ramadaswere characterized as having light roofs; occasionalboundary walls; centralized fixed features; and theappearance of a gray-clay plaster on the surfaces(Truell 1986:266). By A.D. 900, firepits thataveraged ca. 20 cm deep and were either slab-lined orplastered were present. Because ramadas were not enclosed,they were thought to have been used seasonally.Pit structure orientation in this period shiftedto a more southerly direction. The pit structuresmaintained floor features associated with living andworking activities, and had some storage features andsome evidence of ceremonial use.From the mid-900s through the mid-lOOOs, thelocation of storage and living .rooms within roomblocks is less predictable (Truell 1986:268-282, 307-308). The rear storage roolll..'> become slightly longerthan they are wide. Floor-feature position is also lessconsistent. A few of the rear-row rooms contain crudeheating pits, as before; but at 29SJ627, Room 19 wasconverted into a mealing room. Although flat-laidmasonry replaces adobe turtlebacks and storage roomshad more squared comers, the abundant plaster stillgave them an oval appearance. Plaza-facing rooms orearlier ramada areas were fully enclosed. The frontliving rooms tend to be slightly longer and wider thanthe rear storage rooms. Living rooms also vary morein size than do storage rooms, which may be related toa wider range of activities taking place within them.Yet some of these plaza-facing rooms are featureless.Thus, Truell suggested that room size does not necessarilycorrelate with function, but rather with location.Masonry in the above-ground rooms is variable in

The Classic Adaptation 197block size, amount of mortar, the presence offootings, and the presence of simple and compoundmasonry. Plazas with slab-lined firepits were occasionallyprotected by short masonry walls. Pitstructures retained mud walls but the number of floorfeatures decreased. There is more standardization inshape and size in the pit structures constructed duringthe early to mid-A.D. lOoos.Although full masonry walls appear in abovegroundrooms during this period, they do not appearin pit structures until the late A.D. lOOOs. Masonryappearance or style differs from that in great houses,where it was present by the late A.D. 800s or earlyA.D. 900s (Truell 1986:274-276). At small housesites there is little evidence for stone preparation; andonly a few examples of Judd's type I masonry styleappear approximateiy 75 years after it was used ingreat house walls. Wall niches and benches are alsoabsent in above-ground rooms.Storage rooms with two to five mealing catchmentsand similar catchment areas in the plaza datingto the late A.D. 900s and early A.D. lO00s werefound at 29SJ1360 and 29SJ627 (Truell 1986:281-282). Slab-lined boxes or bins are found in pit structuresat great houses and small house sites during thisperiod. (This changes by the late A.D. lO00s). Fixedmealing bins suggest possible communal grindingareas. Two rooms at 29SJ627 each have five mealingbins; one of these rooms is accessible only from theplaza and is twice the size of other living rooms at thissite. This is also the only room with mealing bins thatdoes not contain a heating pit or firepit.In the late A.D. 900s and early A.D. 1000s,there is a difference between four storage rooms at29SJ627 and those constructed during the A.D. 1020sto 1040s (Truell 1986:269-273). The later storagerooms were, on the average, 1 m 2 larger. Comparableincreases in living or work areas were noted. Truell(1986:273) asked whether the corresponding increasein orifice diameters for neck-banded gray ware at thistime (H. Toll and McKenna 1993:Figure 1.12)represents larger families, more permanent site use, ornew responsibilities.The differences in small house sites dating to theClassic Bonito phase (A.D. 1050 to 1100) and theLate Bonito phase (A.D. 1100 to 1150) are not aseasily distinguishable. Although there are data froma number of small houses for the late A.D. 1000s,good architectural details from excavated sites arescarce and difficult to evaluate because many of thesites exhibit earlier occupations and much of theearlier excavation work was not fully reported.During the Chaco Project, only one and a half abovegroundexcavated rooms at 29SJ633 provide evidencefor the Late Bonito phase; however, these rooms werereoccupied during the early A.D. 1200s, and representsome mixed use. In spite of these analytical handicaps,Truell (1986:284-301, 307-308) made severalobservations:• There is greater variability in rear room sizeduring this period. This variability is moreobvious between sites than within one site.• Former plaza-facing rooms and ramada areasoften had two to three small rooms added infront. Some rooms may have been interstitialspaces around enclosed kivas, and many wereoften used in conjunction with pit structures.These small rooms frequently contained firepitsor bins.• Regardless of their positions in a room block,rooms with firepits tend to have larger floorareas, but they do not differ significantly fromearlier floor areas. Some sites, however, werelarger than others.• Compound masonry walls exhibiting a variety ofstyles and range in the quality of craftsmanshipare preserved. At two sites (Bc 50 and Bc 51),two stories were present. There were a numberof sites containing adobe or stone footings thatdo not seem to align with earlier constructionepisodes. Masonry wall stones typically werenot pecked or ground except at Bc 236 (Voll1964:3) and Leyit Kin (Dutton 1938), whereadditional labor was invested in construction.Some sites (e.g., 29SJ633) often have evidenceof reuse of stone from other sites.Truell (1986:291-295; Appendix B) listed 48small sites constructed between the late A.D. lO00sand early A.D. ll00s using core-and-veneer masonry.Although located throughout the canyon, they tend tocluster along the canyon bottom, especially near

198 Chaco Project SynthesisPueblo Bonito. Nine are found along the south side,in an area from South Gap to the first large rincon tothe west (opposite Cly's Canyon). Relatively fewappear farther west or down canyon. Approximately14 are located in and around Fajada Butte, but they arespaced farther apart (Truell 1986:Figure 2.16). Noneof the sites had more than 30 to 35 rooms, but these-larger sites are comparable in size to Lizard House andTalus Unit No. 1.At this time, several unusual features appeared insmall house sites (Truell 1986:195-297). These includedoors exiting into nonplaza areas. Doors varyin shape, including T -shaped and corner doorways atBc 51. A colonnade was present at Bc 51; fivecolumns in Room 42 form the north wall. Whenoriginally built, they were not joined at the floor levellike those at Chetro Ketl. But like those at ChetroKetl, they were filled in at a later date.For rooms with floor features, those with adobeand/or slab-lined firepits tend to have larger floorareas, and a number of these rooms do not face theplaza. Mealing bins are present, usually in plazafacingrooms. Trough metates are now set in rows ofslab-lined bins; such bins are no longer associatedwith firepits or heating pits. Not all sites had mealingbins. Truell (1986:300) suggested the possibility of achange from multifunctional to unifunctional rooms.There is more diversity in room suite arrangements(TrueIl1986:300-301).Pit structures are closerto their associated room suites; sometimes roomssurround the pit structure-a characteristic seen ingreat house construction as well. At Lizard Houseand Bc 236, the ratio of rooms to pit structures islarger (ca. 9: 1 vs. 5 or 6: 1) and excavated floors hadslab-lined firepits. This contrasts with evidence fromother small and large sites. Bc 57 and Lizard Houseexhibit larger rooms, while Bc 51 has a less regularroom pattern and is the only site with a pit structurelocated west of a room block. Bc 51 seems like ananomaly; and Truell (1986:301) suggested that"typical" is a slightly elusive connotation for earlyA.D. 1100s site construction. What is apparent is thegreater variability in small house form and featuresduring this period.Prior to the late A.D. WOOs, there is noevidence of painting, incised designs, or coats ofwhite gypsite plaster in small house sites (Truell1986:188-189, 296). Building blocks with incisedlines (straight lines or hachure patterns) were recordedat Kiva 3 at Bc 50 (Brand et a1. 1937:78-79); Bc 57(Kiva C); Bc 59; Leyit Kin; and possibly LizardHouse. Wall murals in the late A.D. 1000s to earlyA.D. 1100s appear when pit structures becomemasonry-lined and have fewer, and less varying floorfeatures. Motifs range from a dado to intricate andvariable drawings. Examples are found in Kiva B atLeyit Kin (Dutton 1938:49), and in Kiva 5 and Kiva6 at Bc 51 (Kluckhohn 1939b:38-39). White plasterwas found in Kiva Eat 29SJ627 (Truell1992:99), andin kivas 2 and 4 at Bc 50 (Brand et a1. 1937:75-77,79; TrueIl1986:188-189).In summary, Truell's (1986:315) study of smallsite architecture indicates that prior to the mid-A.D.1000s there was more conformity in small site layoutand use. Deviations from the standard pattern becomeevident in the late A.D. lO00s and early 1100s, andthere is more variability in the A.D. 1100s. Thesimilarities between small houses and great houses arethought to represent a local shared culture rather thannonlocal (Mesoamerican) origins. Lizard House andTalus Unit No. 1 were considered intermediary insize, form, and construction.Great House Architecture. Data on architecturalform, masonry styles, ceramics, and availabledendrochronology for 12 great houses were compiledin an attempt to answer several questions about theconstruction techniques and the functions of theselarge structures, and the people who built them andtheir social organization (Lekson 1984a). Like Truell,Lekson concluded that the smallest of the greathouses-e.g., the Hillside ruin, as reported in Judd(1964: 146); the Headquarters site (Gordon Vivian andMathews 1965:81); and Talus Unit No.1 (Bannister1965: 194 )-were no larger than the largest of thesmall houses (Lekson 1984a:55). Division into sitesize may be an artifact of earlier analyses rather thanreflective of Pueblo practices, especially during theLate Bonito phase.Procurement of materials for construction involvedthe collection of local stone, clay, and water(estimates of 1,440 kg of stone, 463 kg of sand, and130 L of water for every m 3 of wall), as well as theimportation of more than 200,000 ponderosa, spruce,

The Classic Adaptation 199and fir beams (Dean and Warren 1983). Initial inferencesthat wood beams came from long distances (theChuska Mountains and the Mount Taylor area) haverecently been confirmed (Durand et al. 1999; Englishet al. 2001). (Either members of the local populationmade trips to these areas on a regular basis to obtainthe timbers, or the timbers were brought into thecanyon by those living in the distant areas or theirdown-the-line neighbors. Lekson (1984a) assumed theformer in his labor calculations-see below.)Construction techniques are fairly easy todeduce. Analyzing the sequence on the basis of choiceof site, area leveling or preparation, laying of foundations,constructions of walls (usually one story at atime, with roofs used as platforms for the upper story)was complicated mostly by the razing of older sectionsand rebuilding in the same aiea. Sometimes foundationswere ignored when walls were laid (see Windes1987[11] for examples of offset walls at Pueblo Alto).The change in use of single-width stones with thickmortar to cores with tightly compacted stone veneers(Figure 6.2) that would add strength sufficient to holdup several stories suggests improvement 1D constructiontechniques through time.Tree-ring dates suggested several major constructionperiods for great houses (Lekson 1984a, 1984b).The earliest pattern (A.D. 900 to 940, with the initialconstruction now placed in the late A.D. 800s byWindes and D. Ford [1996]) is visible in PuebloBonito, Penasco Blanco, and Una Vida. It consists ofa multi storied , arc-shaped building composed of suitescontaining a ramada/living room in front, with a largeroom and paired storage rooms behind. In front ofevery two to three suites is a pit structure. Firepits infront rooms suggest domestic functions. Althoughthese buildings were similar in layout to that of contemporaneoussmall sites, the increased amount ofspace per unit, the higher ratio of rectangular roomsper round room, and the increased labor investmentwere interpreted as the appearance of local leaders orelite within a community comprised of a great houseand surrounding small sites. Great houses providedincreased storage area for goods needed to carry outthe elite's functions within the community. The threeinitially identified settlements were located at theconfluence of major side drainages that flowed intoChaco Canyon (Judge et al. 1981), possibly givingthese communities an advantage with regard to wateravailable for agriculture.During the 80 years between A.D. 940 and1020, within the central canyon only Hungo Pavi wasbuilt at the mouth of Mockingbird Canyon, a smallerside drainage. Although there are a number of smallsites near this great house, the cluster is not asconcentrated as those around the initial three greathouses. Hungo Pavi is similar in size but differs fromits predecessors in that the back wall is straight ratherthan arcuate. This form, which is dated between A.D.990 and 1010 at Hungo Pavi, becomes the standardfor all later construction at new great houses; e.g.,Pueblo Alto (a road-related building) and Chetro Ketl.Between A.D. 1020 and 1050, constructionbegan at Pueblo Alto and Chetro Ketl, and PuebloBonito gained an exterior row of storage rooms.Neither Pueblo Alto nor Chetro Ketl were located atconfluences with side drainages; rather, they are nottoo distant from Pueblo Bonito in the area that Leksonproposed as becoming "downtown" Chaco. Leksonsuggested that Chetro Ketl and Hungo Pavi mightrepresent an association with sites outside the canyon.Although the individual units at great houses continueto resemble those at small sites from A.D. 900 to1050 in form, and firepits continued to appear in frontrooms, Lekson (1984a:264) noted that the ratio ofround to rectangular rooms at small sites had increasedthrough time (1:2.7 during the A.D. 800s; 1:3.6during the middle A.D. 900s; and 1:6.0 during theearly A.D. lO00s); and that at great houses it is stilllarger, at 1: 9.3. If the rectangular rooms are devotedto storage, the great houses have much larger storagecapacity than small house sites.The only new great house constructed betweenA.D. 1050 and 1075 is Pueblo del Arroyo, but therewere additions to several existing large pueblos; e.g.,rear-row rooms, upper stories, and massive blocks ofrooms that have little access from the exterior. Forthis period, Lekson (1984a:60) distinguished betweentower kivas (kivas with more than one story), clankivas (kivas built on the second story of a buildingthat may have had domestic use), and great kivas thatwere located in the plazas. The elevated circularrooms had no clear associations with room suites.There was also a decrease in the size difference

Type 1 Type II Type IIIHawley Hawley SUggestEd.Judd (1Q34) (1938) De.te(s)I 4 900-950 fJII II 5 1020-1060In III 6 and 1 1050-1115IV V 9 1050-1115McEhno· IV 8 1114-1140 f?)... Vivian and Mathews f1965}"McElmo"Type IVFigure 6.2. Composite of masonry types. (faken from Lekson 1984a:Figure 2.1. Table 2.1, and Hawley 1938.)

The Classic Adaptation 201between front and rear rooms. The basic A.D. 900sground plan disappears, and Lekson (1984a:60, 69-71)asked whether people were aggregating in the greathouses at this time or whether the great housesassumed different functions. If these additions indicatedliving space, then population growth in PuebloBonito, for example, would be 2.25 percent-a numberthat is thought to be considerably higher than the0.1 to 0.5 percent that Hassen (1981) suggests isnormal, and the 0.3 percent that Hayes (1981) estimatesoverall for Chaco Canyon. Lekson thoughtthat some people still lived in the larger houses andthat there trIaY have been a deciease in srraall=sitepopUlation at this time. Construction units were builtto the same scale as during the previous period, butconstruction episodes occur more often and indicategreater labor needs.The peak of construction occurred between A.D.1075 and 1115, when six major events took place(work on the East Wing and West Wing at PuebloBonito; the addition of a third-story row of storagerooms at Penasco Blanco; the North Wing, and theSouth Wing at Pueblo del Arroyo; and the constructionofWijiji). Rooms in the massive blocks tendto be interconnected on both axes. The interior roomslook more like storage rooms (standard rectangularrooms without firepits) than domestic spaces. Thisform, plus the presence of large, round rooms (kivas)enclosed within the room block, suggest public architecture.Lekson (1984a) noted that John Stein thoughtthat this ground plan is often associated with roadrelatedstructures in the San Juan Basin. After A.D.1110, similar units in Chaco Canyon were oftenlocated near buildings with long construction histories,at termini of roads, or at strategic points ofaccess to Chaco Canyon; e.g., the three earliest greathouses, and Pueblo Alto. Lekson suggested that thisperiod represents the formalization of a regionalnetwork. Although each construction event was threeto four times larger than those in previous constructionphases, these were sequential events occurring as oneevery seven to 10 years. The yearly labor input,therefore, was only twice that of the previous period.Lekson (1984a:63) asked whether this labor investmentrepresented kin groups or regional corvee labor.Based on Lekson's (1984a:261) estimates, thelargest construction event-the East Wing of PuebloBonito (stage VIB)-wouldhaverequired 193,000 manhours. A crew of 30 could have accomplished thistask if they worked a lO-hour day, 30 days per monthfor 20.8 months, over a lO-year period that includedthree years devoted only to construction. Althoughcorvee labor would not have needed many skills to accomplishthis feat, labor would have to have beenwell-organized to schedule the cutting and transport oftimbers, quarrying of stone, and construction. Becausethese buildings had evidence for better builtwalls that would require less upkeep and many interiorrooms with restricted access, Lekson (1984a:66)considered a change in function of these great housesfrom elite residence to storage with some elite residence.He proposed that a public function was addedto these buildings. He concluded that the centralcanyon during this period was an urban, regionalcenter, which represents significant complexity withinthe larger regional system (Lekson 1984a:71). (SeeChapter 8 for a discussion of the region.)During the early A.D. lIDOs, the presence oftrash in a number of rooms at Pueblo Alto, PuebloBonito, and Chetro Ketl was interpreted as indicativeof habitation at these large sites; and there are a numberof contemporary small sites in use. The appearanceof additional storage facilities and specializedbuildings (e.g., tri-walled structures, road ramps)suggest different functions for various facilities and anincrease in the institutions present in this society.Lekson suggested that by this time the overalladministration of the larger system was alienated fromthe local elite; and a higher level of administrationbecame effective when Chaco Canyon became thecenter of a single, basin-wide entity that participatedin long-distance trade that included the importation ofmacaws and copper bells. Based on his estimatedpopulation of 2,100 to 2,700 people in the centralcanyon, Lekson recognized that this number waslarger than any documented historic pueblo and thatthe level of social complexity was probably morehierarchical than that of the historic pueblos.Unfortunately, the data from studies of architecturecannot provide more than these hints to answerquestions about social complexity.Around A.D. 1110, or 1115 to 1140, constructiondecreased to former levels. There was somebuilding at existing sites, but most of the workresulted in new sites distinguished by McElmo-stylemasonry (e.g., New Alto, Kin Kletso, Casa Chiquita,

200180 -0 160 -00.... 140>

340 \I,II320 "• I......---5 - Year ValuesI, I I300II! \III,I, ,280 I I260240, I,220 tI I01 t 'I0 200 I I I,.,..180II0t III 11I'I I>< , I " 11',IIIIen 160 fa: I~1400J:120" Z0100/1 1tJ) I 1 Ia: II IW,--80 , I .... IDov6040 ,, I20 ' II,"0 YI I I J0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 CI 10 00 (\/ 10 "- 0 (\/ 10 I'- C. (\J 10Q) (1) (1) (1) 0 0 0 0,\\"MovingFigure 6.4. Mean labor requirements by five-year intervals. (Taken from Lekson 1984a:Figure 5.2.)

204 Chaco Project SynthesisRabbit ruin west). Be 50, a small site across theChaco Wash from Pueblo Bonito, also exhibited asimilar ground pattern (Truell 1986:Figure A.103).Tower kivas, a tri-walled structure, and some roadrelatedstructures appear. The class II events representedby construction at Tsin Kletsin, New Alto, andKin Kletso appear to be designed for storage. Lekson(1984a:269) suggested that this may represent a transferof function from the earlier great houses, whichwould make many of their rooms available for otherfunctions.Somewhat concurrently, a shift in the location oftrash disposal occurs (Lekson 1984a). Beginning inthe late A.D. lO00s and continuing into the earlyAD. 1100s, trash is placed in rooms rather than ontrash mounds. This trash contains many decoratedsherds and does not resemble the trash recovered fromlater rooms in Kin Kletso. Thus, the system exhibitssome change in events that has not yet been fullyexplained.To better understand the social implications ofgreat house construction episodes, Lekson (1984a:Table 5.1 and Figure 5.1) calculated the scale of constructionevents and plotted them through time (Figure6.3). There is a major difference between classes Iand II when compared with classes III and IV. Thelatter two included only three sites each and occurredonly after A.D. 1050. For all classes of events exceptclass II, the peak of construction occurred betweenAD. 1050 and 1100 (Figure 6.4).Class I events were the smallest, but they representthe largest number of construction episodes(N=59, or 41.3 percent of the person-hours). In thiscategory are room blocks represented by the initialconstruction at Una Vida, Pueblo Bonito, and PenascoBlanco; McElmo room blocks; and others (e.g.,incidental rooms, plaza-enclosing arcs). Althoughnone of these events occurred between AD. 960 and1030, a few were constructed prior to these dates, andmany appeared later. Sometime after A.D. 1020, itseems as if these were part of a constant constructionbackground, with one or two units being built everytwo to four years. The greatest number (20) of theseunits were built between A.D. 1080 and 1110.Class II events numbered 14 or 35.1 percent ofthe person-hours. Most events represent the buildingof room blocks between A.D. 1030 and 1080, but fourMcElmo structures constructed after A.D. 1110 areincluded. During the gap in this class of eventsbetween A.D. 1080 and 1110, five of the six largerconstruction episodes (class III and IV) occurred.Class III room blocks at Pueblo Bonito (II),Penasco Blanco (lIlA), and Pueblo del Arroyo (IIB)were built between A.D. 1050 and 1100. Class IVroom blocks represent additions to Pueblo del Arroyo(IIA) and Pueblo Bonito (VIB), and the constructionof one new great house, Wijiji, between A.D. 1075and 1110. Together, these two classes represent 25percent of the person-hours in all great house constructionwithin a span of 60 years. Lekson estimatedthat class III construction events took place approximatelyevery nine years, and that class IV events tookplace every seven to 10 years.Analysis of the labor needed to collect materialsand build great houses indicated that a fairly smallpopulation could have been organized in such amanner as to not compete with other duties, yet stillaccomplish the task. When considering the longdistanceacquisition of numerous primary beams(vigas), plus securing the secondary beams (latillas)and layers needed to complete the roof, even thelargest construction episodes after A.D. 1075 couldhave been accomplished by a popUlation of 5,211individuals-a number remarkably close to Hayes's(1981) estimates of 5,600 for this period (Lekson1984a:262), but considerably above Windes's(1987a[l], 1993d) recent estimates. If the large sitesfunctioned as storage facilities or public architecture,then the number of inhabitants is greatly decreased.Depending on the amount of available time and thesize of populations, there may have been difficultiesduring periods when the most massive constructionevents took place. Lekson (1988a: 129) estimated thatonly 425 individuals lived in great houses. Hethought that this still represented a large number ofleaders or elite living in the canyon settlement. Asmaller population estimate would put more pressureon the small house population that probably constructedthese buildings.The large increase in labor estimates for the classIII and class IV construction events, and (with theexception of Wijiji) the focused expansion of greathouses predominantly in the central area of the canyon

The Classic Adaptation 205in and around Pueblo Bonito suggest the presence ofan increasingly larger central settlement (PuebloBonito, Chetro Ketl, Pueblo del Arroyo, and surroundingsites). Lekson (1984a, 1988a) attributed thisto a formalization of a regional network that includedother communities located throughout the San JuanBasin. Thus, the system would have reached its peakin the early A.D. l100s, and could have drawn onpeople living outside the canyon for seasonal labor.The McElmo Style. The change in masonrystyle and type of sandstone, as well as floor plan,attributed to the McEimo styie needed furtherevaluation. Judd (1927b) did not include the McElmostyle in his categories of masonry types, but Hawley(1938) did (her no. 8)(see Figure 6.2). GordonVivian and Mathews (1965) suggested the McElmostyle bega..~ around i\.D. 1050 and lasted throughA.D. 1124 or later, and was representative of aninflux of northern people into the canyon. Lekson(1984a) dated Judd's types III and IV and Hawley'stypes 6, 7, and 9 to the period from A.D. 1050 to1115. All are considered the products of skilledmasons. Lekson (1984a:267-268) concluded that themasonry style and ground plan of the structures, plusthe use of carbon-painted ceramics, correlate best withtime, rather than the migration of northerners into thecanyon. Not only are multi storied structures withround rooms enclosed within the room block early inChaco Canyon, but the ground plan is not typical inthe Mesa Verde area. When found in the north, it isoften thought to come from the south. The use ofdifferent sandstones in construction is attributed to theavailability of the resource in specific areas of thecanyon. The McElmo masonry style found in thecentral canyon at Kin Kletso, Casa Chiquita, and NewAlto probably represents the exhaustion of the darkbrownsandstone outcrops in this area, whereas theBonito style at Wijiji farther east persists because thisoutcrop had not been exhausted by earlier great houseconstruction in this area.The function of the McElmo units was evaluated(Lekson 1984a). The size, shape, and placement ofrooms in the Bonito and McElmo room blocks aremore important than the differences in building materialand masonry style. Suites and room blocksslowly evolve from a set of paired small rooms behindlarge rectangular rooms (similar to those at contemporarysmall house sites, but larger) to linear suitessurrounded by many almost-square small rooms of asimilar size. Lekson and Judge (1978) proposed thatthese sites may have been used primarily for storage,with only a few people in residence as a caretakerpopUlation; yet even an unusually large crop of comcould have been stored in two back rooms at ChetroKetl.Overall, the form and function of rooms(determined by size and features) at great housesindicate both stability and change through time.Rectangular rear rooms tend to be featureless andaverage 12 m 2 in size. They are thought to representa storage function (Lekson 1984a:41-42) and are anexample of stability through time. They are frontedby much larger rooms (Windes's [1987] big-roomsuites) during the A.D. WOOs. By A.D. 1060, theearlier paired room suites (two smaller rooms frontedby one or two larger rooms) begin to be replaced by aset of linear rooms, with room size decreasing fromfront to back (Lekson 1984a:62). Between A.D. 900and 1100, the average size of front rooms decreasedfrom 45 m 2 to 10 m 2 •More recent investigators have used space syntaxanalysis to confirm a trend toward increased specializationin both small sites and great houses aroundA.D. 1050. Not only are there differences in the useofspace within small sites, but by A.D. 1100 it is alsoapparent between small sites (Bustard 1996, 1999).Bustard (1995, 1999) and Cooper (1995, 1997)document similar changes in great houses; e.g., thelack of household patterning, and increased spatialsegregation. Cooper (1995) also noted differencesbetween Aztec West and Salmon (both in the north, orSan Juan River, area) vs. Chaco Canyon great houses.However, neither could determine the exact functionof the great houses.Unusual Features. Unusual architectural featuresthat occur, often at two or more great house sitesbut not in all, include masonry piers, buttressing,filled rooms, use of natural features, ramadas andportals, balconies, stairs, and room-wide platforms(Table 6.8). Some features may be time-related. Theappearance of ramadas and portals is common in theearly great house sites; e.g., at Pueblo Bonito (Room3, Judd 1964:95; Pepper 1920:7). The use of masonrypiers as roof supports in great kivas (e.g., Room308 in Pueblo Bonito [Judd 1964:96], rooms 117 and

Table 6.8. Unusual architectural features found in great houses."FeatureExamplesReference( s)CommentsMasonry piers:Used in special context; do not supportupper story wallsA) ColonnadeChetro KetlFerdon (1955)Great houseBe 51Ferdon (1955)Small house (one ofthe largest of thesmall house sites, see Truell 1986).B) Roof supports (piers)Common in great kivasAztec ruin, rooms 117 and 120Pueblo Bonito, Room 308Gordon Vivian and Reiter(1960:90)Morris (1928:333)Judd (1964:96)Rare as free-standing supports forvigas. Possible time-related, latedevelopment,perhaps due to scarcepine posts of proper size.Buttressing:A) Broad brace along exterior walls Pueblo del Arroyo, south wallKin Kletso, Area 60, south wallCasa Chiquita, south wallKin Bineola, west wallJudd (1959:96)Gordon Vivian and Mathews(1965:44)Buttress-only, one story high, eventhough walls are two or three storieshigh.B) Beams or masonry wallsbetween rectangular walls ofsquare rooms and cylindricalwalls of elevated round roomsPueblo del Arroyo, Kiva CChetro Ketl, Kiva GPueblo BonitoKin KletsoPossibly used as braces for scaffolding(Hewett 1936: 102) or as locations tobond buttresses (Lekson 1984a:35).Neither suggestion is compelling.Filled rooms: Lower floors filled withearth, sand, or trash.Kin KletsoChetro KetlPueblo Bonitoand othersGordon Vivian and Mathews(1965:Figure 15)Lekson (1983b)Reiter (1933:56)Judd (1964)Earth often in interstitial spacesbetween square rooms and elevatedround rooms. Lekson (1984a:35)gives two functional reasons: a)reinforcement of walls, b) insulation.Trash fill may signify change in roomfunction.Use of natural features:Pueblo BonitoKin KletsoUna VidaRoom blocks built over boulders orfragments of cliff; suggests inflexiblelocation or orientation. Talus pueblosutilize cliff walls.

Table 6.8. (cont'd.)FeatureExamplesReference(s)CommentsCasa ChiquitaUna VidaOver large knoll. Possibly height ofroom !block is important.Ramadas and portals:Pueblo Bonito, Room 3Judd (1964:95)Pepper (1920:7)Common in earlier sites. Possiblypresent at great houses.Pueblo Bonito, in front of Room224,93Lekson (1984a:131)BalconiesChetro Ketl, 2nd and 3,d storiesPueblo Bonito, rear wallPueblo del Arroyo, north wallHungo PaviPenasco BlancoLekson (1983b)Hewett (1936:33)Judd (1964:34)Judd (1959:53)Jackson (1878)Holsinger (1901)All on north-facing walls, even atPueblo del Arroyo. Increases usablespace in shadow or shade (Lekson1984a:37). Building platforms forupper stories, yet not at all multistoriedsites.Stairs:A) Into doorwaysAztec RuinPueblo del Arroyo, rooms 41and 52Pueblo BonitoMorris (1928)Judd (1959)Judd (1964)Raised-sill doorways with rudimentarysteps.B) Into staircasesPueblo del Arroyo, Room 44Pueblo Alto, Room 112Judd (1959)Room-wide platformsPueblo BonitoPueblo del ArroyoChetro KetlPueblo AltoPenasco Blanco• Taken from Lekson (1984a:34-38).

208 Chaco Project Synthesis120 in Aztec [Morris 1928:333]) are late developments,possible due to a scarcity of pine posts of theproper size (Lekson 1984a).Other features may be related to constructionproblems. Filling of rooms may have reinforced wallsor insulated rooms. Buttressing of round rooms mayhave served to relieve stress or reinforce walls.Lekson (1984a:34) suggested that the large protrudingstones on the exterior walls may have been useful inerecting scaffolding or bonding buttresses. Otherfeatures relate to use of the buildings; e.g., balconieson the north side that may have provided shade(Lekson 1984a:37). Use of natural features suggeststhat the builders were inflexible in their choice oflocation and orientation. Although Lekson suggestedthat height may have been a concern, this may havebeen less important because height was achieved bymUltiple stories in several buildings.Summary. Kluckhohn (1939a) had proposedthat the differential adoption of architectural changesin great houses and small house sites might be due totime lags; if so, it could be attributed to small siteresidents who were more conservative than their greathouse neighbors (Kluckhohn's 1939a). Yet this differentialadoption of architectural features (lined pitstructures, enclosed ramadas, pithouse-to-kiva transition)that occurred around A.D. 900 in great houses,but around A.D. lO00s in the small sites, could beattributed to several factors (TruellI986:316-317). Ifwater was scarce and stone abundant, adobe would nothave been the material of choice for constructing largeedifices, even if it were as structurally strong. Ifsmall sites were used only seasonally, there would belittle need to enclose the above-ground rooms; yetduring the A.D. 900s there was much remodeling andnew construction in these houses, which suggest morepermanent occupation.Truell (1986:391) noted a heavier use of smallsites in the Fajada Butte area during the Red Mesaceramic period, and Windes (1993:315) commentedon the possible abandonment of Marcia's Rinconduring the Gallup ceramic assemblage (A.D. 1040150to 1100) and increased concentrations of small housesin the early A.D. l100s in the central canyon. Architecturalevidence suggested closer ties to the southduring earlier years, and closer ties to the west andnorth later. The core-and-veneer masonry in smallhouses in the A.D. l100s exhibited both a blockypattern and types III and IV masonry, possiblyindicating no time lag, a copying of the latter type, ora temporary resurgence in construction. Truell (1986:319) concluded that the more intense use of small sitesprobably indicates differential use, "the nature ofwhich is not yet clear."In addition to the burst of construction at greathouses, the construction of roads, shrines, signalingstations, and stone circles during the Classic Bonitophase (A.D. 1050 to 1100) provided Judge (1989)with data to propose that Chaco was a periodicpopulation center within the San Juan Basin.Although there may have been a small year-roundresident popUlation, there could have been an influx ofpeople to participate in ceremonies on a scheduledbasis. As Lekson pointed out, this would explain theheavy investment of labor into permanent structuresthat required low maintenance. Yet, he asked, whywould people who spent so much energy to constructlarge empty rooms not spend a little more effort toequip them with fireplaces that would make their staymore comfortable?Hayes (1981) indicated that there were severalsite clusters present in the canyon as early as BasketmakerIII and that these clusters shifted through time.Lekson (1984a:267) proposed that these clusters mayrepresent communities during the initial growth ofgreat houses, but that they probably have several antecedents.Schelberg (1982a, 1982b) proposed that ahierarchical social organization existed from BasketmakerII. By around A.D. 1050, construction in thecentral canyon (Pueblo Alto; Chetro Ketl; and, in the1080s, Pueblo del Arroyo) led Lekson to define"downtown Chaco" as the central area. Thisdefinition would be expanded to include the area fromPueblo Alto on the north to Tsin Kletsin on the south,and from Kin Kletso on the west to Chetro Ketl andpossibly Hungo Pavi on the east. Combined with theevidence from human burials and their associatedgrave goods, Akins (1986 and Akins and Schelberg1984; Schelberg 1982a, 1982b) proposed that theClassic period represented a stratified socialorganization.Lekson concluded that the local evolution ofconstruction form and techniques suggests that nooutside influence, especially during the later dates sug-

The Classic Adaptation 209gested by Di Peso (1974) and others, was involved tocreate the large structures that characterize this spectacularexpression in the central San Juan Basin at a timewhen other areas of the Southwest have much smallersite types. Documentation of numerous great housesoutside of Chaco Canyon and their association withChaco Canyon will be discussed in Chapter 8.Porlable ItemsThere is no question that there are differencesbetween great houses and small house sites in terms ofthe recovery of luxury items, most of which wereimported (Mathien 1981a, 1986,1993, 2003a; H. Toll1991). Yet many everyday goods (e.g., ceramics andlithics) were also imported. Such imported itemsduring the Classic period indicate a considerableincreaSe in interaction over Basketmaker III-Pueblo Ilevels between inhabitants of Chaco Canyon and theirneighbors in the San Juan Basin and beyond. Thisincrease is reflected primarily in the ceramic data (H.Toll 1985; Toll and McKenna 1997), but lithicmaterials (Cameron 1997b), including turquoise andshell species (Mathien 1997), as well as wood used inconstruction (Dean and Warren 1983) and fuel (M.Toll 1985), reinforce observations of a widespreadacquisition of goods. With the larger population inChaco Canyon and the San Juan Basin during theBonito period and this increased interaction, evidencefor craft specialization would be likely. In thissection, these databases will be reviewed to suggestthe level of specialization that existed and its implicationsfor social complexity.Ceramic Data. Although there is some evidencefor local production through time, the volumeis considerably less than some investigators mightexpect. H. Toll and McKenna (1997: 156, Table 2.67)tabulated kaolin cakes, balls of clay, unfired claysherds, paint, scrapers, polishers, and other tools tosuggest that earlier sites (Basketmaker III-Pueblo I)had more convincing evidence for local productionthan later ones. When compared with data from thenorthern San Juan (C. Wilson and Blinman 1995:74),Chaco's evidence is limited. This, plus the lack ofpotters' tool kits among the grave goods (Akins 1986)led H. Toll and McKenna (1997:161) to suggest thatceramic manufacture in the canyon was uncommonduring the Classic period. Lack of locally availablefuel was suggested as one possible explanation for thispaucity in ceramic production (H. Toll and McKenna1997:162-164).Clay refiring studies shed light on where ceramicproduction took place, but also led to more questionsthan answers. Previous studies that involved thefiring of clay source samples and the refiring of sherdssuggested that Chaco specimens produced a buff color.H. Toll and McKenna (1997: 114-118, Appendix 2C)collected clay samples from 21 locations in ChacoCanyon, prepared and fired tiles for each areasampled, and recorded their characteristics (e.g.,color, sh..-i.rJcage) for each site. What they learned isthat "1) there is considerable variability in oxidationcolors of clays from a single formation even within asmall area, and 2) apparently usable clays from nearcentral Chaco Canyon can contain considerableoxidation color" (H. Toll and McKenna 1997:117).Because these observations differed from conventionalwisdom that suggested that Cibola white wares andgray wares tended to refire to a buff color, this studyengendered new questions: Do the results indicatearea of manufacture or selectivity for particular resources?Were ceramics being produced by a numberof different potters using particular sources consistently?Or, is the oxidation color insignificantlyrelated to properties that are more important in theproduction of pottery, which allowed acquisition ofclay from a range of resources?Based on tempering materials and wares (Figure6.5), the level and direction of interaction amongneighbors varied through time. Due to difficulties inidentifying sources of some tempering materials, H.Toll and McKenna (1997:132-138) tabulated theirresults in two ways. A minimal or conservativeestimate is based on known sources of temperingmaterials; maximum estimates assume that coarsesandstone temper signifies imports (H. Toll andMcKenna 1997:Tables 2.58 and 2.59). Their resultsare summarized in Table 6.9. Using the conservativeestimate, the overall 16.6 percent for the pre-A.D.800 period increases to a peak of 50.4 percent betweenA.D. 1100 and 1200, and then decreases to 45.7percent during the A.D. 1200 to 1300 period. Incontrast, using the maximum estimates, imports arehighest at 79.4 percent during the pre-A.D. 800s and76.7 percent after the end of the Bonito phase, withthe lowest rate at 45.2 percent during the Red Mesaceramic period from A.D. 940 to 1040. Both es-

210 Chaco Project SynthesisN1NEW MEXICO ?#)e;\ ifl.--- 1a \ /~ ____ ~'l ("'0 ~1b / \\' f~)~ 1c"'l/ \ \IFigure 6.5.Known areas of production of ceramic wares found in Chaco Canyon. 1) Cibola white andgray wares: la) Chaco; Ib) Reserve; lc) Socorro/Cibolleta; 2) Chuska white and graywares; 3) White Mountain red ware; 4) San Juan white and gray wares; 5) San Juan redware; 6) Tusayan white and gray wares, red ware, and Tsegi orange ware; 7) LittleColorado white ware; and 8) Polished Smudged ware. (Taken from H. Toll and McKenna1997:Figure 2.10.)

The Classic Adaptation 211Table 6.9. Estimates of ceramic importsinto Chaco Canyon by period. aConservative MaximumEstimated EstimatedPeriod (A.D.) Percentages PercentagesPre-SOO 16.6 79.4SOO-920 2S.1 67.9920-1040 25.2 45.21040-1100 39.8 63.61100-1200 50.4 66.51200-1300 45.7 76.7a Taken from H.Toll and McKenna (1997:Tables 2.58and 2.59).timates indicate a dip in the Early Bonito phase, whichmight signify decreased interaction between Chacoansand their neighbors at this time.Within the entire Classic period, there are someinteresting shifts in source areas. Based on the assumptionthat chalcedonic cement sandstone representsinteraction and importation with southern groups, theoverall percentage for this temper type peaks betweenA.D. 800 and 920. The percentages for trachyte, indicativeof western ties, increase steadily through timeand peak between A.D. 1040 and 1100. San Juanigneous temper was never high; it decreased afterA.D. 920, reached a low of2.4 percent between A.D.1040 and 1100, increased slowly thereafter, andpeaked at 16.4 percent between AD. 1200 and 1300(H. Toll and McKenna 1997:Table 2.58). Other importedtemper types are low during the A.D. 800 to920 period, slowly increase between A.D. 1040 and1100, and show a greater increase thereafter. Basedon these trends, ties always connected the Chacoans topeople in many directions; these ties were neversevered, but closer reliance on different areas shiftedfrom the south to west, and later to the north.Other studies helped define the areas of ceramicproduction and level of craft specialization, but thereare many caveats that can be applied to differentexplanations for behavior that suggest craft special-ization (H. Toll 1985; H. Toll and McKenna1997: 164-211). The basic underlying assumption isthat the more standardization in the size of severalproduction variables, the more likely that craftspecialization existed. Also, different wares probablyhad different functions; therefore, each ware wasexamined separately to tease out the significance of thevariables analyzed. Because red wares and smudgedwares were few in number, H. Toll and McKenna(1997) focused on gray wares (thought to have beenused for storage and cooking) and white wares(thought to have been used for serving and specialpurposes).Because broad-based ceramic shifts affectinterpretations of specialization, H. Toll (1985:216-223; Toll and McKenna 1997:215) also took intoaccount six shifts: 1) The change from mineral tocarbon paint; 2) the change in vessel forms with smallorifices (e.g., Lino jars with necks and tecomates) towide-mouthed jars; 3) the appearance of the exteriormanipulation of gray ware neck coil width, whichtook place around A.D. 900 in Chaco; 4) an abandonmentof fugitive red treatment on vessel exteriors; 5)the adoption and rejection of vessel forms (e.g. gourdladles, pitchers, kiva jars, and mugs); and 6)decorative changes such as those seen between RedMesa to Gallup black-on-white designs. These nearlycontemporaneous changes throughout the Anasaziregion, especially those that occurred early, could bethe result of several organizational or functionalreasons. Functional reasons included a possible improvementin resistance to thermal shock by increasingthe texturing of gray ware vessels or the conservationof fuel by using organic paint that could be fired atlower temperatures. Organizational considerations includethe production by a limited number of pottersacross space who could quickly correlate improvementsand changes, decisions by authorities, or the useof style to indicate group membership that wouldfacilitate interaction among groups in an unpredictableenvironment (Gillespie 1985; Schelberg 1982a). Becauseof the extent of the changes and their timing, H.Toll suggested that social reasons were more likely.The level of specialization was difficult todetermine. H. Toll (1985; H. Toll and McKenna1997:206-207) found no evidence for the productionof specialized forms by producers attached to eliteleaders; the technology used to produce special forms

---- -------212 Chaco Project Synthesiswas shared and the technical attributes were seen oneven the most abundant forms. Based on the temperspresent, production took place at numerous locations.Probably not all households produced pottery, but atleast some produced more than was needed. Whetherproduction occurred on a seasonal basis or not couldnot be determined, nor could the amount of time spentat this task. The ethnographic record indicates that allHopi children master the skills needed for all sexrelatedactivities encountered through life; yet someexhibit better skills at some tasks than others and tendto develop specialties. The same distinctions occurwith groups; all of the pueblos are self-sufficient, yetsome (e.g., Hopi) who are known for basketry producedspecialized products. If specialization was at alow level during the Chacoan sequence, the greaterregularity in Chuskan gray wares would suggest anincrease in specialization. H. Toll thought that byA.D. 1100 it is possible that a combination of individuals,or perhaps community specialists, existed, buthe could find no class of very distinct pottery. Thequick rate of change, however, suggests morespecialization than purely domestic production.In summary, studies to assess the degree of stanardizationand specialization in ceramic production ledto the following conclusions (H. Toll and McKenna1997:202-205):• There is greater variability in narrow neckbandedand neck-corrugated ceramics betweenA.D. 900 and 1050, but there is considerableconsistency in production before and after thattime.• The least variability is visible in Pueblo II-IIIcorrugated pottery; its production correspondsmost closely with the fullest extent of the Chacosystem when its relationship to the Chuska areawas most pronounced (A.D. 1050 to 1100).• Change across temper groups occurs consistentlyon a broad pan-Anasazi scale.Lithic Data. Sources of nonlocallithics (locatedmore than 50 km from Chaco Canyon) are illustratedin Figure 6.6. The percentages of imported lithics forall times were much lower than they were for ceramics(Cameron 1997b:Table 3.8) (Table 6.10). Prior toTable 6.10.Period (A.D.)5008Percentages of lithic imports intoChaco Canyon by period. aPercentage5• Similarities in temper groups cross-cut suspectedproduction groups; these similarities were notedin size, rim measurements, and primary surfacedesigns.• Although there are some metric distinctionsamong groups, the distinctions are not strong.The trachyte-tempered gray wares consistentlyshow less metric variability but more surfacevariability in narrow neck-banded throughPueblo II Corrugated.6008700-820820-920920-10201020-11201120-12201220-132010324303312• The volume of imports from numerous areas issubstantial. This is especially evident for thetrachyte-tempered gray wares.• It is likely that there were multiple producers inthe various areas who supplied ceramics toChaco.• Taken from Cameron (1997b:Table 3.8).A.D. 1020 to 1120 (now A.D. 1050 to 1100) andA.D. 1120 to 1220 (now A.D. 1100 to 1140), thehighest number, 10 percent, occurred during the A.D.600s. The most common import between A.D. 1020and 1120 (now A.D. 1050 to 1100), when the total

The Classic Adaptation 213.''-...,, ........, "'-.., -"'"........, ..." .. ~."r:zz1 0)0 Alamo Sardsto1e~ Morrisor~ormaTor:83 ffloss C Roc~s UndlVloed".. //~\ 1080~6·· "t>-

214 Chaco Project Synthesiswhere Room 110 had several cores of Narbona(Washington) Pass chert and evidence for flakedistribution in pits that were on several floors of theroom. Cameron (1997b) concluded there was no evidencefor craft specialization in chipped stone items inthe canyon.Only 500 formal tools were recovered from sitesexcavated by the Chaco Project during this longperiod. Lekson (1997) reviewed other collections toadd another 1,200 tools in his study of points , knives,and drills. Points were the most abundant, andLekson (1997:Figures 4.1 and 4.3) was able to confirmthat artifacts from Chaco Canyon reflect theAnasazi point series. There is great variety in materialtype and point size in this large collection. Ofinterest were the observed metric differences betweencomplete points and blade fragments. Lekson (1997:675) suggested that blade fragments may have beencoming into the canyon, perhaps transported with meatfrom other areas (Akins 1982b, 1985), but he couldnot infer that there was a difference between completepoints and blade fragments sufficient to suggest differentareas of manufacture. Complete points had a60:40 ratio of local:exotic materials; while the ratiofor blade fragments was nearly 50:50.There was one unique set of points found withBurial 10 in Room 330 at Pueblo Bonito (Judd1954:254-255, 333; Plates 73A, 74, 98 [lower]).Lekson (1997:676) indicated that they are larger, andhave deeper notches, unusual base forms, and otherdistinctions that set them aside from the rest of thecollection. Most important is the variability in workmanshipthat B. Bradley (1980) assigned to at leastfive different knappers. This collection of unusualand well-made arrows found either in the quill orbetween the legs of a middle-aged male in the westernburial repository led Akins (1986) to assign this burialto a second tier of an elite hierarchy based on heranalysis of grave goods.Two other distinct point types were found(Lekson 1997:676). In the trash at the south end ofRoom 251 in Pueblo Bonito was a group of Neffpoints, a type found in southeastern New Mexico in asite dated between A.D. 1000 and 1200 (Wiseman1971). The second type was recovered in surfacetrash at Be 51. Made from probably-local white chert,the bases of these points were deeply concave; thisform is not uncommon at Pueblo III and Pueblo IVsites in other Southwestern areas. Similar quality ofworkmanship was recorded for the two large obsidianknives from Pueblo del Arroyo and two whitechalcedony knives from a niche in the north wall ofRoom 45 at Be 51. Three large blades (two fossiliferouschert and one fine white quartzite) recoveredfrom a sealed cache in the north wall of Kiva Q atPueblo Bonito (Judd 1954:323-324) are also unusual;a stabilization crew also found a similar chert blade ina sealed niche in the south wall of Room 316 atPueblo Bonito (Lekson 1997:687). These, and otherdistinct examples, do not prove the presence of craftspecialists in the canyon, but they do indicate greatskills by some knappers who produced points thatmade their way in the canyon sites. That many werefound in caches or special proveniences suggests theywere not part of everyday life.In the collection, both globular and discoidalcores were present.I observed one small core with a singleplatform and small parallel blade scars.Alone, this could easily have been unintentional,but the occurrence of this form(along with small blades in the MontezumaValley of southwest Colorado) may indicatethat there was a minor bladelet productiontechnology, possibly for theproduction of small drills. (B. Bradley1997:698)Although Bradley did not indicate the material of thiscore or the site it was from, chalcedonic silicifiedwood cores tend to be small (Cameron 1997b:644).Whether or not Bradley's observations pertain tochalcedonic silicified wood, there is an association ofdrills of this material (described as fortuitous drillsand not considered formal tools) with jewelry-makingdebris at 29SJ629 and Pueblo Alto (29SJ389)(Cameron 1997b:596), both of which date to the A.D.920 to 1020 period, when the frequency ofchalcedonic silicified wood cores is highest (Cameron1997b:Table 3C.13).The identification of jewelry workshops is basedpredominantly on the presence of turquoise in severalstates of manufacture (Mathien 1984, 1997); butstudies of lapidary abraders (Akins 1997) and

The Classic Adaptation 215chalcedonic silicified wood drills (Cameron 1997b;Lekson 1997) support that determination in severalinstances. Although turquoise was imported fromoutside the San Juan Basin as early as Basketmaker III,the largest number of pieces are recovered in Bonitophase proveniences, and particularly from PuebloBonito (Mathien 1981a, 1997b). The evidence fromworkshops suggests that some individuals or familiesat a number of sites participated in the manufacture ofjewelry items. Between A.D. 920 and 1020, workshopareas existed at 29S11360 (McKenna 1984);29SJ629 (Windes 1993); Pueblo Alto (29SJ389;Windes 1987); Kin Nahasbas (Mathien and Windes1988); and possibly at 29SJ626 (Windes 1993d). Atthis time, many new forms of jewelry were also introduced(e.g., buttons, rings, unusual shell pendants);and the amount of labor invested tended to be greater(Mathien 1997: 1162). Tne material recovered from aremodeled room in the house at 29SJ629 suggests thatthis may have been a tradition passed down throughthe family (Mathien 2oo1b). The presence of twowomen with children in the pit structure at 29S11360suggests that perhaps an extended family participatedin this occupation. Whether or not this was a full-timespecialization has not been determined. During theClassic Bonito phase (A.D. 1040 to 1100), more materials(e.g., selenite) were made into unusual shapes.During the Late Bonito phase (A.D. 1100 to 1140),indications of jewelry-making are present in Room 23at Una Vida, Pueblo del Arroyo, Kin Kletso, Bc 51,and Bc 59. However, the lack of details for theseprior excavations makes it difficult to determine whowas doing the work and where.Summary. During the entire Bonito phase,inhabitants of Chaco Canyon were importing highnumbers of ceramics and lithics-overall more so thanat previous or later times. Similarly, higher numbersare evident for timbers used as roof beams (Dean andWarren 1983; Windes and McKenna 2001), turquoise,and shell (Mathien 1997). Sometime around A.D.1050, macaws (Hargrave 1970; Judd 1954) and copperbells (Judd 1954; Sprague 1964; Sprague and Signori1963; Vargas 1995) appear, but they are many fewerin number and their appearance tends to be limited togreat houses, especially Pueblo Bonito (Mathien2oo3a).The level of craft specialization was probablylow. H. Toll (1985; H. Toll and McKenna 1997)acknowledged the probability that there were someceramic specialists, some hunting specialists (Akins1982a, 1982b), and some jewelry-making specialists(Mathien 1984a), and possibly a few administrativespecialists, based on the analysis of grave goods(Akins 1986; Akins and Schelberg 1984), but hedoubted that there was sufficient wealth to create acoercive power base, as proposed by Sebastian(1992b) and Wilcox (1993). Some probability of taskdifferentiation, especially for food preparation, as evidencedby the presence of milling areas at 29S11360(McKenna 1984:257), 29SJ627 (Truell 1992),29SJ629 (Windes 1993), and Pueblo Alto (29SJ389;Windes 1987) is also proposed (Mathien 1997: 1227).Although the large number of imports indicatesincreased interactions with neighbors in the San JuanBasin and beyond and does not necessarily imply fulltimecraft specialization, the consumption patterns dosuggest differences between the use of these materialsat great houses and small house sites. The greatwealth of objects recovered from Pueblo Bonito (Judd1954; Pepper 1920), plus the unusual black-and-whitenecklaces in the great kiva at Chetro Ketl (Hewett1936) and the painted wooden artifacts recovered froma rear room at this site (Gwinn Vivian et al. 1978) aredefinitely more spectacular that items recovered fromBc sites located across the wash (Brand et al. 1937;Dutton 1938; Kluckhohn and Reiter 1939) or the smallsites excavated during the Chaco Project.H. Toll and McKenna (1997:144-149) wereaware that comparing the percentages of materialsused at small houses and great houses is difficultbecause of the poor provenience dating for earlierexcavations, and the fact that the one great houseexcavated by the Chaco Project, Pueblo Alto, is notexactly contemporaneous with the small house sitesuncovered in this project. Although their comparisonsof imported ceramics through time (H. Toll andMcKenna 1997 : Table 2.66) indicated a similar overallmaximum import percentage, the variations in specificwares did suggest some differences. These may bedue, in part, to the changes in types imported throughtime and the short intervals of overlap between PuebloAlto and the small sites with which it was compared.In contrast, the estimates for ceramicconsumption at the excavated sites indicated that thevolume consumed at Pueblo Alto was considerably

216 Chaco Project Synthesishigher than that at small house sites (H. Toll 1984,1985; H. Toll and McKenna 1987, 1992, 1997). Thenumber of families was estimated for each site, aswere the percentages of the sites that were excavated,ceramics recovered, projected totals, number of yearsof use, and calculated number of pots used per familyper year (H. Toll 1984:Table 8). The numbers for thePueblo Alto trash mound during the Gallup ceramicperiod were estimated to be at least five times higherthan they are for its Red Mesa ceramic period or formaterials recovered from small house sites. Toll'sexceedingly higher number of ceramics per householdin the Pueblo Alto trash mound formed the basis forinferences that the discarded pots may have resultedfrom periodic visits and feasting at this great house(R. Toll 1985; Windes 1984, 1987[11]).Wills (2001) has challenged Toll's suggested interpretationof events that created the trash mound atPueblo Alto (see Chapter 5), which has become thefoundation for interpretations of Chaco as a pilgrimageceremonial center with ritual landscapes (amongothers, Judge 1989; Lekson 1984a; Stein and Lekson1992,1994). Wills (2001:447) prefers to think of thetrash mounds as developing in conjunction with greathouse construction intensity, site location, and occupationalduration. In one set of calculations, which isfraught with assumptions, H. Toll (1985:177-201)assumed that 2.2 percent of the trash mound dating tothis period had been excavated. But he (R. Toll 1984:130, 1985) also indicated that an upper limit of 10percent of the trash mound may be represented bythese excavations. If so, then there would be 33,130vessels represented instead of 150,590. H. Toll didnot recalculate the use per household per annum on thelower figure. If he had, the result would have been27.6 vessels per family per annum, much closer to the28.4 calculated for 29SJ627 (Table 6.11). Instead, the125.5 pots per annum per family were interpreted aspossible evidence for either periodic gatherings ofnonresidents in which, perhaps, the disposal of itemsoccurred at the conclusion (Toll 1984: 130, 1985: 190-201).For lithic materials, there were some periodsduring which there was probably differential access toimported materials. Between A.D. 920 and 1020, thiswas only slight; but from A.D. 1040 to 1100 therewas an increase in Narbona (Washington) Pass chert.Much more of this chert was recovered from PuebloAlto than from 29SJ627 (Cameron 1997b:Table 3.15,553), the small site with which it was compared. YetCameron was not certain the proveniences at the twosites are truly contemporaneous. Examination ofsurface material from other small sites dating to theClassic Bonito phase (Bc 362 or 29SJ827, and29SJ839) indicates higher percentages (23 and 15 percent,respectively) and suggests there may have beensimilar amounts present on both small sites and greathouses (Cameron 1997b:602). This ambiguous evidencemay indicate that Narbona Pass chert was morefrequent during the Classic Bonito phase at all sites,and that our excavation sample is the source of thedifferences seen in the Chaco Project results.Consumption of copper bells, macaws,turquoise, shell, and rare ceramic forms (e.g.,cylinder jars, effigy forms), however, does suggestthat the bulk of exotic material is found in greathouses (Mathien 1981a; H. Toll 1991). Akins's(1986) evaluation of grave goods indicatesoverwhelmingly that the burials recovered in greathouses have many times more goods than those insmall sites. This dichotomy led to the inference thatelite members of the society used the large structures(Akins 1986; Akins and Schel berg 1984) and contrastssomewhat with the following interpretation:There have been suggestions that theprehistoric pueblos were differentiated tothe extent that there were big men (Lekson1984a:265), ranked societies (Schelberg1982[a)), self-serving elites (Sebastian1992); oligarchies (Upham 1982:20,199),and military polities and a Chaco state(Wilcox 1993). Although Lynne Sebastianunderstands me differently, I acknowledgethat some individuals must have hadgreater access to knowledge and controlover distribution of resources. I also continueto think that the ethnographic recordsuggests and the archaeological recordsupports the idea that these "leaders" weremeant to be heard but not seen. Wilcoxdiscusses individualizing and grouporiented chiefdoms. Group-oriented organizationsinclude difficult-to-identifyleaders, part-time specialists, periodiccommunal redistribution, impressive groupmonuments, and emphasis on group

Table 6.11. Projected ceramic consumption rates for four sites in Chaco Canyon. BPercent Excavated Ceramic Vessel No. Pots PerProjected Years of Pots Per Annum PerSite Rooms Midden Rooms Midden Total Use~ Annum Families Family29SJ629 100 70 922 750 1,933 130 14.9 2 7.429SJ136O 60 10 1,875 213 5,255 125 42.0 3 14.029SJ627 90 10 5,539 1,299 19,144 225 85.1 3 28.4Pueblo Alto:Red Mesa trash mound 2.2 368 16,727 40 418.2 20 20.9Gallup trash mound 2.2 3,313 150,509 60 2509.8 20 125.5Gallup rooms 10 275 2,750 60 45.8 20 2.3Gallup Kiva 13 3.1 71 2,290 60 38.2 20 1.9Kiva 16 31.8 236 742 30 24.7 201 1.2Kiva 10 8.3 555 6,687 70 95.5 201 4.8Baseline b29SJ629 1,707 130 13.1 2 6.629S11360 2,088 12$ 16.7 3 5.629SJ627 7,225 225 32.1 3 10.7Pueblo AltoGallup trash mound 3,313 50 55.2 20 2.8• Taken from H. Toll (1985).b Baseline figures use only the excavated vessel controlled sample from each site, and are thus bare minima.

218 Chaco Project Synthesisactivities (Saitta 1997; Wilcox 1993:Table1). If these individuals were supposed tohave low visibility to their contemporaries,what chance does an archaeologist have ofidentifying them? By their deeds perhapswe shall know them; it is less likely thatwe will know them by their houses (ortheir burials). (H. Toll in Toll andMcKenna 1997:208-209; emphasis inoriginal)H. Toll concluded that the evidence from ChacoCanyon points to the presence of general specialistswho participate in an exchange network rather thansupply an elite group. They are integral to thehousehold and local economy. The community specialization(e.g., Chuska gray ware producers) providesan integrative mechanism to maintain economicrelationships. Chaco does show participation in thisAnasazi-wide region that shares forms and symbols.H. Toll (1985; and H. Toll and McKenna 1997:211-213) suggested that costumbre, defined as a community'sdefinition of what is done and how it isdone, would be sufficient to account for the degree ofstandardization evident in the ceramic analyses, andwould allow for the slight variations amongcommunities that maintain contact on a periodic basisif they shared a common belief system. Althoughthere would be some part-time specialists and somepeople with some differentiation in roles, there wouldbe no need for an elite, use of force, or exploitation byleaders; pressures of public opinion would besufficient to maintain traditions. Viewed from a largerregional perspective, Chaco was an obviousparticipant, but whether the center served the regionor the region served the center remained unanswered.Evidence for Ritual, Ceremony,and CosmologySeveral lines of evidence in the archaeologicalrecord point toward aspects of historic Pueblo ideologythat may have been present earlier. Thus, whenit proved unlikely that Chaco Canyon functioned as aeconomic redistribution center, Judge (1989) couldpropose that Chaco was a ritual center. The dataindicate some time-depth to historic Pueblo practices,but we cannot make inferences about their earliermeanings or be sure that the meanings of thesepractices did not change through time.Construction and/or Closure OfferingsData relevant to ritual or ceremonial practices,either during initial construction or remodeling events,include goods cached within buildings. The earliestexample of an offering is from the Basketmaker IIIgreat kiva at 29SJ423 (Mathien 1997, 2001b; Windes1975, 2006a). Senter (1939:26) indicates that twoniches in Feature 5-an A.D. 770s pit structure at Be50-also contained offerings (Truell1986:Table 2.6).Truell (1992:90) found an offering in the Kiva Gventilator shaft at the small site of 29SJ627; but theturquoise debris and five Olivella dama shells areconsiderably later (A.D. 1000 to 1050; Mathien 1992:315). Truell was uncertain as to whether this offeringwas made during construction or was included withintentional fill. Similar offerings were uncovered atPueblo Alto (Mathien 1987; Windes 1987) and KinNahasbas (Mathien and Windes 1988, 1989), amongsites attributed to the Classic period. There wereseveral turquoise caches in the great kiva at ChetroKetl (J. Woods 1934a). Both Pepper (1920) and Judd(1954) had called attention to the placement ofturquoise and other items in kiva pilasters at PuebloBonito and Pueblo del Arroyo. Judd (1964: 156)recorded three caches placed in walls of rooms 90,178B, and 186, all falling within the fourth additionto Pueblo Bonito. Chaco Project excavations uncoveredsimilar offerings, one of which occurredearlier and suggests that these practices may have hada long history. Historic Acoma, Hopi, and Zuni placesimilar offerings in some buildings (Parsons 1936:300; Pepper 1920). Whether these practices carry thesame meaning throughout this long period is unknowable,but they do suggest that constructiondeposits have considerable time-depth.Akins (1985) suggested that some birds andmammals may have been acquired for ritual purposes(see also K. Durand 2003; Gordon Vivian andMathews 1965); both Akins (1985) and Truell (1986)remarked on the intentional burial of dogs and turkeyswhen sites were abandoned. Most references to birds,including turkey, indicated they were kept for theirfeathers, which were attached to ceremonial objects(Akins 1985:322-330). Turkeys may also have beenused for food, especially during later occupations inChaco. Carnivores had multiple uses (Akins 1985:349-356). Truell (1986:225-227) reviewed the literatureto document that placement of animals in

The Classic Adaptation 219structures during closure tended to be reported mostcommonly in the Mancos Canyon in southwesternColorado (Emslie 1978; Gillespie 1976). She notedthat at Bc 50, Brand et al. (1937) found four kivas thatincluded intentional turkey burials upon closure; andSenter (1939) suggested possible turkey and dogburials in Feature 5, an earlier pit structure at this site.These findings contrasted with the lack of similarpractices at the neighboring site, Bc 51 (Kluckhohn1939b:34). Truell found only a few examples of thispractice, which occurred in small sites dating ca. A.D.700 or later. Similar practices had been recordedduring a later period at Puebio dei Arroyo, where dogburials were recovered in kivas F and 1. Voll (1978:142) recorded the placement of the legs and skulls offour deer in the upper fill of an earlier lower story ofRoom 92 at Chetro KetI. This type I masonry 'roomwas intentionally closed prior to construction of thepueblo in the mid-A.D. 1000s. Windes (1993:404)suggests that culinary ceramics were intentionallydestroyed and left in the firepits of primary pitstructures at three small sites (29SJ626 East, 29SJ629,and 29S11360), probably in the early A.D. lO00s.In addition to these special offerings, bothduring construction and closure of pit structures andkivas at small sites and great houses, Akins (1985:343) surveyed the ethnographic literature to determinethat bear remains often contribute to ceremonialpractices. Several were recovered in the great kivas atPueblo Bonito (Judd 1954) and Kin Nahasbas(Mathien and Windes 1988). Shell and turquoiseofferings, however, were more abundant and possiblymore important or represented different aspects of theceremonial-ritual cosmology.Possible Ritual Rooms and PracticesDuring his excavation of Pueblo Bonito, Pepper(1920: 193-195) recognized a number of artifacts thatresembled ceremonial items used by historic Hopi andZuni clans. For example, in Room 38 were the remainsof macaws and a platform holding objectsencrusted with turquoise and other tesserae. Hethought that the macaws suggested the presence of amacaw totem similar to the Zuni Mula-kwe (People ofthe Sun). He compared human effigy vases fromRoom 38 and adjacent Room 46 with the He'he andHe'he mana-modem Hopi katsinas. Some of theflagolets (flutes) collected from Room 33 are similarto those used by Hopi flute priests. Thus, Pepper(1909:250) suggested the burials found above the floorof Room 33 may be representative of an early flutefraternity. He thought that the wealth of PuebloBonito, especially with burials 13 and 14 in Room 33,represented ceremonial paraphernalia of a priesthoodor leaders who held important positions in Chacosociety. He also considered Room 67, a kiva underthe West Court, to have been a council house (Pepper1899:2, 1920:251-254). Windes (1987[1]:373-377)suggested a predominantly ceremonial rather thanmultifunctional living purpose for several rooms withfirepits constructed in the early A.D. 1100s. Tnesemi subterranean rooms tend to be located in front ofbig-room suites on the west side of Pueblo Bonito.Possibly earlier similar rooms include rooms 309,315, and 316 at Pueblo Bonito; Room 21 at Una Vida;and Room 110 at Pueblo .AJto. Although we camlotmake direct links with historic Pueblo social organization,these data suggest the institution of formalspace for some type of clan or sodality practicesduring this period.CosmologyBy the 1970s, the recording of pictographs andpetroglyphs and studies of archaeoastronomy provideddata to suggest that there may have been sometime-depth to several Historic Pueblo practices.Reyman (1971) examined Southwestern archaeologicalsites to determine whether they were aligned withcelestial bodies. In Chaco Canyon, he determined thatthe great kivas at Chetro Ketl and Pueblo Bonito didalign with Ursa Major and that several other smallerkivas may have been aligned to stars during theClassic Bonito phase or later. These alignments werenot unique to Chaco Canyon; they occurred at othersites in the Anasazi region. Reyman was not certainwhether star alignments were relevant to these earlyPueblo people, because historic Pueblo people do notseem as concerned with star alignments as they dowith movements of the sun, in particular at the wintersolstice.Based on her extensive knowledge of Puebloethnology, Ellis (1975) proposed that sun-watchingstations or observation sites could have been used toestablish a yearly calendar and mark religiousceremonies early in time, and that these stations couldbe identified in the archaeological record. Several

220 Chaco Project Synthesisinvestigators examined site locations and associatedroads, pictographs, petroglyphs, and other features inChaco Canyon to pinpoint such locations. Williamsonet al. (1977) published observations that providedaffirmation of her proposal. Two possible solsticeobserving sites (one east of Wijiji and one nearPenasco Blanco) were identified. Both were atdifferent ends of the canyon, both were associatedwith roads, both had clear sun symbols (twoconcentric circles with a dot in the center) painted onthe canyon wall, and both were thought to be goodplaces from which to observe the winter solstice.Given the more central location of Fajada Butteand its prominence in the canyon, Williamson et al.(1977) were surprised that they did not discover similarevidence there. On June 29, 1977, Jay Crotty andAnna Sofaer, members of the Archaeological Societyof New Mexico Rock Art Field School, climbedFajada Butte and observed the interplay of light andshadow around three slabs and two concentric circlespecked on the wall face behind the slabs. Sofaerrecognized the significance of the" Sun Dagger" shapeduring the summer solstice. She initiated a multiyearproject that examined this site and two other petroglyphpanels to the east and west at different times ofthe year (Sofaer and Sinclair 1987; Sofaer, Sinclair,and Doggett 1982; Sofaer, Marshall, and Sinclair1989). The three-slab site marks the solstices andequinoxes, as well as the major and minor lunar standstills.The west side petroglyph site marks the springequinox, and the east and west petroglyph sites marksolar noon. It is debatable whether the exterior cornersof the three slabs on Fajada Butte are intentionallymodified (Sofaer, Zinser, and Sinclair1978, 1979), or whether the curvature is due tonatural erosion (Carlson 1987; Newman et al. 1982).Although Sofaer, Zinser, and Sinclair (1979) andSofaer, Sinclair, and Doggett (1982a) indicate that thethree-slab site on Fajada Butte had potential foranticipating both the solstices and equinoxes, Zeilik(1987) thought the 2 mm linear movement that occurredaround the summer solstice would have beentoo small for detection by the human eye. He suggestedthat this site probably functioned as a sunshrine. Carlson (1987) questioned whether this sitewould have been used to mark lunar standstills,because the historic literature did not indicate thesewere relevant to Pueblo people. Carlson also coneludedthat this site represents a sun shrine that marksthe summer solstice and probably the winter solsticeand equinoxes. He thought the sun-watchers whoknew these events took advantage of the natural rockfall to mark the site with petroglyphs.Dating these sites is difficult. Based on nearbyfeatures (e.g., closeness to roads), the pictographs atthe sun-watching stations near Wijiji and PenascoBlanco have been associated with the Classic period orBonito Phase (Williamson et al. 1977). Yet these twosites are also near the early Basketmaker III villagesthat included great kivas and were probably centers forlocal inhabitants. There is also Navajo reuse of thepictograph site near Wijiji. Sofaer, Zinser, andSinclair (1979) attribute the Fajada Butte site toChacoans living in the canyon between A.D. 950 and1150; the nearby sites are Mesa Verde structures,which suggest A.D. 1220 to 1300 use, a period whenit was customary to live on top of buttes or inrockshelters (Carlson 1987; Zeilik 1985a, 1985c).The Bonito phase associations may not represent anexclusive period of use.At Casa Rinconada, Reyman (1971) notedsolstice rising and setting points; but due to thelocation of the great kiva near mesas, he realized therewould be a need for external points for observationsregarding the sun's exact rising and setting points onthe horizon that could be relayed back. He plottedsuch points, and on inspection found a series ofburned areas to the WSW that rose in altitude, withthe last or highest having a view of the horizon. Oneburned area to the ESE also marked a spot that wouldprovide a view of the horizon. Thus, it was feasiblethat solstices were observed. Observations at CasaRinconada by Williamson et al. (1977) confirmed thatthis structure may have provided a visual display ofshadow and light patterns during the solstice andequinox periods. During these times, rays of lightentering windows or niches in the great kiva cast theirlight on particular niches in the lower part of the wall.Reconstructed walls of this structure and the lack ofknowledge about the original roofing conditions makeit difficult to verify this suggestion. For example, wasthere an outer set of rooms at Casa Rinconada thatwould have blocked light rays coming through thenortheast window (Williamson et al. 1977)? If not,would a post have obstructed the rays' path to NicheE (Zeilik 1984)? A similar situation exists at Pueblo

The Classic Adaptation 221Bonito, where two of six corner doors (in rooms 228Band 225B) also capture light rays during the wintersolstice sunrise (Reyman 1976, 1978a, 1978c, 1979).Were there exterior second-story rooms at PuebloBonito that would have blocked the light rays passingthrough the doorways (Williamson et al. 1977)? Or,as Cooper (1995) suggests, did they facilitatemovement within a set of interconnected rooms?Both Reyman (1987) and Zeilik (1985b, 1987)reviewed the ethnographic literature to determine somecommon Pueblo religious practices; Zeilik observedthat the historic sun-watcher predicts the time ofchange in the sun's position. He noted the followingpoints:•A religious office (usually the sun priest) isinvested \vith the responsibility of \vatching thesun.• Observations take place at sunrise (usually) andsunset (less often) from within or close to thepueblo.• Observation sites with calendrical functions aremost likely to be within or close to the pueblo;the place is rarely marked.• Horizon marks are most commonly used toestablish the sun's seasonal position; observinglight and shadow through windows is lessfrequently employed. Horizon markers can berather small changes in relief; shrines may belocated at the sun's key positions on the horizon.• The most important times in the ritual calendarsare the solstices, especially in winter; the sunpriest also keeps track of the basic plantingcalendar from April to June.• The sun priest must be able to announce thesolstices ahead of time; he does so byanticipatory observations made about two weeksbefore the solstice when the sun is still movinga noticeable distance along the horizon each day.• The site and technique for the anticipatoryobservations are usually the same as those usedfor confirmatory observations.The anticipation and prediction of events are importantbecause people need time to prepare for ceremonies.At the solstice, the sun stands still for four days;therefore, the sun priest would have difficultydetermining which day is the actual solstice. Learninghow to make correct predictions would take a periodof several years, during which the observation ofhorizon markers would be made and a count kept todetermine the best time for the ceremony.Zeilik (1987) applied these observations to sitesin Chaco Canyon. Like Reyman (1971) andWiHiamson (1982; Williamson et al. 1975, 1977), atCasa Rinconada both anticipatory and confirmatoryobservations could be made. Yet the lack ofknowledge about the original condition of this greatkiva and the lack of historic use of great kivas as sunwatchingstations cast doubt on this inference. AtPueblo Bonito, the two corner doorways could be usedto confirm the winter solstice as well as anticipate it.If outer second-story walls were present, however, theviews would have been blocked.Architectural alignments also have beendocumented. Initial observations at Casa Rinconadaand Great Kiva A at Pueblo Bonito indicated that theywere constructed along the north-south axes of symmetry,as was the dividing wall in the plaza at PuebloBonito. The west side of the south wall that enclosesthe plaza has an east-west alignment. This documentationby Williamson et al. (1977) expanded thetypes of data that suggested astronomical knowledgeby the Chacoans.Using these observations as an initiative, Fritz(1978, 1987) attempted to discover what aspects of theideational system could be detected in the spatialordering of sites. He observed asymmetrical positionswithin sites (e.g., the east-west division of PuebloBonito into two plaza spaces), and among sites (e.g.,the north-south axis that runs from Pueblo Alto toCasa Rinconada to shrine 29SJ1207 to Tsin Kletsin),and a north-south division of features in CasaRinconada and through the canyon if one draws a linefrom Una Vida to Penasco Blanco. He interpretedthese to represent social asymmetry, with those havingthe greatest power utilizing the great houses on thenorthern side of the canyon. Mediation between thesacred and everyday worlds was expressed through

222 Chaco Project Synthesisarchitecture, which encoded both secular and religiousideas. Rotational symmetry in architecture alsosuggested balancing through the sequential rotationalalteration of authority and responsibility. Although hecould not determine whether the social system wascomposed of two distinct groups living in differentsizepueblos or whether there was sharing of poweramong two groups, Fritz (1978) demonstrated theability to glimpse the ideological system throughanalysis of architectural evidence.Continued investigations into the architecturalexpression of astronomical observations and markingswere conducted by the Solstice Project headed bySofaer (Marshall and Sofaer 1986, 1988). Solar andlunar orientations were found for the walls of greathouses both within Chaco Canyon and the Chaco Core(Sofaer 1994, 1997; Sofaer, Marshall, and Sinclair1989; Sofaer and Sinclair 1992; Sofaer, Sinclair, andDonehue 1991a, 1991b). Stein and McKenna (1988)noted astronomical alignments among buildings in theAztec complex. Malville (1999; Malville et al. 1991)recorded the lunar rise at a major standstill every 19years between two stone pilars at Chimney Rock, 150km to the northeast in southern Colorado. In additionto solar and lunar markings and expressions notedamong great houses, Marshall (1997) suggested thatChacoan roads also may represent a cosmologicalexpression. After an extensive review of the documentedsegments of Chacoan roads, Roney (1992)agreed. For an interesting summary of debate onChacoan roads, see Gabriel (1991). Historic Pueblopeople still schedule ceremonies in conjunction withthe movement of the sun and moon, both of which areimportant to their ceremonial cycle.In his keynote address at a symposium on earlyPueblo astronomy, Judge (1987) emphasized that themost important issue is not that Chacoans wereobservant of astronomical events, but rather is howthese observations were interwoven into their socialorganization. Williamson (1987) asked if we shouldbe looking for purposeful astronomical alignments atall of these sites, or whether the functions of thesesites were limited. Carlson (1987) thought that muchof what we have observed may be due to fortuitousobservations and does not apply to the Chaco culture.Jojola (1987), a native from Isleta, shared that the sunwatcher,or Pueblo astronomer, functioned as anintermediary between the supernatural and the humanworlds; he uses three points of reference to crosscheckthe cyclical progress of the year. These are thepassing of the solstices, the phases of the moon, andthe seasonal position of recognized constellations. Itis the orderly passing of cyclical time and the ceremoniesthat take place that are important, not the studyof the heavens for their knowledge of movements inand of themselves. Thus, Reyman's (1987) discussionof the role of the sun priest, whose major obligationsare related to the yearly calendar and the scheduling ofceremonial events, provides a model for how a ritualceremonial center in Chaco may have operated. Althoughhe has power, he is not materially distinguishablefrom other members of society.Although the position of sun-watcher is passed downthrough clans, leaders can be replaced, and leadershipcan be transferred to other groups. This model mightwell fit within the parameters of the ritual ceremonialcenter that Judge (1993) proposed for the Chacoansystem.In summary, it is not possible to use ethnographicanalogy for direct interpretation of Chacoanarchaeology. Yet, there is long-term continuity forsome practices in Pueblo society in which religiousleaders are not clearly distinguished through materialculture.SummaryResearch presented in this chapter indicates thatChacoan society during the Classic period probablyconsisted of fewer than 4,000 people living in thecanyon. They supported themselves through relianceon agriculture, but utilized local economic plants,captured field pests, and participated in hunts ortraded with neighbors in order to procure sufficientprotein. Protein procurement, therefore, would bringthem into contact with other groups, possibly widelydisseminated across the larger region. The presence ofimported ceramics, lithics, shell, and timber substantiatesome form of interaction, which increasedsubstantially from levels documented for the BasketmakerIII-Pueblo I period.Although the Chacoans were successful in copingwith various periods of drought between ca. A.D. 850and 1130, they still suffered nutritional stress due toa high-carbohydrate diet-typical of most early Pueblopeople. When compared to other populations, the

The Classic Adaptation 223number of infant deaths was considered low, butevidence for anemia was present in 83 percent of thechildren under 10 years of age (Akins 1986). Theunderrepresentation of infants and children in thewestern burial rooms at Pueblo Bonito and highnumber of children at Kin Neole (Palkovich 1984)could be indicative of a small residential population inthe canyon with other family members living elsewhere.Periodic visits into the canyon were proposed.Akins's (1986) identification of two distinctburial populations in Pueblo Bonito indicates thatsocial structure encompassed some form of sharingamong the population at this si teo When comparedwith each other, stature differences between the twogroups were documented, but both groups tended tobe taller than those utilizing the small house sites.Although her sample was small, Akins did findpossible links between these two Pueblo Bonitopopulations and two distinct small house sites. Ifproven correct, this would indicate that relationshipsbetween these two types of sites were highly integratedand that many who used the great house mayhave been living in neighboring small sites.Schillaci's (2003) confirmation of the distinctpopUlations in Pueblo Bonito and their probable ties toearlier Basketmaker III populations in southwesternColorado, and their later ties to both the Hopi-Zuniarea and the Rio Grande, suggest that mobility ofgroups through time. Mobility among differentgenetic groups and increasing populations in thesouthern San Juan Basin by the end of the late ninthand early tenth centuries probably brought about aneed for adaptations in social organization to smoothrelationships among different groups, as well as ensuretheir survival. Two groups were able to establish formalburial repositories in the central and largest site inthe canyon. Because there is evidence for more thanone group living fairly close to another in some partsof the San Juan Basin during the Basketmaker IIIPueblo I period (Chapter 4), they would have builtupon earlier foundations, possibly expanding thelevels at which decisions were made for differentgroups (e.g., continuation of use of turquoise andshell offerings during construction). Leaders may alsohave had a need to distinguish themselves from othergroup leaders, whether they were in either situationalor ranked positions. How we interpret the closure ofsites with different animal remains or ceramics has notyet been addressed, but the difference among thesemarkers needs to be explored. Similarly, the variabilityin wall decorations around A.D. 1050 may beindicative of a need to mark rooms used by specificfamilies/clans/sodalities,The identification of several possible clanlsodality rooms in great houses and Pepper's (1920)observations of resemblances of artifacts from PuebloBonito to historic Pueblo society indicate thatmechanisms for integrating different groups may havebeen in place. That a cosmology existed that includedknowledge of the movement of the sun and moon andprobably a yearly calendar is likely. The documentationof two sun-watching stations, in addition to thesolstice marker on Fajada Butte-all probably solsticeobservation sites-and other possible architecturalfeatures from which similar observations could bemade suggest an early origin for some ofthis historicPueblo cosmology.If these lines of evidence are verified, any modelof Chacoan social organization will have to becarefully evaluated to determine whether there werehereditary leaders or if the society operated under amore corporate mode. The Chaco Project, therefore,has raised many questions about early Pueblo society.Until we have better methods to estimate populationand determine the seasonality of the use of large andsmall structures, as well as their functions throughtime, the amount and impact of mobility, and thechronological depth of Pueblo ritual/ceremonial practices,our explanations will remain only models to betested by future archaeologists. (See Chapter 9 for anevaluation of models proposed for Chaco socialorganization. )

- ----------------------------------

Chapter SevenThe Final Years (A.D. 1140 to 1300):Abandonments, Fluctuations, or Continuity?From the beginning of Chacoan studies, students have recognized a late development in the Chaco Canyonsequence that had Mesa Verde-like qualities .... They mentioned a "Montezuma Phase" but generallyregarded the post-Bonito occupation in Chaco Canyon as the result of immigration from the northern SanJuan, i.e., an earlier "McElmo Phase," augmented by new arrivals from Mesa Verde and/or the northernSan Juan. (McKenna ]991: 128)The Mesa Verde Phase in Chaco Canyon ... has been a controversial and inconsistently recognized periodof occupation. The turmoil surrounding the period, which can be generally assigned to the thirteenthcentury, stems from the lack of period-specific research in Chaco Canyon, poor definition leading toproblems of recognition, and, in no small part, the name "Mesa Verde" applied to phenomena in ChacoCanyon. As in most phase definitions, ceramics played a large role in defining not only the event but thecultural and historical implications for the phase. (McKenna 1991:127)Judd (1964) proposed an early, as well as a late,set of influences in Chaco Canyon from the San Juanarea. The evolution of carbon-painted ceramic waresis the basis for discussion of the "Mesa Verde"influence in Chaco Canyon. Carbon-painted ceramicsrecovered from Bc 50, Bc 51, and Talus Unit No.1and identified as McElmo Black-on-white werethought to appear between A.D. 1050 and 1150, andpossibly earlier in Chaco (Gordon Vivian andMathews 1965:83). About the same time, McElmostylemasonry characterized the construction of KinKletso, the Tri-Wall structure at Pueblo del Arroyo,Casa Chiquita, New Alto, and other sites in thecanyon where this pottery type was recovered. Thus,interaction between people living along the San JuanRiver and its tributaries and those in the central SanJuan Basin was recognized. Explaining the interaction,however, remained a challenge. Although sitecomponents we now assign to the Late Bonito phasecan be separated from those that belong to theMcElmo and the later Mesa Verde phases (seeWindes's revised chronological scheme in AppendixB: Figure B.1), this was not clear at the inception ofthe Chaco Project. Following a brief review of priorwork, survey, and excavations at one site, as well asthe ceramic analyses carried out by Chaco Projectarchaeologists, will be discussed within a broaderframework of information available today on Pueblouse of Chaco Canyon and the San Juan Basin duringthe thirteenth century.Past HistoryWhen Gordon Vivian and Mathews (1965:30)summarized knowledge about Chaco Canyon afterA.D. 1130, there was limited data on which to basetheir interpretation. Kidder (1924:57) had documentedMesa Verde pottery in Pueblo Bonito, whichsuggested reuse of this site during the late A.D.1200s. In conjunction with planned construction of anew park headquarters building, a small house unitand a four-room site were tested by Gordon Vivian in1950. Both sites contained Mesa Verde Black-onwhitesherds. Another small pueblo (29SJ589, or Bc236) had Mesa Verde pottery in the upper levels (Z.Bradley 1971). Similar pottery was recovered byGordon Vivian from Una Vida and in the upper levelsat a number of other small sites, but data often were----- ~-~---

226 Chaco Project Synthesisnot analyzed or the results of excavations were notwidely disseminated (see sites classified as Pueblo IIIand Late Pueblo III in Truell 1986:Table 2.1). Abrief review follows.Headquarters site no. 1 (29S1515) was constructedduring the Classic period (Late Bonito phase)(Gordon Vivian and Mathews 1965:81). In plan view(Figure 7.1) it was similar to Wijiji. Five of its roomsand one kiva had cored masonry constructed of softsandstone blocks with dimpled surfaces, similar to thatin early A.D. ll00s sites. No cultural materials werefound on the floors, but 0.6 to 1.2 m (2 to 4 ft) ofrefuse above the floor contained one burial and MesaVerde sherds similar to those found in a neighboringsmall site. This nearby four-room Headquarters siteno. 2, located at the base of the talus slope, hadmasonry consisting of unshaped stones laid two stoneswide. The rooms were small (1.2 x 2.1 m [4 x 7 ft]),and the floors were not compact but rather loose andsandy. Approximately 77 percent of the sherds wereMesa Verde Black-on-white; the remainder wereMcElmo Black-on-white (7 percent); Chaco Black-onwhite(5 percent); Escavada Black-on-white (3 percent);Gallup Black-on-white (1 percent); QuerinoPolychrome (3 percent); and St. lohns Polychrome (2percent). These sherds were attributed to aMontezuma phase (Vivian and Mathews 1965:81).z. Bradley (1971) recognized that Bc 236(Figure 7.2) had evidence for two periods of use. Theoriginal walls consisted of large blocks shaped bypecking and smoothing; the double-faced masonry hadbeen laid on an underlying foundation. Floors werepacked adobe and averaged 5.08 cm (2 in) in thickness.Floors for the secondary occupation werecompacted fill; Bradley (1971:32) thought that rooms8 and 9 may have been covered with a jacal structure.Eleven of 18 firepits from the site were located againstwalls. In Room 8, the earlier firepit was in the centerof the floor; in the secondary occupation, it wasplaced against the wall, suggesting similar customs tothose found in the Mesa Verde region. The originalenclosed kiva walls were similar to Hawley's (1938)type 9 (i.e., rubble core with small slab facing); therewere six pilasters. The lower levels of occupationcontained a mix of Chaco and Mesa Verde sherds,while the upper levels were characterized by MesaVerde pottery. The courtyard exhibited two periodsof use: the earlier had a mix of Mesa Verde andChacoan sherds, while the later contained only MesaVerde sherds. An infant burial, accompanied by aMesa Verde Black-on-white bowl, was found on thefloor of Room 2. A second human burial had beenuncovered in a refuse area located ca. 7.5 m (25 ft)southwest of the house; it had been eroding out fromthe surface and had been removed by Gordon Vivianin 1958. The presence of 51 turkey bones out of 57total bird bones was similar to evidence that Dutton(1938) reported for the late occupation at Leyit Kin.At Be 236, 13 came from a deliberate burial of oneturkey recovered from a deep firepit located along thewest side of the house that was assigned to thesecondary occupation. Bradley thought that this sitewas built around the early A.D. 1100s, abandonedbetween ca. A.D. 1150 and 1200, and reoccupied inthe early A.D. 1200s.The Gallo Cliff Dwelling (29SJ540, Bc 288)(Abel 1974) is a small house block and kiva (Figure7.3) located on a talus slope under an overhang on thewest side of Gallo Wash (Figure 7.4). The crude,unshaped sandstone blocks (Figure 7.5), similar toHawley's (1937a, 1938) type 10, were of varyingsizes and were randomly laid, with occasional chinkingstones between them (Abel 1974). Of the 762sherds recovered, 74 percent were utility wares, halfof which were classified as Chaco Corrugated. Of thedecorated wares (26 percent of the collection), 12percent of the total sherds were classified as McElmoBlack-on-white and 6.3 percent as Wingate Black-onred.These were found predominantly in Room 5 andthe kiva. Based on the ceramics recovered, specificallythe McElmo Black-on-white, Abel placed thissite's use between A.D. 1100 and 1200, and possiblylater. Windes (personal communication, 2004) is uncomfortablewith archaeomagnetic dates. ESO 1466,formerly listed as A.D. 1370.±25, falls at A.D. 1330on the 1990s revision of the curve, while ESO 1475,formerly placed at A.D. 1250.± 56, did not date.Based on Abel's ceramic analysis, Windes places thesite at about A.D. 1200 or very late A.D. 1100s, withpossible later use, but recommends reappraisal of theceramics. Much material made from twine and over2,000 turkey feathers were recovered; 50 to 85 percentof the faunal remains represented turkeys.Site 29S11912, also known as Lizard House(Maxon 1963), or Bc 192 or Bc 193 in Hayes's survey(1981), and site 29S1827 (Voll's site Bc 362; Voll

117'1[ .....II)...0"'1.111"'tlll~'[j~ I'I"TO, Of WALl. 4-B£LOW SUkrACE) _____ 1--},o· TO pLI"o.~Eoz... "oz>-" o"o 10'~-Figure 7.1.Map of the Headquarters site. (Taken from Chaco Culture NHP Museum Archive, map C55320. Original mapprobably by Gordon Vivian.)

228 Chaco Project SynthesisooFPR9oFPR8PLAZAR6OFPIDFPR5FPR4R3aFP•R2FP• RIFP •FP(UPPER FLOORS SHOWN), io METERS 3Figure 7.2. Map ofBc 236. (Taken from Truell1986:Figure A.114. Original after Z. Bradley 1971.)

~ ___The Final Years 229RIR2R3__..it~I IJ II I'""-___ ~f" ? ,•R4I II I1)------_ _____ J ____ ~",.IIo I 2 3METERSFigure 7.3.Map of Bc 288, the Gallo Cliff Dwelling. (Taken from Truell 1986:Figure A.117.Original in Chaco Culture NHP Museum Archive, No. 2149.)

230 Chaco Project SynthesisFigure 7.4.View of Bc 288 nestled inside of a rockshelter. (Chaco Culture NHP Museum Archive,Photo no. 31586. Thomas C. Windes, photographer.)Figure 7.5.Close view of masonry at Bc 288. (Chaco Culture NHP Museum Archive, Photo no.3180. Milo McLeod, photographer.)

The Final Years 2311964) included carbon-painted ceramics. Maxon suggestedconstruction of Lizard House (Figure 7.6)shortly prior to A.D. 1100, when Chaco Black-onwhitewas predominant and when carbon-paintedwares were beginning to appear. Around A.D. 1130,when McElmo Black-on-white pottery was becomingpredominant, the house was remodeled and used for15 to 20 more years. Maxon suggested an orderlyprogression and not replacement of popUlations duringthis period. At Bc 362 (Figure 7.7), Voll suggestedconstruction around A.D. 1088 and remodelingaround A.D. 1109. AgaLll, the mingling of potterytypes (McElmo and Chaco) did not suggest massmigrations, even though a Mesa Verde-style kiva andsimilar ceramic designs had been interpreted as aninflux of people from the north by earlier investigators.Carbon-painted ceramics had been documentedat Leyit Kin (Figure 7.8) where, in Unit III, Kiva Bconstruction incorporated the "Mesa Verde style"(keyhole type with four pilasters and a deep recess onthe southern end). Reuse of a number of rooms, someof which had considerable fill above previously usedfloors (Dutton 1938), also suggested late occupation.Partitions in some rooms, new bins and fireplaces, a40 percent use of carbon-painted pottery, and oneextended burial under the floor of Room 16 (an infantwith two Mesa Verde Black-on-white bowl sherds,pumpkin seeds, and a turkey carcass) indicated adifferent population from previous inhabitants at thissite. No good dates were available.The lack of tree-ring dates after ca. A. D. 1130suggested that little new construction took placeduring the later periods. Gordon Vivian and Mathews(1965) thought that people either made do withexisting structures or remodeled older ones by usingsalvaged beams. Based on masonry and pottery types,they presented the following chronological and usescheme for the canyon:• Post-A.D. 1130 to early A.D. 1200s: Therewas a small remaining popUlation that usedcrude masonry consisting of poorly shapedblocks to reline benches in the great kivas atPueblo Bonito and Chetro Ketl. One date ofA.D. 1178.±. from burned firewood suggestedthat Kin Kletso was also in use in the late twelfthcentury. At Bc 236, people using a carbon-••painted McElmo Black on-white pottery with aMesa Verde design style provided the onlyevidence for new construction; remodeling of thekiva into a Mesa Verdean style suggestedcontinuity during the late Chacoan period(Vivian and Mathews 1965: 112). This population,however, abandoned the canyon aroundA.D. 1200.Between A.D. 1250 and 1275, there wasreoccupation of parts of Pueblo Bonito, use ofUna Vida, remodeling at Pueblo del Arroyo, andconstruction of a small site (the Headquarterssite) and dumping of refuse in a nearby earlierpueblo. Bc 236 also has evidence of reuse.A.D. 1275 to 1300 saw use of mesa top locationsto the east of the canyon; some on ChaeraMesa were considered defensive locations. Thelargest site was known as CM-lOO (Vivian andMathews 1965: 113).• From A.D. 1300 to 1350, there were a fewGalisteo Black-on-white and Zuni glazewares atone site in the main canyon; thus, it was thoughtthat perhaps some of these people may haveremained in the area through the A.D. 1350s.Vivian and Mathews suggested that these peoplewere part of a movement toward the Rio Grandepopulation centers. The limited occupation inChaco Canyon was thought to represent eithercontinual movement of small groups orsuccessive small group use.At the inception of the Chaco Project, therefore,there was an outline, but only a tentative picture, ofthe twelfth- and thirteenth-century use of ChacoCanyon. Research issues included the composition oflate populations, especially during the A.D. 12oos.Was there an influx of new people from the north intoan abandoned area? How were these people related toearlier inhabitants of Chaco who used Mesa Verde-likepottery and architecture-especially keyhole kivas?What were the numbers of people involved? Why didthey leave? Where did they go?Chaco Project ResearchThree types of research shed additional light onthe late occupations in Chaco Canyon. A search for

232 Chaco Project SynthesisIII II II1 R7AII 1I 1IIL.. ____ -IR8A11 II IRI4A- - - - - ---- - -'1 __ - _____ --'----------- ------------------.R5RIRl7o IMETERS2Figure 7.6.Map of Lizard House. (Taken from Truell 1986:Figure A.113. Original by Maxon1963:Figure 1.9.)

The Final Years 233, ,o J 2 3METERSFigure 7.7.Map of Be 362. (Taken from Truell1986:Figure A.11S. Original by Gordon Vivian andMathews 1965.)

234 Chaco Project Synthesis, Iii, ,'I ,I IRI2 ", ,I t, ,, ,---.11 __ _R9,.---....., -- ..... "/ " ,\\I ]Figure 7.8. Map of Leyit Kin. (faken from Truell 1986:Figure A.I02. Original by Dutton 1938.)

-- -- - - - - -- - ~- -~-------- - ----- - -~The Final Years 235archival material at other institutions brought forthsome previously unavailable data from past excavations.Surveys carried out as part of the ChacoProject, and later by Windes, as well as limitedexcavations and analyses, provided information on thisleast understood period in and around Chaco Canyon.Archival ResearchExamination of Roberts's field notes (SmithsonianInstitution National Anthropological Archives,No. 485; Chaco Culture NHP, Archive No. 2108)and written materials obtained from the HarvardPeabody Museum shed light on three additional siteswith evidence for late occupation. Two small sitesnear Wijiji were excavated by Roberts in 1926(Roberts 1927:246-247). One large pueblo was excavatedby Tozzer and Farabee in 1901 (Andrews 1970;Mathien 2002). Pertinent details follow.Turkey House, or Roberts's Small House, is nowidentified as 29SJ2385 (Truell 1986:Table 2.1). It islocated at the foot of talus that flows out from thecliffs on the south side of the Chaco Wash, just east ofShabik' eshchee Village. Roberts excavated nine ofpossibly 10 rooms and the East Court in this Be-likestructure. There are probably one to three kivas inthis site (TruellI986:Table 2.1). In Room 6, threefloors were identified; a northeast comer fireplace wasassociated with the uppermost floor, which contrastswith a center fireplace described for the middle floor.Comer firepits were also recorded in rooms 4, 7, and8. Remains of turkey were abundant throughout therooms. Several burials were recovered from therooms and the trash midden. Akins (1986:Table B.l)associated six burials from the trash midden withGallup Black-on-white ceramics; burials recoveredfrom the house (e.g., an adult male in the northeastcorner of Room 7, and a young child covered by astone slab in the East Court) were placed in anunidentified later period. Pottery types from the siteinclude some early types; for rooms 1 through 5,Mesa Verde pottery and some red wares were present.The second small site excavated by Roberts,located one mile east of Turkey House, has not beenassigned a name or survey number. From the availablenotes, it is difficult to determine its plan.Roberts excavated at least three rooms (rooms 6, 7,and 9), where several children and adults, accom-panied by Mesa Verde ceramics but little else (Akins1986: 105), were found on the floors. Although mostburials were represented by numerous skeletal parts;in Room 7, only the skulls of two children wererecovered.The Mesa Tierra great house (LA 17220) wasdescribed by Roney (1995, 1996) as one of a few largeisolated sites dating to the Mesa Verde period. It islocated on a mesa top just west of Chaco Canyon andwas excavated in 1901. Farabee (1901) estimated thatit contained approximately 40 rooms, but only 25could be traced. Seven rooms and three kivas wereexcavated. Walls were badly eroded; a few photographssuggest use of irregularly shaped rocks forconstruction. One human skull was recovered in ahearth in the kiva (Room 8). Ground stone, bone, andcerawic artifacts were predominant (Mathien2002:Table 2). Excavated ceramic types includedPinedale Polychrome, st. Johns Polychrome, andMesa Verde-type sherds (Andrews 1970). Ceramicsfrom a survey sample (Marshall et al. 1979:79)included Mesa Verde Black-on-white (most common),Wingate Polychrome, st. Johns Polychrome, and aKwakina-style polychrome, which suggest an A.D.1200s assemblage.Data from these three sites reinforce the conclusionthat there was reuse of earlier small sites, butwhether this indicates decreased population orabandonment and reuse was not apparent. The locationof the great house in a defensive position, theirregular masonry, and the late ceramic types indicatethat new construction of a large site did take place tothe west of the canyon.SurveyHayes (1981) acknowledged overlap in the use ofsmall and large sites, with two types of large sitesBonito-style and McElmo-style architecture-fromabout A.D. 1075 to the mid-A.D. 1200s. Based onarchitectural traits (fine-banded, darker sandstonemasonry, vs. large, shaped blocks of lighter soft sandstone)recorded during survey, Hayes (1981 :20, 29-34) subdivided the Pueblo III period into early (A.D.1050 to 1275) and late (A.D. 1275 to 1350) phases,but noted that there was much confusion in ceramictypes (the early presence of Mesa Verde Black-onwhite).For Early Pueblo III, he considered an early

236 Chaco Project SynthesisMcElmo expression, noted especially by theappearance of Wetherill Black-on-white and an earlyform of McElmo Black-on-white, as well as Chacomadecopies, to date sometime after A.D. 1075.Hayes (1981:29-30) was not sure there was sufficientevidence to indicate that people, and not copied traits,moved from north to south. In Hayes's Late PuebloIII period, McElmo and Mesa Verde black-on-whitewere the predominant pottery types. This periodincluded reductions in population, with only a fewpeople remaining into the early A.D. 1300s. Asimilar long late period of occupation was discernedduring the additional lands survey: A.D. 1130 to1230 (date group 500, when there is very littleevidence of use of the area) (Mills 1986). Millsincluded the late occupation at Kin Klizhin, as well asa Chacoan structure (CM-IOO) and great kiva onChacra Mesa, among the sites falling within thisperiod. She thought the system still operated andencompassed sites within the Chaco Halo (a 10-kmarea around the canyon) in some type of exchange.Hayes (1981 : Figure 20) illustrated the distributionof Late Pueblo III sites in the canyon bottom.Although there were fewer sites, they tended to bedistributed fairly evenly throughout the canyon. Theearlier high number and tight cluster of sites in andaround Pueblo Bonito at South Gap were no longervisible; only the hint of clustering remained. In laterresurvey to update his population estimates, Windes(1987[1]:404) commented on the difficulty of identifyingsites with Mesa Verde occupation along thesouth side of the canyon because houses from theearlier period were often reused. Because trash depositswere no longer placed on middens, but could befound during excavation (e.g., at 29SJ633) (Truell1979), Windes thought that we may be underestimatingthe number of people living in the canyonduring the A.D. 1200s. He also thought that sites onthe canyon floor were fairly evenly distributed.Windes's examination of the Chaco East community,located east of the park boundaries and about3.2 km (2 rni) west of Pueblo Pintado, revealed thepresence of a small popUlation in the early A.D. 1100sand widespread use of the area in the late A.D. 1100sand 1200s (Windes 1993; Windes et al. 2000).Thirty-nine houses were assigned to the period fromA.D. 1175 to 1300; some were located on the northside of the canyon on south-facing cliff ledges. Anumber of storage areas were also constructed in cliffshelters. Based on ceramic types and the constructionof new houses over older ones, Windes et al.(2000:50) thought there was a break between the earlyA.D. 1100s occupation and the late use of the ChacoEast community area.ExcavationsAlthough there is very limited evidence of lateuse at Pueblo Alto (Windes 1987[1]:172-175), oneexcavation that included evidence for the Mesa Verdephase was carried out by Marcia Truell and LouAnnJacobson at 29SJ633, a small house in Marcia'sRincon (Figure 7.9) that had been constructed duringthe late A.D. 1000s to early A.D. 1100s (Mathien1991a). Data from one and one-half rooms indicatedthat the central room block had been modified duringthe late A.D. 1100s to early A.D. 1200s. Sometimeafter remodeling, four burials (one adult male andthree infants) were placed in these rooms before theroofs were removed, the walls collapsed, and someburning of layers above the floors took place. Therooms were subsequently filled with trash, which musthave been discarded by people living in the area.Differences among the early and late occupationsinclude floor features. Truell (in Mathien 1991a: 116)found that the initial builders constructed heating pits,while the later occupants were satisfied with fires thatleft only floor bums. This suggests that repeatedcooking was not carried out during the last occupation.It is not possible to determine whether livingin these rooms during the later period was unplannedor the rooms were used only for a short occupation.Based on her examination of small site architecture,Truell (1986:302, 308) asked if reuse ofearlier sites, or especially sites in overhangs, indicatesa Mesa Verde migration into the canyon or acontinuum of earlier populations that had a San Juanaffiliation at this late date. Sherds from the A.D. 900swere present on some talus locations that had latePueblo III evidence.Analysis of fauna from 29SJ633 also documentedchange. Gillespie (1991) indicated a strong relianceon small mammals and turkeys at 29SJ633 during theMesa Verde phase. Lagomorphs predominated; theabundance of small, immature cottontails was unusual.Although there was definitive evidence for summer

_ - ~2 - -1 __ R_4_---J __ R_6_~R3R5-JR9 ,I(Not excavated)o 123METERSFigure 7.9. Map of 29SJ633. (Taken from Truell 1986:Figure A.116. Original by Truell 1979.)

238 Chaco Project Synthesisand fall use of the site, winter use could not be ruledout. Dogs were notably absent, and artiodactyls werescarce. To Gillespie, these data suggested stressfulliving during this late occupation. The large numberof turkey bones, and the appearance of charring on 3.3percent of them, suggested that this bird became acontributor to the diet.Use of turkey, probably for feathers, startedearlier, and increased progressively, possibly supportingGillespie's conclusion. At Pueblo Alto, Akins(1985:Table 7.25) lists three NISP during the EarlyBonito phase; 68 NISP during the Classic Bonitophase; and 878 NISP during the Late Bonito phase.At 29SJ633 there was an increase from three NISPduring the earliest site use to 681 NISP during the lateperiod. At the Gallo Cliff Dwelling (Bc 288), over2,000 turkey feathers and 50 to 86 percent of the bonerecovered were assigned to turkey. That so fewpeople would need so many turkey feathers wouldsuggest either a major change in how feathers wereused (ceremonially or for blankets) or use of turkeysas food. It seems likely that the change in reliance onturkey for food may have started during the LateBonito phase but increased considerably during theMesa Verde phase, especially because there were fewlarge game animals among the faunal remains at29SJ633.The human remains recovered from excavatedsites suggest a small population that buried their deadat home. Akins (1986) classified human remains from29SJ633 with those from Be 236 (one burial), LeyitKin (one burial), and Roberts's small house site (fiveburials). At 29SJ633, all three children were placedin burial pits excavated into the upper room floors.Two of three were placed in lined pits; two of three(but not the same two) had ashes placed over theirabdomens, as did one child found in the upper levelsof Room 290 at Pueblo Bonito. Two had cranialdeformation. In the pit with Burial 2 was one piece ofturquoise; this was the only ornament found withburials at 29SJ633. None of the adult burials assignedto this period had ornaments clearly associated withthem, but there was a piece of worked selenite and afaceted barite crystal near the adult male at 29SJ633.Adults from this period were oriented north-south,while earlier ones were oriented east-west. The adultmale from 29SJ633 was taller than the other maleskeletons from small sites; his height was in the rangethat Akins recorded for males from Room 33 atPueblo Bonito. He suffered from hypoplasia (oncanines) and trauma (on vertebrae). With so fewburials in this sample population, Akins (1986) foundit difficult to reach strong conclusions, but thesimilarity in height to burials from Pueblo Bonitooffers food for thought and might support continuityin late use of 29SJ633 by descendants of the earlierpopulation. The recovery of only skulls at Roberts'ssmall site and Mesa Tierra is unusual, but not unprecedented.Akins (1986:Table B.l) lists a fewothers from earlier sites; whether or not this mayindicate a rare continuity of practice needs furtherinvestigation.An important contribution from this excavationwas the ability to use the ceramic data to refine thedefinitions of pottery types with Mesa Verdecharacteristics. As noted above, the crux of theproblem is understanding the shift from mineral- tocarbon-painted ceramics. Careful study of sherdsexcavated by Judd (1959) at Pueblo del Arroyo led toa detailed description of Chaco McElmo Black-onwhite(Windes 1985). This first carbon-painted typediffers from McElmo Black-on-white, a distinction notclear to earlier investigators. Chaco McElmo Blackon-whiteincorporates traits found in other Chaco,Cibolan, Mesa Verdean, and Tusayan traditions;whether or not this represents a blending of people orideas needs further investigaton.When H. Toll et al. (1980) examined clay, temper,refiring colors, and types for the late periods inChaco, they found that Chaco McElmo Black-onwhitewas not solely locally produced. It was considereda regional or Chaco system type, some ofwhich was imported from the Chuska area to the west.By comparing its characteristics with McElmo andMesa Verde black-an-white types, shifts in thediversity of tempers and paste colors indicated that thetransition from Chaco McElmo to Mesa Verde ceramictypes was gradual. The following summarizes the approximatetime frame and some of the differencesbetween the mineral-painted and carbon-paintedpottery types as they are now defined for ChacoCanyon (H. Toll et al. 1980).Chaco Black-on-white is a member of themineral-paint Cibola white ware series and is datedbetween A.D. 1075 and 1150. Although associated

The Final Years 239most often with great houses, it never exceeds 1percent of the ceramic assemblages (H. Toll andMcKenna 1997:334). The quality of its craftsmanshipand its striking appearance may often lead to enhancedsignificance; for example, Neitzel and Bishop (1990:69) suggested that it may represent an elite possession.Chaco McElmo Black-an-white marks not onlythe shift to carbon paint, but also a change in designsand their execution. This introduction of carbonpaintedpottery was considered by some investigatorsto be an indication of influences entering Chaco fromthe north (e.g., Gordon Vivian and Mathews [1965],Who included sherds of this type in their McElmoBlack-on-white category). It is considered similar tothe McElmo Black-an-white of the Mesa Verde series,with which it can easily be confused. Dates of usespan the period from A.D. 1100 to 1150.McElmo Black-on-white sherds from the ChacoProject were often classified under the Pueblo IIPueblo III (PH-PIlI) carbon-an-white category (H.Toll and McKenna 1997:377), which dates to approximatelyA.D. 1075 through 1300. Tighter datesfor McElmo Black-on-white are A.D. 1125 to 1225(H. Toll et al. 1980:Figure 2).Mesa Verde Black-an-white is a distinct type inChaco Canyon that dates from A.D. 1200 through1300. It is not an import from Mesa Verde, however.Temper studies suggest that some vessels (26 percent)were made locally; some (7 percent) in the ChuskaMountains; and some (SO percent) along the San JuanRiver (H. Toll and McKenna 1997:392).The detailed ceramic analysis from 29SJ633 ledMcKenna and Toll (1991) to reaffirm their placementof29SJ633 in a continuum within the regionally basedceramic attributes, even though there are some fundamentaldifferences between the Mesa Verde Black-onwhiteand the Pueblo II-III carbon-an-white ceramicsfrom the earlier period. During the later period, decoratingsystems changed; motifs decreased in number;and placement of bands around the rims as parallelframers became prevalent. Temper analysis revealedthat ceramics from 29SJ633 were similar to types atother sites in the canyon with regard to the primarypresence of sandstone or quartz sand. Trachyte temperfrom the Chuska Mountains was also present, butin a smaller proportion of the sherds than the igneoustempers from the San Juan area, which was thepredominant nonlocal temper material found in thecarbon-painted ceramics. Through time there was amarked change in rim form from tapered to flat tobeveled. By the late A.D. 1100s and early A.D.1200s, the presence of Socorro Black-on-white bowls,pitchers, andjars suggested that specific sets offormswere being obtained from the south. McKenna andToll (1991) indicate that none of the ceramicassemblages were exclusively used or deposited assets; a variety of vessel forms were imported fromdifferent areas. Although there was a continuum inthe diversity of pottery types, sources 7 and forms,there was a decline in the variety of forms throughtime, which possibly indicates increased seasonal useof the site during the Mesa Verde phase. Bowls andpersonal-service items such as ladles, mugs, andcooking jars were the only forms found among thedecorated sherds.This analysis suggested a shift in the center of aregional system from Chaco Canyon to the San Juanarea instead of a distinct migration of northern peopleinto Chaco Canyon after an abandonment.... we have shown that considerableamounts of pottery were still being movedinto Chaco Canyon although it is not clearif this was the result of the nature of ChacoCanyon or the nature of pottery as a commodityper se.... The complementary natureof decorated and utility wares in theseries that makes up the late assemblagesuggests that ceramics were not acquired asrandom additions but were selected forspecified functions. The level of imports,the continuity in sources with past assemblages,and the technological compensationsundertaken with the decline inChuskan grayware all suggest a regionalsystem adjusting to changing conditionsbut enduring. Our view regarding somefusion of Chacoan and San Juan traditionsfor this assemblage still holds. The assemblageis sufficiently similar to earlier andcontemporary complexes to suggest thathuman occupation encompassed a varietyof ceramically related activities thatcontinued for an indeterminate time.(McKenna and Toll 1991:205)

------------------- -----240 Chaco Project SynthesisDecreased population of Chaco Canyon in the mid- tolate A.D. 1100s was not as well organized as that ofthe earlier Classic period, but people did obtainvessels from many of the same areas as previously.The Mesa Verde Black-on-white ceramics representcontinuity of residency in the area by people who weremore completely tied to populations and events in thenorth or San Juan area. McKenna and Toll (1991)suggested that the San Juan area had become the focusof an economic system that replaced the ChuskaValley supply area, and that the focus of the regionshifted from Chaco Canyon to the Aztec communityalong the San Juan River. Thus, the hypothesis of aMesa Verde migration into an empty Chaco Canyonwas not upheld (McKenna and Toll 1991; Toll et al.1980).Other artifact analyses support some continuityand some change during the Mesa Verde phase. WhenCameron (1991) compared the chipped stone from thetwo occupations at 29SJ633, she demonstrated thatwhile there was continuity in lithic sources, there wasmuch less use of nonlocal materials during both phasesat this small site than there was for earlier phasematerial from Pueblo Alto. Included in the MesaVerde phase were a few pieces of obsidian from JemezRidge and Red Hill, two sources from which materialrecovered on earlier sites had been obtained. Alsopresent were 31 pieces of Narbona (Washington) Passchert (from the Chuska Mountains area), 10 pieces ofyellow-brown spotted chert (from the Zuni area), andfour Morrison Formation cherts. Technology ofmanufacture was expedient.Analysis of ornaments and minerals indicatedcontinuity in forms and materials as well; again, therewere fewer imported materials during the Mesa Verdephase than had been seen during the Late Bonitophase. Mathien (1991 b) found that the imported shellspecies were few (Glycymeris gigantea, Haliotuscracherodii, and Olivella dama) and similar to speciesfound during the Basketmaker and Pueblo I periods.As noted above for obsidian, this change suggests areturn to earlier patterns that existed during theBasketmaker III and Pueblo I periods. Does itrepresent a change in trade networks or an eliminationof more widespread or sophisticated exchangerelationships for the Classic period?In summary, Truell's excavation of 29SJ633 (inMathien 1991a) raised several questions aboutcontinuity in the use of the Chaco Canyon area, movementsof people within the region, and the meaning ofthe changes noted. Gwinn Vivian (who reviewedsections of Truell's report) subdivided the Mesa Verdephase into two components: Late McElmo and EarlyMesa Verde (A.D. 1170 to 1220), and Late MesaVerde (A.D. 1220 to 1350). These divisions werebased on survey ofChacra Mesa during the late 1950s,which revealed the presence of crescent-shaped sitesand cliff dwellings that he considered contemporaneousand attributable to the period when McElmoand early Mesa Verde black-on-white types, plus St.Johns, Houck, and Querino ceramics, were beingused. (McKenna [1991] now recognizes Houck andQuerino ceramics as part of the Wingate Polychromeseries dated ca. A.D. 1175 to 1210.) Fortified buttetopsites with later ceramics were fewer in number andfound in different locations. Gwinn Vivian (1974a)thought that these sites dated to A.D. 1250 andpossibly later. He attributed the change in locations toa shift in farming practices from those using floodwaterirrigation to those using dry farming techniques;the higher altitude and cooler temperatures, andperhaps increased precipitation, would have allowedthis change. Areas farther east of the canyon had beensettled late-only after A.D. 1075 to 1100. Thechanges in rainfall patterns at A. D. 1080 were thoughtto initiate a slow decline in the Chaco dominance ofthe San Juan Basin; the later droughts of the twelfthand thirteenth centuries were more difficult andnecessitated continuing changes that result in the MesaVerde phase (Vivian 1990:383-389).The slow eastward movement is now accepted bysome investigators. "This intense late occupation isevident east of the East community, shifting to the topof Chacra Mesa east of Pueblo Pintado Canyon(Roney 1996). Overall, classic Mesa Verde Black-onwhite,marking occupation by 1250 or later, was rare"(Windes et al. 2000:43). Windes (1987, and inCameron and Toll 2001:Table 1) now divides thePueblo III period into two phases:The McElmo Phase. This phase falls betweenapproximately A.D. 1140 and 1200. It is characterizedby the presence of McElmo Black-on-whitesherds and an indented corrugated pottery with rock,sherd, and sand temper. Dendroclimatologicalreconstruction indicates that this period included a

The Final Years 241severe drought from approximately A.D. 1130through 1180. The canyon area was consideredmostly depopulated during this period.The Mesa Verde Phase. This phase is datedbetween A.D. 1200 and 1300. Mesa Verde Black-onwhiteand indented corrugated (with rock and sherdtemper) characterize the period. Repopulation occurs;and Aztec East, a large Chacoan site on the AnimasRiver, is constructed.In summary, at the conclusion of the ChacoProject, researchers had better chronological controlofthe carbon-painted ceramic series in Chaco Canyon.The blending of traits visible in Chaco McElmo Blackon-whiteand the recognition that it was made inseveral subregions of the San Juan Basin suggest aneed to discern whether this represents a mixing ofpeople, ideas, or both, beginning around A.D. 1080.The evolution of the carbon-painted ceramic seriesindicates that this was a gradual transition and notmajor migration into the canyon from the north.Due to the lack of ceramic evidence on thesurface of some small sites that were reused in latertimes, there are still problems with the identificationof Mesa Verde phase sites and settlement patterns,both in Chaco Canyon and throughout the San JuanBasin. What is needed is a detailed reassessment ofthe number of sites and their locations; of whetherthey represented single components or the reuse ofpreviously inhabited areas, and of the settlementpatterns (especially the identification of communities).Based on his sample resurvey data, Windes(1987[1]:404) was able to correlate the decreasedpopUlations or possible abandonment between A.D.1130 and 1180, and the final departure of the Pueblopeople from the canyon in the late A.D. 1200s withtwo unusually long drought periods that Bums (1983)indicated would be disastrous for com production.Because so little time was devoted to this period, thesocial implications for the inhabitants of the canyonand the larger region were not pursued.DiscussionA reaction to the stress of major droughts (A.D.1130 to 1180, and A.D. 1276 to 1299) may have beenthe abandonment of the San Juan Basin and FourComers area of the Anasazi region. Yet someevidence for cultural continuity exists. Evidence forthe Mesa Verde phase in the Chaco Basin includessites located in the bottomlands of Chaco Canyon, aswell as in the Chacra Mesa uplands, near PuebloPintado (Pintado Gap, and east of Pintado Gap). Sitesare also documented as far south as Las Ventanas andthe Rio Puerco. Known communities include theChaco East community (Windes et al. 2000); MesaTierra (Marshall et al. 1979; Mathien 2002); the CM100 area, and one settlement to the north (Jacobsonand Roney 1985); Pueblo Pintado; and possibly RatonSprings (Marshall et al. 1979; Wait 1983:181-184).No communities are documented for central ChacoCanyon; but firepits in some of the upper levels offilled rooms in great houses suggest that some activitytook place at least a few times in these sites. Theywere not, however, the centers of activity they hadbeen in earlier years.Based on a review of data on known Mesa Verdephase site locations from the inventory survey ofChaco Canyon, the additional lands survey, and theChacra Mesa sites documented by Jacobson and Roney(1985) (which included Gwinn Vivian's data from thelate 1950s), McKenna (1991) commented on the diversityof site types that were utilized during this lateoccupation. Some were classified as expedient constructions;among these were small talus-bouldershelters and granaries, open adobe rooms, masonrypueblitos on butte tops, jacal buildings and augmentingmasonry rooms, and small boulder-backedpueblos. There was a reuse of existing buildings(e.g., at 29JS633, Be 236, Be 52, Leyit Kin, and Be51), as well as construction of new units (HeadquartersB, Unit III at Leyit Kin, and the area of Kiva6 at Be 51). Some commonalities among sites includesmall, single-story, accretional construction and ablocked-in keyhole-style plastered kiva. Rooms hadsmall firepits located near the walls, paired slabmetates in bins, and subfloor burials. None of thisdata reflect the high labor input that was seen duringthe Classic period.McKenna (1991) suggested that Mesa Verdeceramics included subregional types, but representeda broad regional continuum. If so, what was happeningthroughout the region? When Stein andMcKenna (1988) conducted reconnaissance survey ofgreat houses and other small sites in the Animas

242 Chaco Project SynthesisValley, a number of Chaco and Mesa Verde greathouses extended along the San Juan River from Blancoto Shiprock, as well as on the Animas and La Platarivers (Stein and McKenna 1988:Figure 13). Most ofthese sites are attributed to the late eleventh andtwelfth centuries. They found a large communityaround Aztec Ruins National Monument, and perhapsa similar large community at the Kello Blancett site tothe southwest.Like Gwinn Vivian (1990), McKenna (1991)thought that changes in subsistence (i.e., more relianceon small mammals and turkeys and a shift from flintto flour com) were taking place; he therefore concludedthat there were definite alterations in thesubsistence strategies that had earlier beginnings. Bythe Mesa Verde phase, Chaco Canyon could haverepresented an alternative to the more denselypopulated riverine communities along the San Juan; itcould have been an alternative planting area for asmall population. McKenna considered the San Juanas the regional center, with Chaco as a location withreduced population and an altered communitystructure. He could not determine whether the MesaVerde phase in the canyon represented reorganizationor increased use by additional groups, or a combinationof both. For McKenna, the Mesa Verdephase was not representative of a migration of peopleinto the Chaco area. Rather, the Mesa Verde potterythat has been found was part of an ongoing developmentand use of a regionally distinct black-on-whitehorizon style. A major problem still exists because ofthe lack of dates for excavated sites and lack ofassociation of Mesa Verde Black-on-white withconstruction.Stein and Fowler (1996) supported the idea ofcontinued use of the San Juan Basin until finalabandonment in the middle A.D. BOOs. Theyproposed that the great house complexes (with greatkivas and roads) do not represent normal living spacesfor people who had been organized in communitiesfrom the seventh through fourteenth centuries.Instead, they represent integrative architecture foreither a community or a region. In this scenario, thearchitectural manifestations have specific functionalroles in the local community. The complex in ChacoCanyon would represent a set of regional integrativearchitecture that during the early A.D. 1100s clearlyshifted away from Chaco Canyon and ended up soonthereafter in the Totah region, north of the San JuanRiver. Using data from several subareas, theyindicated the continued presence of big houses orcompounds throughout the region, and cited severalinstances in which newly constructed big houses aretied to older compounds by road segments. They didnot see a displaced Chacoan population, but rather aplanned renewal of "ritual" facilities. This renewalwas undertaken at a community and a regional scale.While older elements of the culture were important,new architectural styles (beginning with the McElmostyle of construction by A.D. 1100 to 1140) denotethe beginning of this shift. The continuity thatMcKenna argued for black-on-white ceramic types(with Mesa Verde Black-on-white being the last of thisseries) is also apparent in the architecture throughoutthe San Juan Basin and its periphery.On the basis of stylistic ceramics, architecture,and settlement patterns, Roney (1995, 1996) documentedchanges from the A.D. 1100s through 1350 inthe larger region of the San Juan Basin. Divergencefrom the Chacoan regional network began during theearly A.D. 1100s, when northern sites adopt carbonpaint (the McElmo and Mesa Verde black-on-whites),while the south retains mineral-painted ceramics(Tularosa Black-on-white) and demonstrates a gradualevolution of sites. Thus, the earlier system thatevidenced more uniform use of Gallup and Escavadablack-on-white types and the construction of publicarchitecture (great houses, greatkivas, often connectedby roads) slowly disintegrated.During the drought from A.D. 1130 to 1180, theRed Mesa Valley, the Dutton Plateau, and the floor ofthe San Juan Basin are mostly abandoned. A numberof communities that are defined by the presence ofMesa Verde ceramics are found along the Rio Puercoat this time. Three communities that had been establishedearlier (Chaco Canyon, and the Guadalupeand Salado communities) continued, albeit withgreatly reduced populations. Roney (1996) consideredthe possibility that these were abandoned by A.D.1150. Between A.D. 1150 and 1200, however, newsettlements were begun (e.g., at Torreon and JonesCanyon, and possibly at Ojito and Coots Ridge).Separated from these communities by vast distancesare others that survived on Chacra Mesa, along theSan Juan River, and in the Chuska Valley, and a fewto the east of the Rio Puerco Valley. Based on

The Final Years 243ceramic types, by A.D. 1350 the southern San JuanBasin can be divided into three distinct subdivisions:the Western, or Acoma-Laguna, area (Tularosa tradition);the Eastern (Mesa Verde tradition); and theLower Puerco (Socorro tradition). Along the middleRio San Jose, there is some overlap of the Mesa Verdetradition with the western tradition, especially in thearea around Acoma Pueblo. Sherds from the Socorrotradition are found in both the Tularosa and MesaVerde tradition sites. In the north, this evolutioncomes to an end at about A.D. 1350, and the area isabandoned, while in the south, although there arechanges in settlement pattern, there is continuedoccupation of major areas into the Historic period.If continued ceramic traditions indicate participationin a long-established group, during the periodfrom A.D. 1100 through 1350, a major divisionbetween those using carbon and mineral paints tookplace. Roney (1996) suggested that the fuzzy ceramicborders at the eastern San Juan Basin flow over intothe Rio Grande area (the close relationship ofMcElmo/Mesa Verde and Santa Fe types), whichwould suggest ties between these peoples. However,migration, or a slow movement of people from theMesa Verde and Chaco areas through the Rio PuercoValley and into the Rio Grande, seems unlikelybecause both the Mesa Verde and Rio Puerco areas areabandoned at the same time (but see recent commentsby Baker and Durand [2003:188-189], who proposemovement downstream to Hummingbird and laterpossibly to Pottery Mound, thus indicating possiblecontinuity through time). The presence of MesaVerde peoples in both the eastern San Juan Basin andthe Rio Grande areas in the late 1200s, however, isaccepted.Like Gwinn Vivian (1990) and McKenna (1991),Roney (1996) suggested a change in agriculturalpractices; the shift led to the abandonment of dryfarming in lowland areas and a movement to lowlandareas with slick rock that channeled water to farmingareas or to upland settings that were better watereddue to enhancement by orographic effects. Roney(1996) proposed that local communities retained theirorganization. The presence of "pre-eminent" sites(those that are larger than others in the community)suggests some formal organization; these are also thelast within the community to be abandoned. Thesepre-eminent sites vary considerably in layout; somehave plazas, some are in defensive locations, and someare walled. The possibility of conflict cannot beoverlooked.The period beginning around A.D. 1100 was anunsettled time, when local communities can be easilyassigned to distinct ceramic provinces that often do notinteract with one another (Roney 1996). In theAcoma-Laguna area, the mixing of Mesa Verde andTularosa traditions suggested continued interaction ora melding of peoples with different backgrounds andoutlooks.Roney's ideas are not very different from thoseof Lekson and Cameron (1995), who proposed anexpansion of the Chacoan regional system betweenA.D. 1050 and 1150, with an early A.D. 1100s shiftof the center from Chaco Canyon to the Totah regionof the San Juan River. They suggested that aroundA.D. 1150 a balkanization or division of the regiontook place, but the Chaco pattern of communitycontinued even though it was no longer the center.The great houses were still used, but their functionschanged. Based on similarities between the paintedwood recovered from Chetro Ketl (Gwinn Vivian etal. 1978) with that used on contemporary Puebloceremonies, Lekson and Cameron suggested thatkatsina dances (associated with the use of macaws),which they believe originated in the Mimbres areaaround A.D. 1050, were introduced. Lekson andCameron (1995) reported ties through oral histories ofthe Hopi and Zuni peoples that point to Chaco, whereboth lived together and where their ceremonial cyclesbegan; it is still considered their northernmost place(Ferguson and Hart 1985). Leksan and Cameronprovided a link between Acoma and the Chaco andMesa Verde areas, which are named in migrationaccounts. Lekson (1999) pursued this link further; forthis discussion, the goal is only to provide a backgroundfor the historic pueblos and to link them to theprehistoric sites and possible practices we canreconstruct from Chacoan archaeology.Most recent studies by Hill et al. (2004) plot thepresence of sites with 50 rooms or more between A.D.1200 and 1600 at 50-year intervals. Their graphicillustration confirms a slow movement out of the FourComers area to the historic Pueblo villages of today.They caution, however, that there may have beensmaller sites existing during some of these periods so

244 Chaco Project Synthesisthat the empty spaces on their maps may still havebeen home to a small number of people. Theypropose that the reason for the decreasing populationthroughout this long time span may be related tohaving too few people within the mating population tomaintain population densities.The social changes that would have accompaniedslow reductions in population sizes have not yet beenextensively addressed. The evidence for violence anda few instances of cannibalistic behavior that havebeen documented (e.g., Bustard 2000, White 1992,among others) may have resulted if droughts made itimpossible for late A.D. 1100 populations to eithergrow sufficient food staples or trade for them withgroups or neighbors throughout the region. Severestress lasting for longer periods would have madepeople more dependent on their local groups; if thecooperative aspects of regionwide exchange thatprobably went on during the Classic period no longerproved reliable, the dissension and fissioning thatseems to take place over the 400 years illustrated byHill et al. (2004) is not unexpected. Stuart's (2000)proposal that the settlements of historic populationsthat cover riverine through high-mountain settingsalong the Rio Grande would not be unlikely. Suchsettlements would allow much more independenceamong the historic tribes. Possible explanations willbe further explored in Chapter 9.

Chapter EightRelated Communities in the San Juan BasinThe ancient culture centered in the Chaco Canyon of northwestern New Mexico, which reached a climaxin the 11th century A.D., was unquestionably one of the most sophisticated and complex pre-Columbiancultures of native North America. . .. recent and earlier research indicates that in the late 11th centurypopulations from the Chaco Canyon expanded into other areas and created colonial towns duplicating the"great houses" of the Chaco. (Irwin-Williams 1972:4)Based on his examination of sociai compiexity inChaco Canyon, Gwinn Vivian (1970a, 1970b, 1972)recognized that the large pueblos, roads, andagricultural features found in Chaco Canyon could notbe explained until there was a better understanding ofsimilarities between the canyon and other known largesites with Chaco-style architecture (e.g., Allantown[Roberts 1939]; Aztec [Morris 1928]; Chimney RockPueblo [Eddy 1977; Jean~on and Roberts 1924];Lowry ruin [Po Sidney Martin 1936]; Kin Ya'a[Bannister 1965; Holsinger 1901]; Salmon [IrwinWilliams 1972]; and the Village of the Great Kivas[Roberts 1932]). These sites were located around theperipheries of the 40,000 km 2 San Juan Basin; roadsegments radiated from Chaco Canyon toward thebasin margins and were thought to lead to thoseoutlying areas (Gwinn Vivian 1972, 1974b). Basedon their examination of aerial photographs andmapping of additional suspected road segments, Ebertand Hitchcock (1973) advocated a regional approachfor additional studies. Models suggesting how anintegrated system might work were provided byAltschul (1978-Chaco as part of a regional interactionsphere) and Grebinger (1973-Chaco as a pristineranked society). By the late 1970s, the issues thatevolved around Chaco and outlying communitiesfocused on whether there was a large, complex socioeconomicsystem or interaction sphere in which taskspecialization, resource redistribution, and socialranking existed. And if so, how well integrated wasit? Was it the result of indigenous development, orforeign influence? What caused its development,change through time, and eventual demise? Severalinvestigators carrying out survey and excavationprojects focusing on large sites in the San Juan Basinwould evaluate these concepts and propose morerefined models to explain the "Chaco Phenomenon"(Irwin-Williams 1972). This chapter will present theirresults in three parts: surveys of outlying communities;contemporaneous research at great housecommunities; and environmental conditions in the SanJuan Basin that would have affected locations ofcommunities. How these communities throughout theSan Juan Basin and beyond are linked is still underdiscussion (Kantner and Mahoney 2000).Surveys of Outlying CommunitiesBecause little was known prior to the ChacoProject about large sites and communities outsideChaco Canyon, two early interrelated surveys identifieda sample of large sites located throughout theSan Juan Basin. Initially, Loose (1976b) prepared amap locating known Chaco-like structures; summarizedgeological data, ecological diversity, climate,and cultural aspects of the San Juan Basin; and recommendedan approach for study. His updated preciswas the basis for research supported by the PublicService Company of New Mexico (PNM) and the NewMexico State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)(Marshall et al. 1979). In the 1970s, energy developmentin the San Juan Basin threatened culturalresources. Many Chaco-like structures were locatedon properties managed by different governmentagencies, and on private lands. To protect at least arepresentative sample of Chacoan outlier sites would

246 Chaco Project Synthesisrequire a cooperative effort and a preservationorientedplan. The PNM/SHPO-sponsored studyfocused on 1) a workable predictive model for outliersite location that would be useful for management; and2) nomination of outlying Chacoan sites to the federaland state lists of cultural properties (Loose 1979a:356). The major goal of NPS archaeologists was toexamine the relationship between the outliers andChaco Canyon (Judge 1976a). Judge's researchdesign specified the collection of data in order toevaluate time, space, environment, site morphology,and artifacts in an attempt to formulate and evaluatehypotheses to explain this phenomenon. He advocatedthe use of systems theory, an evolutionary approach,and a cultural ecology orientation (R. Powers et al.1983:5-6). Participants in both surveys addressedprotection and preservation goals that contributed tothe passage of Public Law 96-550 in 1980, which setaside 33 of the large pueblos as protected sites.Although there were several differences betweenthe PNM/SHPO (Marshall et al. 1979) and ChacoPr~ject (R. Powers et al. 1983) surveys, some datawere combined for analysis. Both studies focused onlarge pueblos. Marshall et al. (1979) assigned affiliations(Chacoan, Chuskan, or Mesa Verdean) to sites.The differences between Chacoan and Mesa Verdeandesignations correlated with time; those betweenChacoan and Chuskan denoted cultural differences.For Powers et al. (1983), the focus was on Chacorelatedsites and surrounding structures; ceramic typeswere designated as Cibolan. Loose (1979a:358) listedseveral criteria to define an outlier: 1) multi-bandedand cored masonry, large rooms, high ceilings, and aplanned appearance to the Chacoan structure; 2)Cibola-series ceramics; 3) Chaco-style kivas; 4) morethan 20 rooms, or an association with a prehistoricroad; and 5) a strategic location on one of the knownroad systems; and perhaps 6) a later McElmoappearance, if the structure is associated with Bonitophase roads. Powers et al. (1983) stressed the Chacocommunity, which included 1) a Chacoan structure(great house or great kiva); 2) proximity to a Chacoanroad; and 3) a number of small houses within the area.Dates assigned to ceramics by Marshall et al. (1979)differed slightly from those used by Powers et al.(1983:Figure 3), who followed Hayes's (1981)version based on the Pecos Classification (Figure 8.1).Powers et al. (1983) concentrated on the Chaco slope,while Marshall et al. (1979) focused on the southernperiphery of the San Juan Basin. Three areas (Bissa'ani, Peach Springs, and Pierre's site) were moreintensively surveyed by Powers et al. (1983), whoestablished a l-km radius from the Chacoan structureto define the area examined for the presence of PuebloII and Pueblo III sites. For these areas, a full set ofdata was recorded; other sites were only identified andlocated. Thus, early Basketmaker III and Pueblo Icommunities were less well documented, but theirpresence suggested long-term use of some areas, muchlike the data collected by Marshall et al. (1979).Research sponsored by PNM and the SHPO includeddata on 34 Chacoan, Chuskan, and Mesa Verdeangreat houses and/or communities (Marshall et al.1979). When reconnaissance and literature searchrevealed that there was a large number of outlyingcommunities, Powers et al. (1983:6) recognized thatit would be impossible to report on all of them, andthe sample for analysis was narrowed to 33 thatrepresented a Chacoan manifestation. These initialstudies provided a sufficient sample to suggest whenand how communities were organized through time.Recent studies (e.g., Gilpin 2003; Gilpin et al. 1996;Kantner 2003b; Van Dyke 1999) include sites notdocumented during these surveys; refinements inchronology and settlement patterns continue to bedistinguished among the great houses and communities(Kantner and Kintigh 2005).Based on these two early surveys, it was possibleto outline the development of communities. Marshallet al. (1979) indicated that clusters of small houses,some with great kivas, had Basketmaker III andPueblo I ceramics (A.D. 550 to 950). In thesecommunities there were no multi storied structures, noformal irrigation features, and no well-defined roads.The great kivas or single large houses within thecommunities were identified as community centers.As a result of their analysis, Marshall et al. (1979:338) proposed a new chronological sequence. BetweenA.D. 500 and 950, there were numeroussettlements consisting of traditional Basketmaker IIIand Pueblo I sites. Although communities existed,there was as no central control of the San Juan Basin.Between A.D. 950 and 1150, the classic Chacosettlements appeared. Small habitation sites aroundmulti storied buildings and great kivas were frequentlyconnected by formal roads. Other public works (irrigationcanals, dams, and reservoirs) were thought tosupport a system that incorporated extensive regional

Related Communities 247Calendrical001 ••A,D.Pecos Clcssificotion Toll .1 01.(Hay.. 1981)(1980 )Marshall or 01. Vivian and Mathews(979) * (1965)Gladwin (1945)CalendricalOor ..A.D.- - -?- - -500r - - -?- - --r-500600700--Basketmaker III(8M III)IBeskelmaker IIIBasketmok.r Iiir-r- - -?- --r-600700800-Pueblo I(P I)Pueblo IEarlyPueblo IWhite Mound PhaseKlatuln lonna Phose80090010001100--1200 -Early PUlbla II(EP II)Lore Pueblo II(LP II)Ear Iy PueblO III(EP III)Lor. Pueblo III(LP III )Eorly Bonito Pho ••Classic Bonito PhoseLote Bonito PhosePueblo ILatePueblo IIEarlyPueblo IIPueblo IILore r---~Bonito H07~-Pua blo III Pha •• Butte Me ElmoEarly Phase PhasePueblo IIIMiddlePueblo IIILate__ '-_1 - --Lote PiliRed Mesa Pha •• r- 900Wingar. PhaseHosta Butt.Bonito Phaset- 11001300 ~- -?--- .... 1300* Marshall.r 01. (979) follow Vivian and Malhews in recognizing contemporaryBonilo, Hosla Butte, and Mc Elmo architecturol phon., but with beginning cndending dates for tho Bonilo and Hosta Butt. pha ... 01 ca, 950-1200.t-10001200Figure 8.1.Correlation of chronological divisions used by researchers studying the San Juan Basin.(Taken from R. Powers et al. 1983:Figure 3.)trade during the Pueblo II and Pueblo III periods ofthe Pecos Classification. Because of a lack of newconstruction, utilization of communities between A.D.1150 and 1200 was not easy to discern. By A.D.1200 to 1250, a number of great houses wereconstructed, often in defensive locations. These communitiesare located only on productive agriculturalsoils. No explanation for the abandonment after thisperiod was given.R. Powers et al. (1983) plotted commumtIesthrough time. Like Marshall et al. (1979), they recorded10 localities with limited Basketmaker IIIsettlements; and great kivas appeared in two of 14outlying settlements or communities during Pueblo 1.Pueblo I communities included Pueblo Pintado, KinBineola, Skunk Springs, EI Rito, and Kin Ya'a.The first Chacoan structures found outside ChacoCanyon appeared during Early Pueblo II (A.D. 900 to975) in seven localities (Figure 8.2). Five hadexisting small settlements: Peach Springs, EI Rito,Guadalupe, Wallace, and Sterling, and possibly SkunkSprings (R. Powers et al. 1979). A Chacoan structurealso appeared in the Kin Bineola area (see Van Dyke2006a for more details on this community). Based on

SKUNK SPRINGS •·PEACH SPRINGS? Chacoan. stnv.:lUl"ot (oec:""al¥:>ndunngpe-nocl ur.cotrt*'ln)•Out~ Chacoan slructurotor 1la8,lOf Cl'acO C~n s truehut-0.'01.10 ....! 0.10 .. m.H." ......Figure 8.2.Early Pueblo II communities with Chaco an structures. (faken from R. Powers et al. 1983:Figure 142.)

• WALL.ACESKUNK SPRINGS IIIIII STANDING ROCKIII PE ACH SPRINGSDAL.TON PASS" III MUDDY WATERIII KIN VA'AIII CASAMEROIII EL RITO•CI-...:OVi. structure ~Xcup.hon durin.l:puaod uncertaa,njOUI~Chs.:oan$lructl.utor m,,:.:r C~O C~nstructutotOutlYmg Chaco$,n shuc:tu.z t:a.nd ~SOCla.hd OO .. :III.UlUtyOutl~ Cha.coan shu.:tuu.u'ld prd:.tblof: a5sociattti CO»I.l:AW'Utv• to ~ 1,0 .. II ••o ~ ':' 1120IS~O"" ..... "Figure 8,3.Late Pueblo II communities with Chaco an structures. (Taken from R. Powers et aI. 1983:Figure 143.)

250 Chaco Project SynthesisCUACIIJQVI"l'.& ~1"".... 1070rs.&aoo aL4JICO ~ h •• LO .\.LTO1 anao ."'L- aRGO .AY!I ... ~ ... .!!? n ....P'O'DJ.O DaL .. 110 L- - PnaLO JIOIfJTOI !!J" &L ....... 1::! _-' I '- --II_I ~.. s ..,~ 1 ___ wuu.•oIII-Q@-f9,'OlllO.L"Q I to .. aoZlIOk.Outlying Chaco an structure 01" major Chaco Canyon structUl"e(treated in Powers et a1. 1983)Outlying Chacoan structure (not treated in Powers et a1. 1983)Outlying Chacoan structure and associated community (ilmer circleor dot keys treatment or non-treatment)Other reconnaissance areaSchematic interpretation of p!"O bable prehistoric !"OadFigure 8.4.Early Pueblo III communities with Chacoan structures. (Taken from R. Powers et al.1983:Figure 1.)

• ESCALANTE.IDA JEAN• WALLACESKUNK SPRtNGSiii• TWIN ANGELS- ,-" - -I "... PUEBLO BONITO1~• "... CHETRO KHL1-- ~. -II UNA VIOAPUEBLO DEi: ~;;oYO ~'-FII-I I ~ j ·---1- 1- _ 11' •••I_I : ! ',; .... " ~ 1_ _ _ 1II STANDING ROCKIl PEACH SPRINGS~,.....p.'• HOUCK• VILLAGE OFTHE GREATKIVASOutlylngCht&coan structure or•_~r cr..co C~n siructu.rll:Out~ Ch$.:oan st:ructure and tiSO(,l&ted communityI • 10 I. 10.11 ..L.w. , •• ,• 0 ~ 10 I~ to. SO"II ••• t.,.Figure 8.5.Late Pueblo III communities with Chaco an structures.(Taken from R. Powers et al. 1983:Figure 144.)

252 Chaco Project Synthesisavailable ceramic types and a few tree-ring dates,Powers et aI. (1983) could not determine which camefirst-the great houses in Chaco Canyon or those in theoutlying communities.At least nine new Chacoan structures appearedby Late Pueblo II (A.D. 975 to 1050); seven werelocated in areas that had evidence of previoussettlements or communities (Figure 8.3).The largest number of new Chacoan structures(n= 19; Figure 8.4) were assigned to the Early PuebloIII period (A.D. 1050 to 1175). During this peak:construction period, some were built in each decadebetween A.D. 1058 and 1130. This increase in constructionparalleled developments in Chaco Canyon(Lekson 1984a; R. Powers et ai. 1979). Distributionof pottery types indicated that Chaco McElmo Blackon-whitewas rare on sites in the southern half of theSan Juan Basin, where Puerco Black-on-white andWingate Black-on-white were the diagnostic types. Inthe Chuska Valley, the predominant types wereToadlena Black-on-white, Chuska Black-on-white, andNava Black-on-white. To the north of the San JuanRiver, types in the Mesa Verde series were more common.The formal road network that led to the fringesof the Chaco Basin, where a number of resourceslacking in Chaco Canyon would have been moreabundant, probably came into existence during thisperiod.There was a considerable decrease in occupationat outlying communities during Late Pueblo III (A.D.1175 to 1300) (Figure 8.5). During the first half ofthis period there was no new construction of Chacoanstructures. A slight increase in occupation and somenew construction occurred between approximatelyA.D. 1225 and 1300. However, late reoccupationnorth of the San Juan River and at Guadalupe ruin didnot look Chacoan (R. Powers et ai. 1979).R. Powers et aI. (1979) and Marshall et ai.(1979:337) concluded that public architecture developedgradually throughout the entire San Juan Basin.After A.D. 950 and continuing to around A.D. 1200,Cibola-series ceramics were present in areas where anumber of small masonry structures were found near"public" buildings (great houses and great kivas)(Marshall et al. 1979). Some communities had reservoirs,and a few had irrigation facilities. Near publicstructures, road segments were often visible. Becausesome communities existed prior to the construction ofa Chacoan building, the cause for the establishment ofa community could not be attributed to events inChaco Canyon (Powers et ai. 1983). The appearanceof public architecture during the Early Bonito phasewas not the result of colonization by elite from ChacoCanyon; rather, Marshall et ai. (1980:337) proposedthat productive communities and alliances amongpeople "on the fringes of the Chacoan interactionsphere made the impressive developments at ChacoCanyon possible." Because most people in communitieslived in small house sites, construction ofpublic architecture represents community efforts tobuild and maintain these buildings. In Chaco Canyon,the large public structures may represent publicfacilities used by several distant communities. TheBonito- and McElmo-style great houses were thoughtto represent storage facilities for two reasons: first, itis in these structures that large quantities of unusualgoods are found; and second, the thick walls of thesebuildings would provide insulation against rapid temperaturechanges, and discourage pests. The lack ofburials at great house sites versus their presence insmall house sites also supports this hypothesis.Marshall et ai. (1979) examined the spacing betweenChacoan communities and the types of soils onwhich they were located. Except for the Hogbackcommunity, all Chacoan sites with public architectureand small houses within a community were locatednear productive soils. Some large structures wereisolated, in which case they were associated most oftenwith roads. Some of the road-associated sites werelocated away from productive soils; and none of theroad-related sites had an associated great kiva. Here,great houses were small, and sites that could beconsidered part of a local community were few. Thesesmaller settlements were thought to have functioned aslogistical road-related sites rather than distinct communitiesthat supported a large social group. Theaverage spacing between public structures on thenorth-south roads was approximately 14.5 km, orabout a day's walk. In the southwestern part of theSan Juan Basin, communities averaged about 9.7 kmapart.Agricultural areas in the Red Mesa Valley andDutton Plateau were packed with farming communities;yet all the best lands were not fully utilized

Related Communities 253(Marshall et al.1979). In contrast, in the central areain and around Chaco Canyon, the soils tended to beextremely alkaline and poorly drained; thus, agriculturalpotential was minimal. Based on thisdistinction, Marshall et al. (1979:339) concluded thatthe central Chaco area represents a regional exchangecenter. It could not support itself, and it therefore. relied on some form of organization to produce aregional symbiosis that led to the emergence of astratified society in which there were peripheralleaders who controlled the production and distributionof goods.R. Powers et al. (1983) focused on the natureand intensity of the Chaco system between A.D. 900and 1175. They incorporated information from thePNM/SHPO study into their more extensivelyanalyzed sample. Evaluation of precipitation patternsindicated that the entire San Juan Basin suffered froma scarcity of water, and that dry land production ofmaize would have been extremely difficult in all but afew areas (Powers et al. 1983:284-287). Farming settlementswould require supplemental moisture (runoffthat would concentrate water in a large drainage, andwater specifically diverted to fields), or the planting ofcrops in sand dunes that had retained moisture. Sanddunes had been recorded only in a few areas of the SanJuan Basin (near the Bis sa'ani, Grey Hill Springs, andPeach Springs communities). The San Juan River andits northern tributaries were a source of perennialwater. Within the Chaco Basin today, however, thereare a few small intermittent streams along the easternChuskan slopes, plus a few seeps and wells. Flowingsprings were also found at the base of Lobo Mesa, atMexican Springs, and at Skunk Springs, but theirproductivity was not known. In Chaco Canyon, otherthan rainfall, there are the intermittent Chaco Washand a few small pools of water where there is contactwith the sandstone layers that provide a water supply(Powers et al. 1983).Sites located in areas with the highest ecologicaldiversity were found along the San Juan River and itsnorthern tributaries. Next highest diversity waslocated on the peripheries of the San Juan Basin andmajor valleys to the south and east of the Chaco Basin.Outliers located in areas with the fewest ecologicalzones were in the central Chaco Basin. AlthoughChaco Canyon had a larger number of zones nearby,most of these were small, so that the number of effec-tive or useful zones was reduced to two: the plainsgrass/shrubland, and the plateau grass/shrubland(Powers et al. 1983:293). Thus, Powers et al. (1983:301) concluded that Chaco Canyon and the centralChaco Basin were not as well suited to supporting alarge agricultural population as were the peripheries ofthe San Juan Basin .Analysis of location of outlying communitieswith regard to proximity to arable land (R. Powers etal. 1983) suggested that almost all but those communitiesin the area in and around Chaco Canyon andKin Bineola were situated on class 1 and class 2 soilsduring the period from Early Pueblo II to EarlyPueblo III. Lands with less agricultural potential weregenerally limited to the Chaco Canyon area, thecentral portions of the Chaco Basin, and the MoncuscoPlateau (northeast of the Chaco Basin). Powers et al.(1983:289) recognized that variability in precipitationcould negate the gains that good soil and hydrologyprovided in the San Juan Basin.Chaco Canyon lacked a number of resources thatwere recovered from its sites. For example, woodresources, especially ponderosa pine and Douglas-firneeded for construction and species documented inChacoan structure roofs, are found in reasonablequantities near Mount Taylor or in the ChuskaMountains 14 to 40 km away. White fir is found inthe La Plata Mountains of Colorado, a distance of 140km (R. Powers et al. 1983:292-293). Other resourcesfrom the periphery include ceramics tempered withmaterials from the Chuska Mountains (trachyte) andthe San Juan River (andesite and diorite). A numberof lithic materials indicated use of Narbona(Washington) Pass chert from the Chuska Mountains,Zuni (yellow-brown) chert from the Zuni Mountainarea, Brushy Basin chert from north of the San JuanRiver, and obsidian from the Jemez Mountains orGrants Ridge areas (Jacobson 1984). When thepresence of these materials at outlying Chacostructures was evaluated, it was apparent that thehighest percentages of these materials in specificassemblages were most often found near their sourcesor along the road that led toward Chaco Canyon, butseldom, or in very small amounts, at outlying Chacostructures not so located. Some type of exchangenetwork was thought to exist to bring these and otherresources into Chaco Canyon.

254 Chaco Project SynthesisArchitectural data suggested the possibility ofranked social organization. An evaluation of site type,variability, and morphology for the Chacoan structuresin Chaco Canyon and at the outlying communitiesduring Pueblo II and Early Pueblo IIIindicated considerable variability (R. Powers et al.1983:304-326, Table 41). Someofthe Chacoan structuresin outlying communities were small-sometimesno larger than the larger small sites in Chaco Canyon.This was reflected in the number of rooms in thestructures, the room size, the ceiling heights, and thenumber of Chacoan kivas present. Within their communities,however, the Chacoan structures definitelywere larger than the small houses that surroundedthem. In the sample of Chacoan structures, there alsowas an absence of Hawley's masonry types II and III,which represented the finer craftsmanship foundamong the Chaco Canyon structures.When the sizes of Chacoan structures (includingall floors and enclosed plazas) were calculated andcompared, a hierarchy of site size was obvious. Foursites fell into the largest category (range from 23,395to 15,010 m 2 ): Chetro Ketl, Pueblo Bonito, andPenasco Blanco are in Chaco Canyon, but Aztec is inthe northern San Juan area. The medium-size category(ranges from 8,990 to 5,935 m 2 ) included sites inChaco Canyon or its surroundings (Pueblo delArroyo, Una Vida, Pueblo Alto, Kin Bineola, HungoPavi, and Pueblo Pintado), plus Salmon ruin, alsolocated along the San Juan River. The smallest of theChacoan structures (range from 3,552 to 145 m 2 ) werescattered throughout the San Juan Basin. (For asimilar breakdown into site hierarchy, see Schelberg1984.) A few of these were considered road-relatedbecause they were isolated structures with noassociated communities (Twin Angels and HalfwayHouse, both located along the North Road) or werelocated along a major road (Bee Burrow, MuddyWater, and Pierre's). Those structures built with aMcElmo site plan were considered variants; Leksonand Judge (1978) noted that one or two of thesestructures were adjacent to the first- and second-orderChacoan structures in Chaco Canyon and probablyrepresent a storage function. R. Powers et al. (1983)noted similar structures at Pierre's (House A) andEscalante. One other Chacoan structure presented ananomaly; a kiva and a nearby small house with coreand-veneermasonry at Grey Hill Spring and a fewsmall houses in the area did not qualify as a community,but if considered as part of the nearestsettlement with a Chacoan structure (WhirlwindHouse, 5 km to the north), these structures may havefunctioned as part of that community.In summary, it was possible to define a hierarchywithin communities. By Early Pueblo II, when thefirst Chacoan structures appeared, R. Powers et al.(1983:262) posited the existence of a number of smallcommunities that acted as local ceremonial, administrative,and economic centers. By Early Pueblo III,the variability in Chacoan structures and their communitiesthroughout the San Juan Basin suggesteddistinct roles and functions, and perhaps a hierarchy inthe regional organization. Those communities withsmaller Chacoan structures were thought to representlocal administrative centers. Those with medium andlarge Chacoan structures were considered administrativecenters for the roadways. Powers et al. (1983:326) suggested the possibility of elite managers atthese centers, which, by Early Pueblo III, may havebeen directed by a regional center in Chaco Canyon(either Pueblo Bonito or Chetro Ketl) , and shortlythereafter may have been joined and/or replaced byanother regional center in the San Juan River area(Aztec and Salmon). At this time the Chaco structuresfunctioned partially as residences for a small elitegroup, but the lack of burials and special artifactssuggested that these individuals were not greatlydistinguished. Like Marshall et al. (1979), Powers etal. (1983:272-274) viewed Chaco Canyon as thecentral place in a hierarchy of regional dimensions.Although interaction through a number of intermediariesbrought a limited number of goods fromMesoamerica, foreign influence was indirect and nota major impetus to the growth and development of thesystem (Powers et al. 1983:6).To explain how and why these indigenous developmentsoccurred, Judge (1979) had proposed anecological model in which the lack of resources in theChaco Basin and the unpredictability of precipitationseriously affected populations who were no longerable to move freely throughout the San Juan Basinonce a substantial number that relied on agriculturewere settled in most of the well-watered areas.Initially, reciprocity-but later, redistribution-wasassumed to be a basic function of the hierarchicalorganization that moved spatially restricted items fromone environmental zone to the other. A reserve of

Related Communities 255foodstuffs kept in storage facilities and the means toredistribute goods could have brought relief to theuneven production of subsistence resources throughoutthe basin. R. Powers et al. (1983:341-342) wereinterested in addressing the issues of interdependencerelated to local specialization and whether redistributionwas the principal mode of exchange. Theythought that if the function of the Chacoan great housein the outlying communities was as a residence forlocal elite and a regional or subregional administrativeor exchange center, then it is reasonable to assume thatthe appearance of Chacoan structures throughout theSan Juan Basin by around A.D. 900 signals the formalparticipation of the individual communities in anextensive regional system and the emergence of aranked society.The mechanisms for exchange were not wellunderstood; there are no, or few, durable goodsrepresent from Chaco Canyon that could be exchangedfor ceramics, lithics, or wood. Perhaps labor to buildthe Chacoan structures was involved. Roads did linkChaco Canyon to diverse ecosystems; yet few roadswent beyond the edges of the Chaco Basin. Becausemost of the goods that were brought into ChacoCanyon did not seem to be redistributed to neighboringsites outside the canyon, the canyon did notappear to function as an effective redistribution center.Even among the Chacoan structures within ChacoCanyon there were discrepancies in expected distributionsof imported materials if these centers wereexpected to control items from sources located at theends of the specific roads they headed. R. Powers etal. (1983:343) realized that much more work wouldneed to be done in order to clarify this point.If a coordination of exchange, or other politicaland ceremonial interactions, did lead to the rise of aregional elite centered in the canyon, the eliteprobably did not appear until around A.D. 1075 to1100, after there was an increase in construction ofChacoan structures in both the canyon and the SanJuan Basin. The possibility of rival elite centers in theSan Juan area (Aztec and Salmon ruins) at this timewas proposed. There was evidence of major constructionat Aztec East in the A.D. 1100s and early A.D.1200s, but major construction episodes in the canyonceased in the early A.D. 1100s. By A.D. 1130, andcontinuing through 1180, a 50-year drought wasindicated in the tree-ring record, possibly causing thedemise of the system in Chaco Canyon, especially ifthe canyon's inhabitants were dependent on food cropsfrom this northern area.In summary, the two initial surveys of outlyingChacoan structures in the San Juan Basin provided ageneral outline for the initial construction ofregionwide Chacoan structures, identified theirlocations in better watered areas of the basin, indicateda hierarchy of Chacoan structure size, and evaluatedthe hypothesis of Chaco as a redistribution center.Although redistribution was not substantiated, thecentrality of Chaco Canyon was accepted, and theprobability of a ranked society to coordinate itsfunctions was suggested. However, the function ofthis center needed further investigation. At the sametime, other investigators were conducting research atseveral of the outlying communities. Their workprovides a closer look at life in these communitiesduring several time periods.Research at Three Great House CommunitiesContemporaneous survey and excavation byother investigators at three communities providedmore detailed information about local adaptations andinterrelations with Chaco Canyon. The Guadalupecommunity in the middle Rio Puerco Valley to thesoutheast has evidence for an initial occupation in thelate Basketmaker-Pueblo I period and for continueduse through Pueblo III (Baker and Durand 2003;Irwin-Williams and Baker 1991). The Bis sa' anicommunity on the Escavada Wash northeast of ChacoCanyon was short lived. It was established aroundA.D. 1100 in an area not previously inhabited, andwas abandoned in the mid- A.D. 1100s (Bretemitz etal. 1982). The Salmon community on the San JuanRiver was established in an area where there had beensome earlier settlement. The great house was constructedin the late A.D. WOOs and was used throughPueblo III (Irwin-Williams and Shelley 1980). Basedon their view of the San Juan Basin from the peripherylooking toward Chaco Canyon, investigators at each ofthese communities suggested models as to howChacoan culture was integrated within their subarea ofthe larger system and how the system operated.

256 Chaco Project SynthesisGuadalupe CommunityFrom 1970 through 1981, Cynthia IrwinWilliams directed the Middle Rio Puerco Project,which included a survey that recorded over 800 sites,and excavations at two of them. Washburn (1974)published results of a nearest-neighbor analysis ofsmall sites; and Pippin (1979, 1987) reported on theexcavations at Guadalupe ruin. Initially, a small LateBasketmaker-Pueblo I community was established nearGuadalupe Mesa in upland areas above Tapia Wash, atributary drainage in the middle Rio Puerco Valley,during the AD. 800s. Prior to A.D. 828, 22 siteswith pit structures were located on the south side ofthe mesa. Later masonry structures were constructedin the same area. This settlement resembles manyothers found throughout the Anasazi region during thePueblo I period (Baker and Durand 2003).Between A.D. 900 and 960, sites with structureswere located farther down slope toward the maintributary stream; they were concentrated at the contactof the slope environment (shale bedrock remnants)with the valley floor (Baker and Durand 2003).Eleanor ruin, a small house with Chaco-like features,was constructed on the valley floor. Pippin (1987:174) placed the earliest Chaco (type I) construction ofthe initial nine rooms and one kiva at Guadalupe ruinon the mesa top sometime between AD. 919 and 971.Within the settlement, four kivas were documented.Two were found with small (five- and six-room)sites-one with Eleanor ruin, and one with a 32-roomstructure (ENM-848) that was not excavated (Bakerand Durand 2003). After AD. 970, there is evidenceof initial settlement farther south in the Salado Washarea, where there is no evidence of a Chaco anstructure (Roney 1996: 150).Between A.D. 960 and 1130, 21 structures werepart of the community (Durand and Durand 2000:Table 8.1). L. Baker (2003) placed several water controlfeatures in ceramic group 7, dated AD. 969 to990. Guadalupe ruin increased to 29 rooms with coreand-veneermasonry; some were large rooms that hadT -shaped doorways. The Eleanor ruin also has Tshaped doorways. The number ofkivas increases afteraround A.D. 970 (to 27 for the entire community),with the largest number existing from about A.D.1056 to 1091. Five are associated with Guadaluperuin and Eleanor ruin.Around A.D. 1092 to 1126, sites are located onvalley floors, as well as at the previously noted slopecontact areas, but there is little evidence for use ofeither Guadalupe ruin or Eleanor ruin. After A.D.1130, the size of the community is greatly reduced.Between A.D. 1220 and 1300, 16 structures were inexistence and the mesa top was much used. Remodelingof both the Guadalupe great house andEleanor ruin occurred, but populations moved downstreamsoon thereafter.Based on his anal ysis of the data from Guadaluperuin and its surrounding community, Pippin (1987:193-194) considered the pattern of town-like structuresamong rural hamlets as having developed earlier inChaco Canyon, but as being present at a number ofoutlying communities during the tenth century.Development at the Guadalupe community paralleledthe canyon sequence; yet the material culture in thegreat house was more like that in surrounding dispersedsmall house sites. Although communicationbetween this settlement and Chaco Canyon existed,there was no evidence of an intrusive population.Pippin (1987: 193) proposed that similar processesmay have led to the establishment of the largestructures in this community and Chaco Canyon. Heconsidered the large structures to be public buildings,possibly used as warehouses or ritual/ceremoniallocations. The increase in population growth mayhave been due to more mesic conditions, the adoptionof the mais de ocho variety of corn, and the developmentof water control features, all of which led toincreased social complexity.Judge (1989:235-237) proposed that leaders inthe Guadalupe community may have controlled turquoisetrade from the Cerrillos Mining District toChaco Canyon. However, the lack of mining toolsand the limited number and types of turquoise objectsrecovered at Guadalupe ruin did not support thisinference.Durand and Durand (2000) admitted that thereare definite links between these areas, but thoughtChaco was part of a pan-Southwestern adaptation inwhich the height of Chacoan culture represents earlyexperimentation with an agricultural adaptation and anattempt at aggregated village life based on foodproduction and seasonal exploitation of wild resources(Roler 1999). Until there was an increase in corn-row

Related Communities 257and cupule widths, plus increased reliance on turkey,the increasing populations that adjusted to cycles ofsedimentation and depletion of nutrients in the soilwere unable to maintain permanent aggregatedcommunities. Chaco may have been a focal point forceremonies for the larger community within that area,but not all communities needed to be linked to Chacoin an organized manner.Bis sa 'ani CommunityThe Bis sa'ani Pueblo and surrounding sitescomprise a short-lived Late Bonito phase communitythat dates from around A.D. 1100 to 1150 (Breternitzet al. 1982; Doyel et al. 1984; R. Powers et al. 1983:21-54; J. P. Wilson 1979). Bis sa'ani Pueblo is locatedon two sections of a ridge 20 m above theEscavada Wash. The eastern complex includes 20rooms made from puddled, coursed adobe in thecentral section (Casa Quemada), surrounded on threesides by enclosed kiva complexes (Casa Horminga onthe west, Rabbit House on the east, and South House),all of them constructed of masonry. At South H~use,the western face exhibited two decorative bands ofwhite sandstone that resemble the banding on the westwall at Aztec West (Breternitz et al. 1982:264). Justslightly east was a C-shaped structure that could havebeen a signaling station. The western complex includesa large kiva and 10 masonry rooms. Uniquefeatures of this great house are four stairways; adobearchitecture; large and massive wall-foundation platforms;and narrow, subdivided platform rooms locatednorth of each kiva.The 35 sites that constitute the Bis sa'ani communityinclude 10 small habitation pueblos; 10isolated structures (including field houses and threeisolated kivas); and 15 limited use sites, whereactivities related to agriculture, resource procurement,or processing took place. The 10 habitation sites weretypical units found throughout the Colorado Plateau.At two of these sites, however, there were separatewalk-in storage rooms that were entered via stairwaysfrom the plaza.Based on the presence of five kivas in Bis sa'aniPueblo and five in its surrounding community,Breternitz et al. (1982) and Doyel et al. (1984)postulated a relationship between small sites and thegreat house. Within the community, two kivas wereincorporated into small pueblos. One of these smallpueblos was located to the north of the Escavada Washand was the only site in this area. Similarly, one withpuddled adobe (similar to Casa Quemada in Bis sa'aniPueblo) was the only structure located on thefloodplain. The remaining three kivas were isolatedstructures located in three "neighborhoods" composedof small sites, field houses, and limited use sites.Breternitz et al. (1982) and Doyel et al. (1984) suggestthat the Bis sa'ani community included a pueblo thatwas constructed as a public facility and maintainedthrough cooperation by the residents of the smallhouse sites. Both site types had evidence for aresidence (e.g., Casa Quemada, a section of the greathouse) and milling facilities. Bis sa'ani Pueblo hadthe greatest number and largest variety of exotic goods(higher numbers of imported ceramics and lithics, amore diverse faunal assemblage, and an unusual sealedpit with 31 stone objects, as well as ornaments, stonepalettes, a copper bell, shells from the Pacific coast,a jet ring, and turquoise). Mutual interdependencebetween the site types for subsistence, as well as forsocial and secular amenities, was proposed.A. Cully et al. (1982) indicate that from 150 to190 ha of land would have been available for agriculturein the Bis sa'ani community, and that this landcould support between 123 and 153 people. Thus, theestimated popUlation (based on site numbers and size)of70 to 127 inhabitants (100 average) could have beensupported locally. If the population using Bis sa'aniPueblo was not permanent and if additional fields at agreater distance were used in addition to hunting andgathering, then a 25 percent reduction in communitypopulation would be a self-sufficient group, yet theywould not have had an appreciable surplus.Three lines of evidence were suggested to connectthe Bis sa'ani community with other Chacoansites. Although there are no identifiable resources totrade from the Bis sa'ani community area, the productionof a few local ceramic vessels and services(such as labor) could have been available for exchangein an integrated system. A C-shaped feature on theridge east of Bis sa'ani Pueblo may have been asignaling station that linked the great house to FajadaButte and other points in Chaco Canyon. A prehistoricroad from Chaco Canyon to outlying areasmay pass through the community. Marshall et al.(1979) proposed that the Bis sa 'ani community

258 Chaco Project Synthesisfunctioned neither as a transportation nor a productioncommunity (Marshall et al. 1979), but may have hada special cooperative function within the system.Marshall and Doyel (1981: 73 -75) proposed the"Chaco halo" model to explain the interrelationshipsbetween Chaco Canyon and neighboring areas. Thearea included in the Chaco halo is oval-shaped, withthe greatest distance east to west (Doyel et al. 1984:Figure 7). It includes the lower Escavada drainage onthe north, where Greasy Hill, the Escavada complex,Kin Indian ruin, and Kimbeto Point sites are articulatedto the northern road system. To the west alongthe lower Kin Klizhin drainage are three areas locatedalong road systems: the Padilla Well complex; theearlier Casa del Rio mound; and Kin Klizhin, with itstower kiva. To the south are Upper Kin Klizhin,Greenlee ruin, and the Chacra Face-Fajada Washcommunities-all established along early road alignments.To the east, a road along the bottom of thecanyon was postulated to link Wijiji and PuebloPintado to the canyon. Thus, the halo (Figure 8.6)would include sites with different functions, all ofwhich would provide support for the canyon. Itwould include ancestral communities that had beenestablished as early as Basketmaker III in areas withgood agricultural lands. During the Late Bonitophase, a period with good precipitation levels, scioncommunities arose in areas with less agriculturalpotential; they were usually smaller and lacked typicalfeatures such as great kivas. Some of these communitiesmay have been used by popUlations thatdispersed throughout the area on a seasonal basis.They may have been tied to different centers withinthe canyon, and Chaco Canyon could have been aregional capital composed of the representative centersof outlying districts.Other components of the regional system wouldinclude settlements from 1) the San Juan area, whereaquatic and riverine associated resources would beavailable; 2) the Chuska slope, where there is a readysupply of construction timbers, lithic materials (e.g.,Narbona Pass chert and trachyte temper), and clays;and 3) the southern Cibola district, where land suitablefor agriculture and an upland pinon-juniper resourcearea were located. Because the resources were dispersed,there would be a need for redistribution ofmaterials (Doyel 1981). This system, however, wasfragile and depended on cooperation from all members.Depending on the amount and type of environmentalstress, centers could wax and wane. Chacodeveloped as the regional capital because it was at acrossroad within this system that included differentethnic, geographical, and environmental boundaries(Doyel 1981).Salmon RuinFrom 1972 through 1978, Cynthia IrwinWilliams (1972; Irwin-Williams and Shelley 1980)adopted a general systems model and used data fromarchaeology and ethnology to test several hypothesesabout the Chacoan adaptation at the Salmon ruinlocated just west of Bloomfield, New Mexico. Toidentify other local communities and to understand therelationships between the building at Salmon ruin andits later occupants, a survey of 3,000 km 2 (1,200 m?)was initiated (Whaley and Yingst 1978). The initialworking hypothesis was that there were distinct butculturally related popUlations in the Animas, San Juan,and La Plata valleys. Although very little informationfrom the site survey was published, Irwin-Williams(1980b:part 12) indicated that 150 sites were recorded.Included were two large great houses (Aztec andSalmon), plus approximately 12 smaller Chacoanstructures (Irwin-Williams 1980a:part 1:6).All known Chaco structures were located at ornear the confluence of a medium-size tributary withthe river valley, much like the earliest great houses inChaco Canyon (Irwin-Williams 1980b: 146). TwinAngels Pueblo, a site that was definitely roadassociated,was the only exception. Some local smallhouse sites were similarly located at tributary confluences,but some also appeared away from suchlocations. At the larger Chacoan outliers (Salmonruin, Aztec ruin, Jacquez, and the Sterling site), thenew buildings were thought to represent a considerablepopUlation increase in an already-inhabitedenvironment.Prior to A.D. 1050, there were a small numberof Chacoan sites in the San Juan area. Bice (1983)documents architectural features at the Sterling ruin,located on the south side of the San Juan River nearFarmington. It has an early Chaco masonry style(type I), as well as later construction and habitation bypeople with Chaco and Mesa Verde ceramic types.

GWeST. ( )~1 PIERRE'S~I ~.~~ ~ .• • ) BIS SA'ANIo ~~P •••z KIN NI>-Q~ • • .~'LOS AGUAJES 1INDIA~ ~---~~j'. - --- ~CHACO /'-- ~ ~ I G'Rf.;;y HILL ~

260 Chaco Project SynthesisAfter A.D. 1050, two distinct patterns appeared(Irwin-Williams 1980a). In the middle San Juan RiverValley, numerous large Chacoan outliers had evidenceoflarge quantities and a diversity of intrusive Chacoanceramics. A number of small sites had a similarceramic pattern. Irwin-Williams (1980b) thought theywere incorporated into the Chacoan sphere and representeda specific region of Chacoan culture. In theLa Plata River Valley there were only a few outliers,and these were isolated structures. The local sites didnot have the San Juan and Chaco ceramic patterns; sheconcluded that this was a different region, in whichChaco culture was not integrated with the indigenouspopUlation.Salmon ruin was constructed during the lateeleventh century. This large structure has 140 to 150ground-floor rooms and over 100 second-story rooms,and a great kiva and a tower kiva. It is one of twooutlying pueblos that fall into the large- and mediumsizegreat house category with those of Chaco Canyon(R. Powers et al. 1983:Table 41). The primary (orChaco-affiliated) construction was divided into fourphases (Rex Adams 1980). In phases I through III,from A.D. 1088 to 1106, the great house reached itsfinal shape, and it had an open, easy flowing trafficpattern. Around A.D. 1116, during phase IV, a numberof internal functions were modified: ground-floordoorways, including front-to-back connections, weresealed; the gallery in front was subdivided; and kivalikefeatures were added to some of the large, squarefront rooms thought to be the living rooms of front-tobacksuites. Prior to this, only two kivas werepresent: the tower kiva in the central room block, andthe great kiva in the plaza. The former had evidenceof a larger number of Cibolan ceramics and wasinterpreted as a special-function area; the latter had anaverage amount of all types of ceramics and wasthought to be a place where functions that integratedthe entire popUlation took place. Sometime after A.D.1130, a Chaco-type kiva was constructed in Room 96.Irwin-Williams (1980a) thought that a population-environmentdisequilibrium in the ChacoCanyon area in the late ninth and tenth centuries mayhave stimulated adaptive responses (new and improvedtechnology) and expansion into the broader San JuanBasin in search of new homes and extensive trade.Thus, a need for integrative and regulative mechanismsbrought about the Chaco Phenomenon, whichwas characterized by supra-kin group organizationduring this period rather than the aggregatedcommunities seen during the later Mesa Verde phase.Relying on the ceramic studies of Franklin (1980) andlithic studies by Shelley (1980), she compared Chacoperiod data with the later Mesa Verde period. (TheIntermediate period was found to have little evidenceof use, possibly due to greatly decreased populationsize.) Room function and artifacts indicated differencesin use of space, composition of diet andprobable subsistence base, and social organization.Irwin-Williams (1980b) concluded that the Chacoperiod was centered around some type of authoritythat had access to Chacoan goods, and control overspecialized economic activities and main ceremonialareas (the tower kiva and the great kiva). Yet theleaders lived in a sty Ie similar to that of the rest of thepopUlation.During the Chacoan period, Irwin-Williams(1980b: 169-170) found evidence for two populationsusing Salmon ruin. Except for the great kiva, all ofthe special-activity areas (i.e., milling room, butcheringarea, food preparation area, and tower kiva area)are associated with Cibolan ceramics. Rooms aroundthe tower kiva contained com mothers, ceremonialfeatures, and Gallup and Chuskan pottery types. Thegreat kiva was thought to be associated with neitherthis group of rooms nor others that contained locallyavailable or locally made artifacts. Irwin-Williamscould not determine whether the personnel wereaffiliated with imported items or whether the objectsrepresent special activities-or both-but she suggestedthat social organization was dominated by priestlyleaders who controlled economic and social functions.These priests came from dispersed egalitarian originsand received little personal gain. Of the three burialsattributed to the Chacoan period, only one male burialwas accompanied by goods (a bow, nine cane arrows,four bone awls, a paho, a robe, four bowls with unusualdesigns, and finely woven mats) that remindedIrwin-Williams of a bow priest. His burial was attributedto the beginning of the Intermediate period.Irwin-Williams (1980b: 175-176) suggested that thecentral authority led by religious personnel wasaffiliated with Chaco Canyon.Around A.D. 1116 to 1130, there was a distinctbreak in the culture continuity of the Chaco period.An increase in local ceramic types suggested the

Related Communities 261possibility of more local control. This weakening oflinks led Irwin-Williams (1980b:2oo) to question theeffectiveness of outliers as buffers in a Chacoansystem. She found no locations for local redistributioncenters, and the ceramics along the GreatNorth Road did not support trade items from Salmonbeing imported to Chaco Canyon; rather, data suggestedthat more Chacoan ceramics were moving fromthe canyon toward Salmon. The presence of WhiteMountain and Chuskan ceramics during the Chacoperiod linked Salmon to other areas as well. Thecontinued use of White Mountain ceramics after theChaco period led Ir"lvin-WilliaIl"&8 to suggest that therewere well-defined regions incorporated into the Chacosystem and that these regions had multiple links withone another.The ceramic analysis by Franklin (1980) indicatedthat a much smaller population probably usedthe site during the Intermediate period from the midA.D. 1100s until around A.D. 1186. Recurringdrought and population decline between A.D. 1130and 1185 were thought to have led to the reversion ofthe nucleated Chaco system to an aggregated systemseen during the Mesa Verde period. Overall, IrwinWilliams thought the stress-adaptive model wasconfirmed.In summary, studies at these three communitiesdid not support the redistribution model proposed byJudge (1979). The Guadalupe community wasestablished early, so its trajectory paralleled to someextent that of Chaco Canyon. Yet, it did not have asmany luxury items, and the timing and use of somefaunal remains seemed to follow a trend establishedearlier in the canyon (Roler 1999). The Bis sa'anicommunity was established late; it probably couldhave supported a local population but would not havehad much in the way of food or goods to contribute toinhabitants in the canyon. Because the communityexisted during the wettest period in the Chacoanflorescence, would agricultural products have beenneeded? Or is this community part of the cooperativeChaco subregion, as Marshall et al. (1979) propose?Salmon ruin had one great kiva and a tower kiva; theformer was thought to represent an integrative structurefor the community that exhibited two distinctartifact distributions-one Cibolan (found in the towerkiva and surrounding rooms), and one local. Theburial of one man toward the end of Chacoan use ofthe site suggested that he may have been a bow priest,so Irwin-WIlliams (1980b) suggested the possibility ofa Chacoan religious leadership that was similar to thatof the Historic Pueblos in which the individual is notmaterially distinct from the local group.San Juan Basin PerspectivesTo understand the variation in settlement patternsand locations, Gillespie and Powers (1983) used datacoded in the San Juan Basin Regional Uranium Studydatabase to review sites in 18 subregional zones.They found several general trends L'1 both the numbersand the elevations of sites from Basketmaker III (A. D.500-750) through Pueblo I (A.D. 750-900), Pueblo II(A.D. 900-1100), and Pueblo III (A.D. 1100-1300).Although there were a number of caveats regarding thedatabase, these investigators thought that changeswould reflect general adaptations to local conditions.Assuming that the number of sites reflectedchange in demographics, by Basketmaker III, 80 percentof the sites were located in three majorregions-the Chuska Valley, Chaco Canyon, and alongthe Rio Puerco of the east. Elevation zones for thesethree areas ranged from 1,646 to 1,829 m (5,400 to6,000 ft), and from 1,928 to 2,012 m (6,000 to 6,600ft). The climate during Basketmaker III and Pueblo Iwas thought to be variable and marked by wet and dryperiods, with gradually warming temperatures andincreased summer precipitation. By Pueblo I, thenumber of sites in eight of the subregions began toincrease. In the Chuska Valley, the percentage of sitesin the 1,646 to 1,829 m zone decreased, but the siteswere coalescing into communities located primarily inmiddle drainage systems between the Chuska Mountainsand the Chaco River, where ephemeral streamslost most of their runoff. Thus, moisture would havebeen concentrated in areas where the danger offreezing was minimal and the areas were optimal forfloodwater farming. A similar situation existed alongthe northern edge of Lobo Mesa. In Chaco Canyon,at Tohatchi Flats, and on the Lobo Mesa flanks, wherethe elevations ranged from 1,829 to 2,195 m (6,000 to7,200 ft), a number of settlements would have theadvantage of short distances to resources (e. g., thepiiion-juniper woodlands and the grass-shrublands, aswell as alluvial areas). Here, agricultural productsand hunting and gathering resources would have beeneasily available. These locations included commu-

262 Chaco Project SynthesismtJes such as Shabik'eshchee Village and PeachSprings. Gillespie and Powers suggested that theremay have been a change in subsistence that emphasizedincreased dependence on cultivated plants,especially at slightly lower locations. The beginningof San Juan Basin communities, such as those at GreyRidge, Peach Springs, and Kin Ya'a, occurred duringthis period. In the Rio Puerco of the east, greatersummer precipitation and runoff from the tributariesfrom Mount Taylor, Mesa Chivato, and the NacimientoMountains would have permitted increased useof a lower elevation zone, 1,646 to 1,829 m.During Pueblo II, the Rio San Jose became thefourth major subregion based on the number of sitespresent. Substantial regionwide popUlation growthwas noted. Existing communities increased in sizeand new ones, often with Chacoan structures, wereestablished. Much of the growth took place in the1,829 to 2,195 m zone, but settlement was noted inhigher and lower elevation zones. Climatically, theperiod was thought to have had wetter conditions(A.D. 950 to the early A.D. 1100s), with increasedsummer rainfall and an expansion of summermonsoons. This would allow for expansion into newareas during periods with longer frost-free seasons.Gillespie and Powers noted general agreement betweenpeaks in summer precipitation and building constructionepisodes (A.D. 91Os, 945-953, 970s, andA.D. 1034 to 1080) at several of the Chaco Canyongreat houses. They attributed this increase in part todemographic growth and pressure during this period,with favorable temperatures and moisture regimes thatallowed use of higher and lower elevation zones.Social and economic changes would have accompaniedthese increases, especially after mobility becamesomewhat circumscribed; thus, regional exchange andirrigation systems would have been instituted.During Pueblo III, there are two distinct periods:From A.D. 1100 to 1130, there was a continuedbuilding frenzy, especially in the San Juan-Animasriver area (which became an important populationcenter), the central basin, and Chaco Canyon. Yet byA.D. 1150 to 1175, many of the sites-and even entirecommunities-had been abandoned, probably in relationto the collapse of Chaco Canyon. The continueduse of the San Juan-Animas area through the thirteenthcentury was attributed to the availability of water inthe perennial streams that could have been used forirrigation. During this period the greatest reduction insite numbers occurred in elevation zones above 2,195or below 1,829 m. This change was attributed to a50-year decrease in summer rainfall levels (Rose et al.1982), with possibly cooler temperatures occurring inthe twelfth and thirteenth centuries, which would haveaffected agriculture below the 1,829 m level. Althoughthere was not a complete migration out of theSan Juan Basin, there was a major migration to themargins of the basin, the northern river valleys, andthe southeast highlands. (See also Stuart and Gauthier1980, who discuss the widespread adaptation tohighlands at this time.)In summary, Gillespie and Powers deciphered ageneral correlation between climatic data-especiallyrainfall patterns; the use of different elevation zonesfor farming; and the growth and decline of the Chacosystem. This initial correlation would be refined byseveral investigators; the most detailed such study isthat of Gwinn Vivian (1990). He thought that ChacoCanyon had some advantages over the surroundingregion due to its unique features within the ChacoBasin, where numerous and more closely spaced sidedrainage systems collect more concentrated rainfallthat could have been used for crop production.As noted in chapter 4, Gwinn Vivian (1990) indicatedthat two different architectural and settlementpatterns were present in the Chaco core by Pueblo I.By A.D. 920, Vivian's Rosa variant to the northeastof the canyon was oriented toward a highland adaptation,and it shows little interaction with the Chacocore. On the southern periphery of the San JuanBasin, the White Mound-Kiatuthlanna variant expandedto encompass some of the Lorna Alta on theeast. In the La Plata-Piedra variant, representative ofwell-established farmers from the north, there wasconstruction of larger sites similar to those that wouldbecome the great houses that mark the Bonito phase,while the White Mound-Kiatuthlanna variant lived insmall sites similar to those found in the southern SanJuan Basin. The overlapping boundaries of thesevariants in and around Chaco Canyon suggested somemeans of integration of these distinct groups (seebelow).Gwinn Vivian (1990) discussed the Classicperiod in three segments, based on dates used by theChaco Project. The Early Bonito phase, characterized

Related Communities 263by the Red Mesa ceramic tradition, covered threeareas: the Red Mesa Valley; the Early Bonito Chacocore and Chuska Valley; and the Ackmen or MesaVerde area. Due to its unique typography and hydrology,those in Chaco Canyon were able to capture morerunoff to improve crop production during a period ofincreased precipitation. Although there are some difficultieswith chronometric dating, some initialChacoan structures in the canyon seem to be largerthan their counterparts in the San Juan Basin.Gwinn Vivian questioned possible interpretationsof the larger buildings, both in the Chaco core andthroughout the area encompassed by the Red Mesaceramic assemblage. Were these structures publicbuildings for the community? Do they represent anAckmen settlement pattern and architecture overlainby a Chacoan regional system? Or was the Chacosystem restricted to the core area as representative ofa gradual cultural divergence from its northern Piedraroots? If there were local enclaves with diluted patterns,the reason for the Chacoan divergence n~edexplication.By the Classic Bonito phase, when there aregood chronometric dates, the community pattern ofgreat houses in small house settlements throughout theSan Juan Basin is confirmed. There is, however,variability in the components, size, and organizationof these settlements. Because of the numerous latersites, it is difficult to discern communities withinChaco Canyon. The great house may be a scaled-Upversion of small sites with alterations until aroundA.D. 1050 when a shift to storage functions isperceived (e.g., Lekson 1984a). Gwinn Vivian (1990:305) questioned whether developments in ChacoCanyon represent a number of individual sites or anentire community. He proposed a different interpretation-thatthere were two divergent residentialpatterns reflecting two social groups, one living in thegreat houses and the other in small house sites.Although there are better moisture conditions, arising or stable water table, and decreased rainfallvariance during the Classic Bonito phase, there islonger rainfall periodicity; therefore, a need for surplusto cover some periods (e.g., the drier A.D. 1020to 1045 period, the decreased moisture of A.D. 1080to 1090, and the drought of A.D. 1090 to 1100)would have brought about a need for increased horti-cultural production through both the use of watercontrol features and movement into new areas. It is atthis time that Gwinn Vivian proposed that threemethods of farming were carried out in Chaco: theuse of akchin techniques, which rely on runoff inalluvial fans; terraced gardens; and the use of watercontrol systems with canals, headgates, dams, andditches to capture runoff from the canyon rims. Thelast requires considerable organization of labor,appears predominantly on the north side of the ChacoWash, and may reflect the differences in adaptationbetween the two culture groups living in great housesand small house sites. His model for how these twopopulations interacted is discussed in more detail inChapter 9. Here, we note that the two different agriculturaladaptations would lead to divergent paths,especially when droughts occurred (see also Judge1977; Sebastian 1988; 1992).Gwinn Vivian (1990:333-335) suggested that theearly twelfth century was a time of a dispersal ofenergy after the complexity achieved between A.D.1080 and 1090. Attempts to sustain the system in amodified form are reflected in the specializedbuildings that were constructed and the changes insettlement pattern, as earlier forms were scaled downto more manageable levels. The improVed climaticconditions of the early twelfth century may havetemporarily altered the attempts to restructure thesystem, but the mid-century drought may have cut theprocess short. He proposed that three variantsemerged: a contracted Late Bonito variant, and expandedMesa Verde and Houck variants. By A.D.1170, Chaco Canyon was considerably depopulated,but Vivian proposed that the basic cultural patternswere retained.DiscussionResearchers during 1970s and early 1980srecognized that by the late A.D. 800s, Chaco-likestructures appeared in several locations throughout theSan Juan Basin. Other than in the central core (in andaround Chaco Canyon), communities were located ongood agricultural lands near a water source. Theirdevelopment correlated with periods of increasedrainfall; changes in climatic conditions, especiallymajor drought periods, paralleled the rise and fall ofpopUlation, with final abandonment of the largerregion around.A.D. 1300.

264 Chaco Project SynthesisChaco Project personnel tended to view thisearly Pueblo world from the canyon looking out.They proposed that Chaco Canyon was a center,initially for the redistribution of goods (Judge 1979).When the redistribution model could not be supported,it was viewed as a ceremonial or ritual center (Judge1983a, 1989). Analyses of Chacoan great houses (R.Powers et al. 1983; Schelberg 1984) indicated thatthere were at least three size groups throughout theSan Juan Basin; thus, the hierarchical systemsuggested by burial data (Akins 1986; Akins andSchelberg 1984) inside the canyon was supported. Anintegrated system centered on ritual activities wasconsidered the most likely manner in which it wasorganized.Recently, the extent of the system has beenquestioned (Kantner2003b; Gwinn Vivian 1996). Dowe include every big bump on the horizon-or werethere discrete entities organized around a peer politysystem, as suggested by Durand (1992), and laterdescribed by Wilcox (1996)? Numerous models havebeen proposed. Vivian (1996) reviewed the recentscenarios for Chaco: Chaco as eastern Anasazi(Breternitz et al. 1982; Lekson 1991; Marshall andDoyel 1981); Chaco as a redistribution/ceremonialcenter (Judge 1989; Neitzel 1989; Powers 1984b;ScheIb erg 1984); Chaco as Pueblo enterprise (IrwinWilliams and Shelley 1980; Sebastian 1991, 1992b;H. Toll 1985; H. Toll and McKenna 1997; GwinnVivian 1989, 1990); Chaco as a state (Wilcox 1993);and Chaco as a cosmography (Doxtater 1991; Fritz1978; Marshall 1992; Marshall and Sofaer 1988;Sofaer, Marshall, and Sinclair 1989). Other researchprovokes additional questions: Was it a peacefulperiod (Le Blanc 1999; Stuart 2000), when Chacofunctioned as a central place to even out thedistribution of resources? Was there warfare-or evencannibalism as Turner and Turner (1999) suggest?Just what does Chaco represent within the broaderframework ofthe American Southwest (Wilcox 1996)?There is variability among great houses; e.g.,differences in their masonry styles and communitylayout in subareas (Kantner 1996; Meyer 1999; VanDyke 1999). Add to this variability the recognitionthat the roads are not a system as previously thought.Both Roney (1992) and Gwinn Vivian (1997a, 1997b)reviewed existing data and concluded that there areonly three major roads leading from Chaco Canyon tothe edges of the basin. The Great North Road ends atKutz Canyon; it has been assumed that travelersfollowed the canyon as far as Salmon ruin, andperhaps made their way north from Salmon to Aztec(Gabriel 1991). Marshall and Sofaer (1988) proposedthat Kutz Canyon may have been the end point; thedepth of the canyon may represent the nadir, orunderworld, from which the Pueblo people emerged.The South Road heads toward Hosta Butte-possiblythe zenith point-and is suggestive of a cosmologicalor ritual meaning for its construction. The CoyoteCanyon Road heads west, but no specific cosmologicaltie has been offered. Yet Fowler and Stein (1992)document road segments leading from one great houseto another in Manuelito Canyon. Because the greathouses it links are not contemporary but rather seemto be spaced from north to south toward Zuni fromabout A.D. 1200, the implication is thatthey represent"roads through time." Ritual may have been onefunction of such roads; memory may have beenanother (Van Dyke 2003).Were outlying communities linked together?Wilcox (1993, 1996, 1999) suggested that there werenumerous territories, some independent and someinterconnected. Assuming that a 22-mile radiusaround a great house represents the distance a personwould be able to travel during a day, he plotted theknown great houses and drew circles around them todetermine the possible overlaps or linkages amongcommunities that would have been integrated into asingle polity. The graphics do not support a wellintegratedregional system. More recently, Wilcoxhas been working with colleagues to map all sites with50 or more rooms in the Southwest through time.These data are plotted by 50-year periods and illustrateslow movement out of the Four Comers area fromA.D. 1200 through 1600. Settlement clusters by A.D.1600 are those found by Spanish explorers (Hill et al.2004). These data support Schillaci's (2003; Schillaciet al. 2001) craniometric studies that indicate relationshipsamong Historic Pueblo people and sites in theSan Juan Basin. The data also suggest that the movementof people through time was a common practice.These data beg for further investigation to provideexplanations of how four contemporary linguisticgroups were organized at a much earlier time, howthey initially came together, what caused them todiverge from the organization represented in thearchaeological record around A.D. 1050 to 1100,

Related Communities 265when the divergence actually began, and what thecauses were.Recently, Mills (2002) prepared an excellentoverview of Chacoan economy, ritual, and society.She recognized that the concensus is that Chaco wasnot a centralized political organization. Currently,most scholars acknowledge the role of ritual as a keylink that tied these different groups together in acoherent fashion. The question that comes to fore ishow that ritual developed, operated, and changed overtime. What aspects of Historic Pueblo organizationhave considerable time-depth? How far back C8-11 wetake different practices?Whatever Chaco represents, the archaeologistsassociated directly and indirectly with the ChacoProject stimulated new thoughts and interpretations ofthe Puebloan past. Once the scope of the system, withits numerous great houses and communities, the roadsand road-related sites, and considerations of builtspace and community facilities became apparent, thenumber of models for how Chaco Canyon fit within abroader Southwestern perspective mushroomed. Howthe numerous communities relate to Chaco is stillunder consideration (Kantner 2003a, 2003b; Kantnerand Kintigh 2005; Mahoney 2000a). A discussion ofmodels of Chacoan society follows in Chapter 9.

Chapter NineExplaining Pueblo Social OrganizationMost other peoples ... have just set up for themselves, and later fallen under the domination of,rulers temporal or religious; aristocracies or theocracies have sprung up, and the gap between themasses and the classes has become wider and wider. But among the Pueblos no such tendency evermade headway; there were neither very rich nor very poor, every family lived in the same sort ofquarters, and ate the same sort of food, as every other family. Pre-eminence in social or religiouslife was to be gained solely by individual ability and was the reward of services rendered to thecommunity. (Kidder 1924: 130-131)At the inception of the Chaco Project, proposedexplanations for the development of Pueblo socialorganization in Chaco Canyon were based mainly ontwo perspectives-external influences and indigenousgrowth. Those who believed the Chaco culture was aresult of indigenous Pueblo development reliedheavil y on ethnographic analogy. Historic Pueblogroups that spoke several different languages werethought to be egalitarian social units. Migrationstories documented their emergence and movementsacross the Southwestern landscape; migration providedexplanations for changes in the archaeological record(e.g., Judd 1954,1964; Gordon Vivian and Mathews1965). Others (e.g., Di Peso [1968a, 1968b, 1974];Frisbie [1972]; Kelley and Kelley [1975]) consideredwhat effect external contact with migrating entrepreneurs,priests, political leaders, or warriors mighthave had on the American Southwest. Duringarchaeology'S "Processual" period (Wiley and Sabloff1980), Chaco Project investigators shied away fromethnographic analogy; they borrowed from otherfields-e.g., systems theory, cultural ecology, andinformation theory-and utilized insights gained fromcross-cultural comparisons. Some evidence-e. g. ,grave goods, differences among human remains(Akins 1986; Akins and Schelberg 1984), and analysisof great house size (R. Powers et al. 1983; Schelberg1984)-suggested the possibility of ranked leadershipduring the Chaco florescence. With Chaco Canyon asthe center, an organized system may have encompassedthe San Juan Basin and beyond. Models wereproffered and debated to explain how this systemoperated within the Chaco World. Models derived inthe 1970s and 1980s can be, and have been, improVed(see Lekson 2005; Mills 2002). This chapter willreview these models, indicate some discrepancies, andconsider the role of ritual in continuing research.External InfluencesFor both DiPeso (1968a, 1965b, 1974) and J.Kelley (1980; Kelley and Kelley 1975), Chaco Canyonwas an important northernmost node in a long-distancenetwork that would have controlled the turquoisemines located in the Cerrillos mining district, about160 km (100 mi) east in the Rio Grande Valley. Thisblue-green stone was one of several in that color rangethat were considered valuable by Mesoamerican elite.Kelley and Kelley (1975) proposed that initialtraders exploring the region reached Chaco Canyon byA.D. 600 or 700, and established great kivas as theirloci for operations. After a hiatus between A.D. 800and 925, contact was renewed as populations in allareas continued to grow and expand. Between A.D.1020 and 1300, southern leaders were thought to haveexploited the Anasazi region through a west Mexicocenter. Construction of core-and-veneer architecturalfeatures would have been taught to the Chacoans as aresult of intensive interaction with people who

268 Chaco Project Synthesismigrated north, and lived and organized society inChaco Canyon for their benefit. The Mesoamericanswould have brought advanced skills in road-building,water control, and building construction. Interactionbetween the regions fell apart when the Anasazisettlement of the Four Comers area collapsed, dueeither to environmental deterioration that caused withdrawalor local rebellion or to the appearance ofaggressive nomadic tribes that infiltrated the area. ForDiPeso (1968a, 1968b, 1974), after A.D. 1030 theculture center from which Mesoamericans, originallyfrom Tula, operated was Casas Grandes, Chihuahua.In his model, cessation of interaction was tied to thecollapse of the Toltec empire in the A.D. 1100s.Aztec traders, called pochteca, provided a modelfor how the Mesoamerican core expanded into distantlands. Members of the pochteca belonged to a guild,but sometimes they operated alone as they went longdistances into new lands for rare resources. Oncelong-term trading relationships had been established,caravans were organized to go to places where facilitieshad been set up and agreements worked out.Entrepreneurial families lived in enclaves andmanaged the economic aspects of these interactions;they also brought their religion and their warriors toprotect them. Pochteca were high-status members ofthe society and possessed luxury items that localpeople did not have. It was expected that the placeswhere they lived and worked in foreign areas woulddiffer from those of the local population, and that theywould control the possession and use of the objectsthey brought with them for trade. Although thepochteca model was specific to the Aztec, similartypes of trade guilds with trocadores (Kelley 1980)were posited for ancestral groups, including theToltec, who were contemporary with Chacoan people.Frisbie (1978, 1980) and Reyman (1978b) examinedthe possibility of Mesoamerican high-statusburials in Chacoan sites. Such Mesoamerican burialsare often accompanied by dogs, numerous gravegoods, and ceremonial items. Taller individuals tendto have more grave goods than the average-sizeperson. Thus, the burials in Pueblo Bonito couldrepresent the Mesoamerican leaders in Chaco (Frisbie1978). When Reyman (1978b) examined data fromthree sites in the Southwest, he concluded that themagician from Ridge ruin was a pochteca-like leaderwho died en route, and that Burials 13 and 14 inRoom 33 at Pueblo Bonito were either members of thepochteca or in their employ, but that the warrior inAztec ruin may have been a high-status individual buthe was not apochteca. More recently, Turner (1993;Turner and Turner 1995, 1999) considered toothtransfigurement on a burial from Room 330 in PuebloBonito, which is nearly identical to a practice commonin Mesoamerica, to indicate the presence of a southernwarrior in Chaco Canyon.To date, no Mesoamerian skeletal remains havebeen identified among the human remains in ChacoCanyon (Akins 1986; Schillaci et al. 2001). The adultmale maxilla from Room 330 that Turner and Turner(1999:128-129, 473-476) indicated had tooth transfigurement(no. 326095) has a fused right upperincisor and canine that may mark a congenital pattern,one that was also seen in another adult in Room320A. Unfortunately, their report did not indicatesuch fusion in any burials attributed to Room 320A;the closest similar description they record is for Burial327077, which exhibited an enlarged right lowersecond incisor and lack of canine. Akins (1986:TableB.l) includes Burial 327077 among those from Room326. In her craniometric study, this individual fellwithin the population from the western rooms ofPueblo Bonito; Schillaci et al. (2001) clearly retainedthis burial within the Pueblo population. If theassumption of a congenital relationship between thesetwo burials is accepted, the transfigurement on thetooth in Room 330 represents a Pueblo man and not aMexican who moved north. This individual may havetraveled south, possibly to Teacapan, a site in theMarismas Nacionales region on the border betweenSinaloa and Nayarit, that Turner and Turner (1999)indicate is contemporary with the Chacoan culture andwhere the practice of tooth disfigurment is documented(Gill 1985:195). This Chacoan may havelived among the population, been adopted into asociety, and learned new techniques before bringinghis new knowledge, a number of shells, and possiblyother material back to Chaco Canyon.Almost all Mesoamerican artifacts present in theSouthwest could have been brought by only a fewindividuals (Haury 1976: 347). Based on a comparisonwith seventeenth-century Spanish in New Mexico,however, Frisbie (1985) suggested that many artifactsmay not be needed to represent the presence of aforeign group among the Pueblo people. Frisbie

Explaining Pueblo Social Organization 269(1980, 1983, 1985, 1998) thought that only a fewitems could indicate a Mesoamerican presence. Heconsidered adapted forms made from local materialsrepresentative of a Mesoamerican presence; e.g.,cylindrical jars with personalized markings (Pepper1920: 121; Washburn 1980); incense burners identifiedas shallow ladles with handles; effigies with specificthree-looped sandal ties (Washburn 1978); the dot-inthe-squaremotif used in the royal cloak of the Toltecand Aztec that appears on a human effigy (Judd 1954:Figure 60); and a textile from Room 32 (Pepper 1920:138) indicative of similar practices. Frisbie associatedone turquoise with matrix fashioned as a iabret ornose-plug from Pueblo Bonito (as illustrated by Judd1954:95, Figure 17) and a ceramic head with a piercednose (Judd 1954:225-226, Figure 62d) as further evidenceof foreign items and practices at this site (seealso Reyman 1995). Holien (1975) confirmed that apiece of pseudo-cloisonne recovered from PuebloBonito (Pepper 1920:Figure 13) was imported, possiblyfrom the Hohokam area or from West Mexico.Frisbie (1985) proposed that because there were nobeasts of burden, the foreigners would have broughtwith them only religious items and knowledge. Veryfew items that accompanied these foreigners to ChacoCanyon would remain in the archaeological record ifthe foreigners took their prized possessions with themwhen they left (Frisbie 1985).During the Chaco Project, Lister (1978) wouldnot deny that certain artifacts-e.g., copper bells,marine shell, and macaws-must have been imported.Other traits, however, such as architectural features,similarities in pottery designs and decorative techniques,use of certain types of wooden objects,turquoise, water control devices, communicationsystems, and astronomical observations, "do notnecessarily reflect actual influences or contacts"(Lister 1978:240). Hayes (1981:62-68) acknowledgedthat the Chaco population was largely indigenous, butthat a small number of foreigners may have beenpresent. Although difficult to see, the presence of afew "administrator-trader-priests contributing engineeringknow-how, astronomical knowledge for thecontrol of the solstice and the equinox, and an insidetrack to the ears of the gods in exchange for labor,could explain the new, alien forms adapted toindigenous patterns and executed with local materials"if they minimally disrupted the old ways, for example,by adapting kivas and great kivas for their own pur-poses (Hayes 1981:62). Local potters could make newforms using their traditional pastes, slips, and painteddesigns; e.g., cylindrical vases and squatting humaneffigies similar to Mexican forms (Pepper 1906). TheBonito phase system of roads, irrigation systems,shrines, isolated great kivas, and clusters of independentfamily groups was accepted as a unifiedsystem, which, if the result of foreign interlopers,must be of Mexican origin.Hayes (1981:63) was unsure whether trade orpolitics was the cause for northern expansion.Aithough a few imported elite items and a benevolentauthority might be sufficient to satisfy the Chacoans,there were few items to take south. Turquoise was noteasily obtained in the Toltec area of Mexico; theSouthwestern U.S. had many more sources. Yet thenearest source to Chaco-the Cerrillos Hills south ofSanta Fe-is over 160 km distant. Hayes (1981:63)found no evidence that turquoise was stored or workedlocally in quantity and available for export. Maizewas an even less likely export, because there wouldhave been little surplus, if any, grown in Chaco; someoutlying Chacoan sites might have been sources ofimported foodstuffs for the canyon popUlations.Hayes thought that friction and stress over control ofimported com may have led to the turmoil and warfareseen during Pueblo III in the Mesa Verde area, wherecannibalism of a ritualistic nature may have beenpracticed by those influenced by Mesoamericans. IfPueblo Bonito was the central place where the Mesoamericanpopulation resided, Hayes saw no evidenceto support the presence of captives for sacrifice.Several investigators addressed architecturalsimilarities. In a preliminary comparison of Chacoancore-and-veneer architecture with that in West Mexicoand Mesoamerica, Wills (1977) concluded that thereis no good evidence for the Chacoan origins of thistechnique in Mesoamerica. What appears to be similarconstruction in Mesoamerica differs in at least twofunctions from its Chaco counterpart: first, its functionas a retaining wall for a mass that has little loadbearingquality; and second, its use mostly in monumentalor religious architecture. Wills assumed thatlarge pueblos in Chaco were constructed as residences,and proposed that the wide cores were needed tosupport upper stories in multistoried houses. Lekson(1983a; 1984a) concluded that in both Mesoamericaand Chaco Canyon, the construction oflarge buildings~~~~~~~--- --

270 Chaco Project Synthesiswas not as dependent on technical expertise as it wason a labor pool and some form of leadership that wasresponsible for the construction of the edifices. Thus,because of its local development in place, core-andveneerarchitecture did not represent specializedknowledge brought in by foreigners, but rather thedesire to build multiple stories for some unspecifiedpurpose that provided a need for sturdier constructiontechniques.Lekson (1983a) recognized the absence of someunique architectural forms that are present in Chacobut absent in Mesoamerica (e.g., tower kivas, tri-wallstructures). The great kivas of Chaco, unlike the circularcomplexes of the Rio Bolanos area in westMexico, are roofed. The platform mound in TalusUnit No.1, listed by Ferdon (1955), is actually thebase of a masonry ramp for a roadway that proceedsfrom the top of the north mesa of Chaco Canyon toPueblo Alto (Gwinn Vivian 1983a). Shrines identifiedby Reyman (1971) at Pueblo Bonito and Pueblo Altomost likely had different functions than the Meso~american patio altars with which they were compared.The T-shaped doorways found in Chaco and CasasGrandes in northern Chihuahua are similar, but thistrait is earlier in the north than it is in the south (CasasGrandes dates have been re-evaluated [Dean andRavesloot 1993; M. Love 1975]). Lekson (1999) nowconsiders the Casas Grandes region to be a laterPueblo center in the continued development of Puebloculture. The colonnade, or gallery, concept (at ChetroKetl and Be 51) was similar and may have had somerelationship with the south, but it is a form out ofcontext. Lekson, Windes, and Fournier (2006)recently concluded that the concept of this form wasprobably Mesoamerican in origin and was passedalong via west Mexico, but that construction techniquesrepresent local knowledge and practices. Thetwo rectangular mounds with masonry facings in frontof Pueblo Bonito are most similar to platform moundsof later Hohokam. Stein and Lekson (1992, 1994)proposed that the mounds at Pueblo Bonito, PuebloAlto, Chetro Ketl, and Penasco Blanco are architecturalfeatures that are part of a built landscape thatreflects ritual practices (but see Wills [2001] andChapter 5 for discussions on why these may not beintentionally constructed features). In summary,Lekson (1983a) found only two forms (the colonnadeand the rectangular mound) that were unusual in theSouthwest and most likely to have Mesoamericanparallels. When he examined Cahokia in Illinois,however, these resemblances paled; thus, Leksonsuggested that any Mesoamerican influence was less inChaco than it would have been in the Mississippianarea.Because turquoise was the only major productdesired by the Mesoamerican societies that was notperishable or more easily available at a close distance,Mathien (1981a, 1983, 1986) focused on its procurement,production, and consumption. To date, thesource of Chacoan turquoise has not been wellidentified (Chapter 2). Who, if anyone, controlled theCerrillos turquoise mines also remains undetermined.Warren and Mathien (1984) identified sherds found atthe different sites in the southern Cerrillos Hills.Types such as Kiatuthlanna Black-on white, Gallup(Prewitt) Black-on-white, Chaco-McElmo Black-onwhite,and several gray wares, including corrugatedindented,are similar to those found in Chaco Canyon,but the presence of other contemporary types suggesteduse by peoples living farther south in the RioGrande area. Wiseman and Darling (1986) reportedthat five small house sites close to the Cerrillos minesalso have Red Mesa Black-on-white, Late Red MesaBlack-on-white, Escavada Black-on-white, GallupBlack-on-white, Socorro Black-on-white, PuercoBlack-on-red, and Wingate Black-on-red on thesurface. They were surprised that few contemporaryRio Grande Valley sherds were recovered. Thepresence of Socorro Black-on-white sherds at the sitessuggests the possibility that more southerly tradeinteractions existed between Cerrillos and the centralRio Grande. Because the five sites had a lack ofgrinding implements but a number of mining tools,Wiseman and Darling thought that they may representspecial use sites. If the miners were supported bypeople in the Mount Taylor region rather than thecentral Chaco Basin, then Chaco would have obtainedthe turquoise through an intermediary, who may haveproduced some of the turquoise beads and pendants.Mathien (1981a:221) inspected a private collectionfrom the Andrews community that includes workshopdebris representative of several stages of production.Judge observed similar surface debris at San Mateo.Some jewelry items, therefore, were probably producedin this area. The bulk of ceramics in the fivesmall houses at Cerrillos suggests a tie to the greaterMount Taylor region (which is part of the ChacoWorld) and on to Chaco Canyon. But their tie to

Explaining Pueblo Social Organization 271Chaco was probably indirect rather than representativeof Chacoan control over the resource.Production of turquoise objects did take place inChaco Canyon (Mathien 1984, 1997), but it is unlikelythat jewelers were full-time craft specialists. Itis probable that the wealth of turquoise items found inChaco Canyon represent local use rather than procurementand production for trade. Many objectswere either deposited with burials in great houses,especially Pueblo Bonito (Akins 1986, 2001, 2003;Akins and Schelberg 1984), or used as religiousofferings during construction, especially during theClassic Bonito phase (A.D. 1050 to 1l00)(Judd 1954;Mathien 1981a, 1997, 2001b, 2003a).Mathien (1981a, 1983, 1986) examined thepochteca model from an e.conowic perspective; Whenthe available data were evaluated against 12 propositionsthat were derived to evaluate the fit ofWallerstein's (1974) world-system model, she (likeGwinn Vivian 1970b) could not find support for aforeign elite in Chaco Canyon or even full-time craftspecialists who could provide them with the desiredexports. She concluded it was unlikely that Chacowas the farthest node in a highly developed tradenetwork controlled by a Mesoamerican center. Instead,some form of down-the-line trade could haveeasily passed goods among Uto-Aztecan-speakingneighboring societies that bordered the Chaco Worldand extended to the heartland of Mesoamerica, whichin Aztec times formed its core (Mathien 1981a,1993a). Other scholars reached similar conclusions;McGuire (1980) interpreted the evidence to suggest aprestige trade network. Nelson (2005) discussed howindependent centers stretching from central Mexicointo the Southwest adopted some, but not all, symbolsand practices through time. He suggested a correlationbetween religious sanctification and socialpower.Reyman (1971) proposed that Southwesternceremonialism was influenced by Mesoamericanpractices. He used ethnohistoric and archaeologicaldata to test 11 hypotheses relating to astronomicalalignments of ceremonial architecture, religious andcosmological concepts expressed in architecture, andartifact complexes and their distribution, includingcolor-direction symbolism, and ceremonial contexts.Although his study was not definitive, it did suggestsupport for the hypothesis. There seemed to be acorrelation between changes in Southwestern cultureand events in Mesoamerican cultures during threedistinct periods: ca. A.D. 700 (the first significantcontact, followed by flux in central Mesoamericancultures); ca. A.D. 900 to 1200, which correlated withthe existence of the Toltec empire; and during the latefourteenth century, in connection with the rise of theTlaloc cult. Reyman (1971:326) recognized that hispreliminary study needed much more work andcontinued research (Reyman 1975, 1976, 1978c,1979, 1982) to confirm that knowledge of an astronorrIicalnat-ure was probably wielded by priests \vhocontrolled the ceremonial and other events withinChacoan society (Reyman 1987).Frisbie (1983) and Schaafsma (1999) evaluatedreligious concepts from Mesoamerica that are presentin Southwestern societies. Frisbie (1983) correlatedthe appearance of different symbols for members ofthe Mesoamerican pantheon, and suggested differenttimings for their appearances in the Southwest.Schaafsma (1999) concluded that the Tlaloc andkatsina symbols appear in both areas and probablyrepresent a shared deeper meaning, but they do notnecessarily represent a Mesoamerican presence.Regional networks of communication of a political andreligious nature would have been conduits for ideas;yet each region would have been independent, muchlike modem Christian states that share an overarchingbelief system. These studies support Kelley andKelley's (1975) proposal that shared ideas and practiceswere enduring over a long period of time, but asSchaafsma (1999) points out, they may not representdirect contact by members of these distinct cultureareas.In conclusion, the direct Mesoamerican influencemodel is inadequate to explain the development ofChaco Canyon. Most imported items may reflectcontacts during the middle A.D. 1000s, which suggeststhe ability of leaders (whether religious,economic, or political) to obtain objects of foreignorigin to enhance their positions of leadership. Theseitems most likely represent symbols of informationand perhaps prestige-item exchange. This interpretationdoes not preclude the appearance of one or morepeople from Mesoamerica or north or west Mexico inthe canyon or the Southwest, but to date all analysesof skeletal material suggest that the burials in Chaco

272 Chaco Project SynthesisCanyon represent Pueblo ancestors. Intermediate UtoAztecan-speaking groups could have facilitated thepassage of information about successful adaptations tosimilar problems, goods, or some people throughoutthe American Southwest and Mexico (Wilcox 1986).How ideas, information, and goods moved amongthese people has become clearer through time(Carpenter and Sanchez 1996), but our understandingof the cultures of northern and western Mexico willrequire much more research before this issue iscompletely resolved. Those who support models ofindigenous development, however, must incorporatewhy, how, and when the concepts and objects fromthe south appear in the archaeological record.Indigenous Development ModelsDuring the 1970s, a number of models focusedon an explanation of a Chaco "system" between A.D.900 and 1200, when developments in the canyon wereunique when compared with the rest of the Southwest.Grebinger (1973, 1978) introduced the concept ofChaco as an indigenous ranked society, and Altschul(1978) considered the development of a Chaco interactionsphere. Allan and Broster (1978) applied theChristaller model to then-recognized Chaco greathouses and roads data to conclude that the spacingbetween major sites supported an interpretation ofthem as redistribution centers. These models stimulatedquestions that Judge (1976b [published in 1979],1977a) recognized needed to be addressed. Amongthem were the extent of the system, how it wasorganized, whether it was stratified, population trends,interaction among site residents, seasonal use, regionaldependence or independence, responses to changes inmoisture, and cause of the system's collapse.Because Judge (1977 a) relied heavil y on conceptsfrom cultural ecology and systems theory, humanswere considered part of an ecosystem that conformedto principles of energy distribution, diversity, tropiclevels, and succession stability. It was assumed thathumans would react to any stimulus that threatenedtheir security within a perceived stable system. Eithershort-term or sustained stimuli included social,demographic, or environmental elements; they couldhave both positive (impetus) or negative (stress)effects. With regard to social stimuli, Judge (1976b,1979) preferred not to address outside influence,especially from Mesoamerica, until he understoodlocal conditions and their effects on culturaldevelopment.Once analyses of survey and excavation datawere completed and numerous Chaco structures andcommunities within the San Juan Basin had beenidentified, Judge's (1976a, 1977a, 1977b, 1979) earlymodel was expanded to encompass the San Juan Basin(e.g., Judge 1981a, 1983a [published in 1989], 1991;Judgeetal. 1981). Data used for the evaluation of hismodel included that gathered by Chaco Projectpersonnel, as well as by colleagues undertaking newsurvey and excavations in the San Juan Basin. Thesecolleagues (e.g., Breternitz et al. 1982; IrwinWilliams and Shelley 1980; Pippin 1979, 1989;Gwinn Vivian 1990), too, based much of theirtheoretical approaches on cultural ecology. Mostagreed that some type of leadership was necessary todirect the construction of Chacoan great houses androads and integrate the many Chacoan communitiesthroughout the region, but whether or not this was astratified society has not been resolved.The Chaco Project ModelThe initial Chaco Project model (Judge 1977a)outlined how aspects of moisture availability (relativeabundance as measured by annual precipitation,seasonal dominance, and periodicity) would affectstability of the system; what cultural responses toenvironmental stress (mobility or investment in energysubsidies such as importation of foodstuffs or intensificationof agriculture) might be expected; howperceptions of group security (e.g., the amount offood surplus on hand) would affect response time; andhow the population growth rate would increase if theadopted responses continued to be successful. Ademographic stimulus would occur when popUlationgrowth (or immigration) exceeded carrying capacity.Using Hayes's (1981) data, Judge recognized thatmobility options would probably have remained openbeyond the Late Pueblo II period due to increasingrainfall and recognition that the San Juan Basin wasnot completely filled during Early Pueblo II (Marshallet al. 1979; Powers et al. 1983). The Bis sa'ani communityis an example of a short-lived late communityduring the early A.D. 1100s in a period of higherprecipitation (Breternitz et al. 1982)

Explaining Pueblo Social Organization 273Of the environmental stimuli (erosion, decreasedlength of growing season, increased salinity, andwater availability), water availability in a semiaridenvironment was considered the most likely stimulusfor trophic change. Such stimuli could evoke a changeto a higher niche initially in a local area (a positiveeffect) and cause collapse if it was an area-wideproblem (a negative effect) (Judge 1976b, 1979).Tree-ring studies used to model precipitation patternswere under way (Dean and Robinson 1977; Robinsonand Rose 1979; Rose 1979; Rose et al. 1982), andchanges in culture were evaluated against fluctuationsin rainfall patterns.Based on a number of studies, including pollencounts, both Judge (1976b) and Gwinn Vivian (1990)recognized an environmental change, which causedtrophic change, during the middle A.D. 800s.Variability in available moisture suggests thatprominent below-normal rainfall periods occurred inthe A.D. 920s through 940s; declining values in theA.D. 1080s and 1090s, with a minor positive peak inthe late A.D. 1080s; above-average values in the earlyA.D. 1100s; a drought between A.D. 1130 and 1180;improVed rainfall in the early A.D. 12oos; and lowvalues in the last three decades of the A.D. 1200s(Gillespie and Powers 1983; Powers et al. 1983:279-283, Figures 145 and 146; Schelberg 1982a). Severedrought from A.D. 1130 to 1180 would have had amajor effect on agriculturalists on the southernColorado Plateau (Gillespie 1985).During periods of negative rainfall, suggestedinvestments in energy subsidies included 1) the importationof foodstuffs, which could be measured throughincreases in storage capacity, and 2) intensification ofagriculture, which would be evident through imprOVedcrop species, increased production, and technologicalchange (Judge 1979). The earliest great houses, withlayouts similar to contemporary small site units butwith much larger rooms, were thought to haveprovided increased storage area (Lekson 1984a;Lekson et al. 1988). Later McElmo-style greathouses, with their unit pattern of one circular structureenclosed by numerous rectangular rooms, and similarunit additions to Bonito-style great houses, werethought to represent storage space (Lekson 1984a;Lekson et al. 1988).Improvement in crop species is difficult to dis-cern. Although M. Toll (1985) documented changesin cob size, number of rows of com, and cupule size,good data from Chaco Canyon came from only onegreat house and two small sites. When compared withother sites in the San Juan Basin, she noted that somechange may be due to differences in available waterrather than species improvements.Increasing food production could be achieved byincreasing the total area under cultivation or the yieldper acre. Increasing the total acreage under cultivationwould be limited by slope, soil type, and availablewater. In Chaco Canyon, the canyon bottom was bestsuited for agriculture, and the areas with the greatestamount of available water are confluences of sidedrainage systems with the Chaco Wash. If onlyrainfall was available, terracing of other areas withoutwater control would probably have been inadequate.Improved overall moisture after ca. A. D. 900 woulddecrease the risk of farming in marginal areas throughoutthe Chaco Basin and allow outward expansion(Judge et al. 1981). It was assumed that duringPueblo II, productive lands in the canyon were filled;thus, expansion would stop, and technologicalimprovements would be needed (Judge 1977a).The most evident technological improvement isconstruction of dams and canals taking water frommesa tops to gridded gardens (Gwinn Vivian 1972).Although Judge (1977a) considered the Chaco inhabitantscapable of constructing a water control system,as described by Vivian (1970b, 1972, 1974b) by A.D.850, the masonry style and most of the associatedceramics recovered from test trenches in severalsystems suggested the existence of a formalized systemaround the middle A.D. 1000s and early A.D. lloos.The few Pueblo I sherds noted by Loose and Lyons(1976a) in the bottom layer of the Chetro Ketl fieldhinted at possible early use, but their provenienceassociation was questionable.Families that utilized better watered garden plotswould develop suprafamily cooperation units to maintainthe system as it evolved. Pooling and redistributionof resources within local communities wouldoccur. Construction of the earliest great houses (UnaVida, Pueblo Bonito, and Penasco Blanco) occurred atthe confluence of m~or side drainage systems (F~adaWash, South Gap, and the Escavada Wash, respectively)with the Chaco Wash. Their much larger and

274 Chaco Project Synthesisgreater number of rooms would hold surpluses; theycould also store some trade items along with foodstuffs.These great houses exhibited increasedformalization in design of the units, the use of someimported beams, and lack of growth by accretion.Judge's (1989) final model incorporated theseconcepts within several periods:The Pre-System Period extended from aboutA.D. 500 to 900 (now A.D. 850). Judge assumedthat Basketmaker III and Pueblo I popUlationsthroughout the Chaco Basin pursued a generalizedsubsistence strategy based on horticulture andgathering of wild plant foods. Although horticulturelimited mobility, storage of domesticated foods,gathering and storage of wild plant foods, and a networkof reciprocal exchanges among kinsmen wouldhave been adequate to ensure stability of the systemuntil a stimulus necessitated change. The BasketmakerIII and Pueblo I populations were primary consumerswhose stability was dependent on the environmentalconditions, especially available moisture.The period from around A.D. 850 or 900 to1000 or 1020 was designated the Initialization Period.Although periodicity of rainfall would not be controlled,if the system sustained itself during the initialperiod of environmental stress in the mid-A.D. 800s,Chaco would attract people for whom mobility was theonly option. Because the canyon lacks many naturalresources, the increased population would tax thesupply of local materials-e.g., lithics, edible flora,and fauna-and inhabitants of Chaco Canyon wouldhave maintained earlier reciprocal relationships withresidents throughout the Chaco Basin. Ties with otherareas to obtain ceramics, timber, and other importswould lead to the establishment of local redistributioncenters. Evidence to support such a relationshipincludes Red Mesa Black-on-white pottery found inthe southern half of the San Juan Basin and probablyimported into Chaco Canyon; during this period it isthe dominant ceramic type in Chaco great house sites,as well as in contemporary small houses (H. Toll1984; H. Toll and McKenna 1997).Because Judge (1979; Judge et al. 1981) assumedthat resource pooling and the redistribution of goodscompensated for fluctuating local environments, heproposed that the earlier reciprocal exchanges of foodsand other items among kinsmen would have becomeincreasingly complex and more formalized throughtime. Those who had improved yield per hectarewould have more food to share in bad times, but theirneighbors would become indebted if such times persisted.Thus, a labor pool would be available for theconstruction of great houses (e.g., stage I at HungoPavi in the mid- to late A.D. 900s; Lekson 1984a:152) or other features, and for craft specialization(e.g., production of turquoise jewelry). Thesemethods of repayment led to the evolution of a newniche for the few leaders who became secondaryconsumers and independent of environmentalconstrictions.Similar developments would occur in wellwateredoutlying areas, where Chacoan structureswould function as places to pool and redistribute localsubsistence resources (Judge 1989:235). Most earlycommunities with great houses are located to the southor west (e.g., Skunk Springs, Kin Bineola, PeachSprings, and EI Rito [R. Powers et al. 1983]). Otherearly Pueblo II outliers (Judge 1989:Figure 22) areWallace, in southwestern Colorado; Sterling, alongthe San Juan River above its confluence with theAnimas; and Guadalupe, to the southeast of Chacoalong the Rio Puerco.Although Chaco Canyon was not considered acentral place at this time and the communitiesprobably were independent with regard to subsistence,Judge proposed that Chaco was taking the lead inturquoise-processing. Guadalupe Ruin, a great housesituated within a larger early community (see IrwinWilliams and Baker 1991) was suggested as a intermediatelink between Chaco and the Cerrillosturquoise mines. Because of the large number ofturquoise objects recovered from sites in the canyonand evidence for turquoise workshops appearing in theA.D. 900s (Mathien 1984a), turquoise production byearly, and probably part-time, craft specialization wasproposed as a means to both stimulate and regulateexchange. Because the canyon is poor in resources,jewelry production would have been an additionalbuffer against hard times. If people in Chaco hadcontrol over turquoise production, then managementof the system would be in the hands of specialists(Judge 1989:237); yet, see discussion above regardingthe amount of control Chaco may have had over theCerrillos turquoise mines.

Explaining Pueblo Social Organization 275Within the independent subsistence-basedcommunities, people pooled their resources andredistributed the exchanged goods among theindividual community members. Full-time specialistswould have been few in number; they would havemanaged a trade system, and they would have beenable to improve the stability of primary productionand the community (Judge 1976b, 1977a, 1989).Thus, the response in the early tenth century advanceda small segment of the population to the level ofsecondary consumers who organized seasonal redistributionthat probably took place when perishablegoods were available. Because they did not want toequate social status with evidence for formal exchange,Judge et al. (1981) were careful not to specifythe social correlate that was evolving either in thecanyon or the basin. They were aware that HistoricPueblo people are primarily egalitarian; and that,other than two individuals at Pueblo Bonito, there islittle evidence for high status among the burials inChaco Canyon. Thus, emphasis was on examiningChaco as a developing center.The Formalization Period extended from A.D.1020 to 1050, when social organization served as abuffer against vagaries in moisture availability andencompassed a larger set of communities in thesouthern Chaco Basin. Only one of eight new outliercommunities, Hogback, was in the north, whichsuggested that Chaco Canyon was not located in thecenter of a system. Administration of the exchangenetworks was controlled by Chacoan residents;whether these were elite individuals or members of adominant corporate unit was not possible todetermine.A period of above-average moisture with continuedvariability from around A.D. 1020 to 1080 wasinterrupted by a period of below-average rainfall fromabout A.D. 1025 to 1035 (Judge 1989). Adjustmentswithin the cultural niche would be made throughincreased formalization and complexity. BetweenA.D. 1020 and 1050, Gallup Black-on-white potteryappears. Two new great houses, Chetro Ketl andPueblo Alto, were constructed in the central section ofChaco Canyon (Lekson 1984a). There were no localcommunities near these new great houses and theywere not located along confluences of side drainagesystems. Judge (1989:238) suggested that Chetro Ketlmay have provided a link with settlement along theEscavada Wash. Pueblo Alto lacked evidence for roadconstruction between A.D. 1020 and 1050, but itslocation permitted visibility across the San Juan Basin(Windes 1987[1]). Roads would later lead from bothof these great houses to the north-the Great NorthRoad from Pueblo Alto to Kutz Canyon and two roadsfrom Chetro Ked to the Escavada Wash. Theproximity of these two great houses to Pueblo Bonitosuggests an increasing importance for the centralcanyon.Because analyses of data from studies in thecanyon and the region indicated that most goodsflowing through the exchange system came from thelarger region into resource-poor Chaco Canyon, wherethey were being consumed during activities in thegreat houses (Cameron 1997b; H. Toll and McKenna1997), management of the e~ono!11jc system throughredistribution of goods was unlikely. Judge (1989:238-239) proposed that Chaco's increasing importancein the larger region is attributable to the ritual use ofturquoise, which was obtained by people in outlyingcommunities, brought into the canyon, and made intofinished products by local craftsmen. Turquoiseobjects were used during periodic visits under a ritualmetaphor when other nonritual material was broughtin and exchanged. The development and control ofritual to ensure agricultural success fostered socialinteraction and became the locus of power.The Expansion Period from A.D. 1050 to 1115included two long periods of favorable climate, fromA.D. 1045 to 1080 and from A.D. 1100 to 1130, thatwere interrupted by moisture reduction in the earlyA.D. 1080s and a lO-year reduction from A.D. 1090to 1100. The earlier and later periods of goodmoisture show different patterns in the occupation anduse of great houses. Windes (1982a, 1984, 1987[1];Windes and Doleman 1985) noted decreasedpopulation between A.D. 1050 and 1100; hesuggested that habitation in small houses in Marcia'sRincon may have ceased around A.D. 1050 (Windes1993). Because big-room suites in great housesbetween A.D. 1050 and 1100 have no true firepits andmay not represent habitation space, Windes (1987[1])suggested that their function changed. Lekson (1984a)found that front rooms in great houses decreased insize through time and tend to be more similar in sizeand shape to back rooms. Massive construction stagesbetween A.D. 1075 and 1115, especially the McElmo

276 Chaco Project Synthesislayout, were thought to represent storage. Thus,between A.D. 1050 and 1115 there was considerablechange within the canyon.Judge (1977s) suggested that technical improvements-e.g.,the canal system, which would delivermore water to gardens only when it rained-wouldhave had a considerable effect on production. Duringwet periods, increased surplus or energy subsidieswould require storage. Similar increases in productivityand storage may have taken place in otherlocations favorable to irrigation; e.g., Kin Bineola,where a canal system had been documented (Holsinger1901, Gwinn Vivian 1970b, 1972, 1974b; GwinnVivian and Palmer 2003).Concurrently, great houses proliferated throughoutthe southern San Juan Basin (Marshall et al. 1979;Powers et al. 1983) and the formal road system(Kincaid 1983, Lyons and Hitchcock 1977b; Nials etal. 1987; Obenauf 1980b, 1983b, 1991) was thoughtto have been constructed to link these communities toChaco Canyon (but see Roney 1992). By the lateA.D. 1080s, new construction at Salmon, and soonafter at Aztec, indicates that expansion increased in thenorthern San Juan Basin. Judge (1989:240) acceptedWindes's (1984) lower population estimate for thecanyon on a year-round basis during the late eleventhcentury; there would be more facilities to accommodatepeople who came into the canyon fromthroughout the San Juan Basin. The Great North Roadwas thought to integrate these communities into thesystem. The roads would have facilitated the transportof people and goods into the center during pilgrimagesthat were attended by increasing numbers of people.Chacoan leaders would control the scheduling andprovisioning for the events, but the basin participantswould bring goods, including subsistence items,especially from nearby communities. This would leadto increasingly complex ritual, and necessitate morecomplex leadership by those in Chaco Canyon.The period of System Reorganization from A. D.1115 to 1140 was considered a delayed response toevents that occurred in the A.D. 1080s, and especiallythe A.D. 1090s; this delayed response was thought toexplain the early A.D. 1100s evidence. In thecanyon, the construction of McElmo phase structuresor additions to existing structures indicate a return toan earlier, and lower, level of energy investment inthe construction stages (Lekson 1984a). Alsorecorded were a shift in location of trash depositionfrom formal middens to unused rooms or kivas(Windes 1982b); increased frequency of carbonpaintedwares (H. Toll and McKenna 1997); increaseduse of small mammals and turkeys (Akins 1982b);increased construction at village sites (Windes1987[I], 1993); and increased diversity in village sitestructure (Truell 1986). Chaco was thought to bemore residential and less ritual (Judge 1989:246).The brief but severe climatic fluctuations aroundA.D. 1090 to 1100 were considered responsible for apossible shift in centrality of the system from Chacoto the San Juan area. Noticeable from A.D. 1100 to1115 were the growth of numerous great houses in thenorth around A.D. 1088 and later; the recovery of asmaller proportion of Gallup Black-on-white ceramicsthat were considered a symbol of Chaco Canyonleadership; and the introduction of carbon-paintedceramics that were prominent in the north. Althoughthe new northern center at Aztec (Stein and McKenna1988) shows considerable new construction thatcontinued after A.D. 1125, involvement with thesouthern San Juan Basin communities was not clear.Judge (1989) suggested that three mechanismscould have been employed during reorganization: 1)continued use of optimal loci in the basin; 2)migration of groups from the Chaco Basin to theirplaces or origin; and 3) return to a more mobilesubsistence pattern. Although pilgrimages to ChacoCanyon may have continued, the canyon was probablyequal to either an outlying area or a second-ordercenter with primarily domestic functions. Althoughactivity in Chaco continued to increase, the focus wasdomestic, and ritual dominance had moved north.Judge (1989:247) admitted that not all archaeologistsagree with him; both Stein and Lekson suggested thatthis period represents the peak of activity for thesystem that included the entire San Juan Basin. Untilbetter chronological control of the data is worked out,it is difficult to resolve this issue.Environmental deterioration was considered thecause of the Chacoan Collapse, which took place fromA.D. 1140 to 1200. The last cutting dates in thecanyon are assigned to the early twelfth century. The50-year drought between A.D. 1130 and 1180 wasthought to have been severe enough to cause major

Explaining Pueblo Social Organization 277change. Judge considered the later Mesa Verde occupationin the middle A.D. 1200s as one of reuse ratherthan of continued use by a small remnant population.Although Judge (1989) purposefully avoided adetailed discussion ofleadership, his colleagues couldsupport propositions for either an ascribed or anachieved society, depending on the database examinedand their theoretical perspectives. Akins (1986, 2001,2003; Akins and Schelberg 1984) interpreted thewealth found with individuals in the central burialrepository at Pueblo Bonito as indicative of thepresence of an eiite strata. Schelberg (i 982a) thoughta ranked society would have existed as early asBasketmaker III to correlate relationships among theinhabitants of Chaco and the San Juan Basin. Lekson(1984a) thought that although his population estimatesneeded to construct the great houses are small, theyrepresent endeavors well beyond what is present inhistorical Pueblo society. For him, the peak of sociopoliticalcomplexity was reached in the early A.D.1100s, when the largest construction modules (stagesIII and IV) were being erected, both in the canyon andat Aztec and Salmon along the San Juan River. Heviewed the Aztec complex as a second center, and asone that becomes part of a series of central places inthe early Pueblo World (Lekson 1999, 2005).H. W. Toll (1985; H. Toll and McKenna 1997)proposed alternatives to an elite system. Because thereis so little evidence that a few individuals benefitedunequally, he favored community rather than eliteinvolvement in the production and operation of thesystem. Like Marshall et al. (1979), Toll consideredthe large pueblos representative of public buildings,constructed and used by the larger community locatedthroughout the San Juan Basin for periodic gatheringsthat represented commitments to participate in andmaintain the system (H. Toll 1985:507). The rituallysanctioned gatherings in Chaco Canyon would provideopportunities to bring in ceramics, lithics, turquoise,and other materials for consumption, including largemammals. Periods of stress or drought resulted in theinitial intensification of energy investment in interactionamong various groups; their responses varied,depending upon the time period and areas concerned.In Toll's model, the peak period of social integrationwas reached in A.D. 1085 to 1110, when Chaco Canyonrepresents the center of the system that involvedthe entire San Juan Basin.Other investigators would model how eliteleaders could have evolved (Sebastian 1988, 1992b) orhow an egalitarian society might have accomplishedthe construction of great houses (Gwinn Vivian 1990).Agricultural Surplus as theVariableIndependentAlthough Chaco Project investigators consideredthe San Juan Basin a stressful environment in which tobe a horticulturalist (e.g., Schelberg 1982a), Sebastian(1988, 1992b) assumed that because Pueblo farmersdid survive for hundreds of years, they were capableof adapting to the vagaries of precipitation patterns.Initially, she predicted that instead of responding todeficits in production, farmers continued to overproduceduring periods of increased precipitation,leading to surplus capital that could be invested inpublic affairs leading to sociopolitical complexity.Leaders gaining power would want to maintain highproduction levels, and competition between emergingleaders would lead to greater increases in visiblepower; e.g., great houses. Therefore, the initial increasesin complexity should correlate with improvementsin the environment.Using rainfall data generated by analysis of treeringsand inferred storage practices that would providefood during periods of shortfall, Sebastian (1988,1992:Figure 15) charted when major downturns inproduction would have depleted food stores. Whenshe correlated her results with the major constructionperiods for great houses defined by Lekson (1984a)and his labor estimates for unit size of buildingepisodes, three resulting distinct patterns did notmatch her expectations. Pattern 1, from A.D. 900through 1020, indicates that great houses wereconstructed during periods when major downturns inproduction would have depleted food stores and socialsurplus. Pattern 2, from A.D. 1020 or 1040 to 1100,was generally very good for crop production and therewas probably an incomplete depletion of surplus; thisis the period when there is most evidence for greathouse construction. Pattern 3, from A.D. 1100 to1130, has high storage and surplus values, but there isa decline in construction. The drought of A.D. 1130to 1160 depletes stores and there is no evidence ofconstruction of public buildings then or thereafter,even during improved climatic conditions. Thesevariations in pattern needed explanation. Power or

278 Chaco Project Synthesisleadership may have been related to environmentalfactors; Sebastian wanted to explain how powerevolved in more detail than Judge had presented.Sebastian recognized four problems that must beovercome by leaders. They include suppression ofsegmentation; legimitization, or institutionalization;~ompetition; and succession. Suppression of segmentationmay have been less of a problem than the othersdue to the unique location of Chaco Canyon within thecentral San Juan Basin. The mesas and arroyos thatcollect available water for agriculture in ChacoCanyon contrast with the open plains that immediatelysurround the canyon. This physiographic settingwould have constrained some people from movingaway without good reason or to a destination thatprovided the necessities they sought.For pattern 1 (A.D. 900 to 1020), Sebastian(1992:114-120) accepted the Chaco Project model,wherein a labor-intensive strategy on the most productivelands at the confluence of major side drainagesystems provided individuals within these corporategroups with surplus. During periods of low productivity,labor to assist in the construction of greathouses would be rewarded with food. Through theirgenerosity, productive corporate groups would haveengendered obligations from unsuccessful relatives andneighbors. Continued success in favored locationsmight indicate that they had been favored by thesupernatural. Pe.riods of major downturns, however,may not have been easily resolved; as a result, no oneleader or group would be able to maintain power forthe entire period. Because great house constructionevents never occurred simultaneously during thisperiod, Sebastian proposed that different leaders in thethree early great houses competed for labor. Althoughshe prefers not to label this as a "Big-Man" society,she suggested that problems with leadership successionexisted.During pattern II (A.D. 1020 to 1100), overallprecipitation improved. The downturns that occurredwere not as severe as those earlier, and storagecapabilities never did drop below a one-year supply.A different power base was needed to account for themultiple construction episodes and peaks in laborinvestment. Although Sebastian had no problem withJudge's (1983a, 1989) proposal that turquoise wasassociated with this power base, she questioned howwell the Chacoans controlled the turquoise trade.Even if production and use of turquoise wouldguarantee a central role for Chaco in the economicsystem that brought subsidies into the canyon, theproblem of succession needed to be solved. Shesuggested that the overall continuing good rainfallpattern would reinforce the leadership roles of thoseliving in the earliest great houses and retaining the useof the best land; and continued construction of publicbuildings would increase the belief that participationin the system led by these mediators was legitimate.If successful ritual events were sponsored, morefollowers would join, and access to desired resourceswould be forthcoming. Competitive displays bypatrons in the canyon would draw popUlations fromthe larger area into alliances. Advantages of institutionalizedleadership include the facilitation of informationand material exchange, promotion of social tiesthrough periodic gatherings, and a buffer against subsistencefailure through out-migration. Sebastian(1992:120-132) posited that the long-standing perceptionof the Chacoans' successful relationships withthe supernatural would have led to legitimization oftheir roles as intermediaries. At this point, followerswould owe goods and labor to their leaders to ensurecontinued intervention with the dieties on their behalf.As long as there were no catastrophic events, leaderscould train their chosen successors. Once the leadershiprole of the religious mediators was accepted, theproblem of succession would be solved.Why this occurred in Chaco Canyon and notelsewhere is attributed to two factors: the uniquegeographic location of the better watered canyon,where several groups settled and competed; and thecircumscription of this better agricultural area by thesurrounding plains, so that people were less apt tomove out. Leaders in the Chuska and San Juanvalleys lacked such circumscription.The drier periods between A.D. 1080 and 1100would have depleted social surplus or capital, andthere would therefore have been more demands on thepatrons of the system. Yet the massive class III andclass IV building episodes (Lekson 1984a) indicatethat leaders successfully supported large labor pools.Sebastian (1988, 1992) considered several possiblescenarios to explain the data, including patron use ofdownturns to increase power by providing food andmeeting obligations. In this scenario, Sebastian

Explaining Pueblo Social Organization 279(1992) proposed that the downturn in small-site populationnoted by Windes (1987[1], 1993) couldrepresent movement from these sites to great houseswhere workers expended energy in construction, craftspecialties, etc., in return for food. It is possible thatleaders could have extracted surplus from the populationunder the guise of ritual metaphor; communalstores in McElmo structures would accumulate forredistribution. The decreased rainfall could havesignaled decreased power, so that leaders may haveworked harder to show devotion to the dieties. Orpatrons could take advantage of ties with kin oralliance partners to move away from the canyon. Theinterpretation of the next pattern would depend onhow evidence from the last two decades of theeleventh century was viewed. Sebastian (1992:131)stressed the role of competition during this period-inacquisition and display, and even in conspicuousconsumption. She extended this to regional competitionbetween Chaco Canyon and the new centersthat were being established along the San Juan Riverand its tributaries to the north.Although interpretations of pattern III (A.D.1100 to 1130) vary, Sebastian (1992) observed that allagree that the period was an unusually good one foragriculture. In Judge's interpretation, this periodrepresents a delayed reaction to earlier climaticdownturns leading to the transference of leadershipfrom Chaco to the San Juan Valley. For H. Toll(1985), the earlier downturn could have resulted in ashift, but it also could have decreased the need forintense reliance on other areas as a coping strategy.On the other hand, Lekson (1984a) saw the increasedvariability in architecture as evidence for more complexsociopolitical interaction-a time during whichChaco is the central place for the San Juan Basin. Itsdifferent buildings had different functions.The northern San Juan Basin would havebenefited from the changes in precipitation during theearly twelfth century, and, following Irwin-Williamsand Shelley (1980), Sebastian (1992: 134) thought thatit may represent expansion of the system. Althoughthere is still importation of ceramics, lithics, and otherprestige items into Chaco Canyon, she suggested thata cessation of use of imported wood, lack of depositionon trash mounds, and a dependence on localsmall mammals indicate a cessation of populationinfluxes. That no new great houses were built afterA.D. 1115 could be interpreted in two ways: as afailure by the leaders, or the possibility that patronscould have used control of food as their new powerbase. If the former, there would be a contraction inthe scope of power that did not return once conditionsimproved. The expansion in the northern San JuanBasin, and the Aztec complex as documented by Steinand McKenna (1988), suggest these leaders were ableto successfully compete for leadership positions. Onthe other hand, if control of food during scarcitybecame the new power base within the canyon, thencompetition in construction and ritual events may haveended among groups in the canyon. Competitionwould exist among secondary regions, and Chacowould have transferred more information and lessmatter and energy. Because the downturns during theA.D. 1090s were severe enough to wipe out surpluses,Sebastian (1992: 138) preferred the first scenario, inwhich the leadership lost credibility with its followers.The evolution of power, therefore, remains unknown,but the collapse during the long dry period after A.D.1130 was clear.Dual Social OrganizationThe presence of two distinct groups living inChaco Canyon had been proposed by several previousinvestigators; e.g., Judd (1964:41), within one greathouse, Pueblo Bonito, vs. Kluckhohn (1939a), whoviewed differences between large and small sites asevidence for two different popUlations based onmasonry styles. Based on McElmo-style architectureand pottery types, Gordon Vivian and Mathews (1965)suggested that three distinct Pueblo traditions mayhave been present from around A.D. 1050 to 1150.The dichotomy between site size, agricultural practices,and topography on the north and south sides ofthe canyon led Gwinn Vivian (1989, 1990) to revisitthe proposal that two distinct cultural traditions werepresent in the canyon from ca. A.D. 800, and thatthese traditions are still visible in contemporaryPueblo societies.Gwinn Vivian (1989, 1990:430-434) wasfamiliar with G. Johnson's (1978, 1982) evaluation oforganizational models. Johnson noted that decisionmakingunits were usually composed of no more than15 people and more often at around six. When highernumbers are reached, units either fission or form oneof two types of hierarchies: In a simultaneous hier-

-- -~----280 Chaco Project Synthesisarchy, the organization becomes more complex byadding either horizontal or vertical units; butdecisionmaking is in the hands of the few, while itaffects all levels at the same time. In a sequentialhierarchy, Johnson proposed that basic units mayoperate independently for some periods but areintegrated into larger units during periods whenconsensus at a higher level is required. Vivian(1990:432-435) recognized that historical Tewa socialorganization allowed two distinct periods of leadership.He proposed a model of rotating sequentialhierarchy, which provides an opportunity for horizontalpower-sharing, with minimal vertical control.In his comprehensive review of the archaeologicaldata from the San Juan Basin, Gwinn Vivian(1990) documented differences in architecture andsettlement patterns beginning in the Late Archaicthrough Pueblo III, linked the data to environmentalchanges, and compared the different needs for socialorganization in these ecological niches. Like Judge(1979) and Irwin-Williams and Shelley (1980), amongothers, Vivian recognized the effects that differencesin precipitation patterns would have on the subsistencestrategies of peoples utilizing different ecologicalniches. He identified the early economic practices thatwould have evolved in various niches, and traced fourinitial patterns to suggest which ones evolved intolater archaeological traditions. Two patterns, whichaccompanied the people who moved into the centralbasin and merged in the Chaco core, were consideredvisible through analysis of great houses and smallhouse sites and their localities.Gwinn Vivian proposed that a rotating sequentialhierarchy pattern can be traced from the Archaicpopulations in the northern San Juan Basin through theChaco florescence and into the present. All groupswould have been hunters and gatherers during theMiddle Archaic and maize would have been only oneof the cultigens that were included in the subsistencestrategy. Those living in the ecotone between plainsand mountains in the northern San Juan region duringthe Late Archaic would have relied more heavily onhorticulture during a precipitation downturn between100 B.C. and A.D. 100 than those in either of the twodistinct environments (Gwinn Vivian 1990:450).Seasonal sharing of decisionmaking pertinent to thetwo different subsistence strategies would enable alarger group to solve social problems and preventfission. A larger popUlation provides the ability toorganize larger labor groups, which in Chaco arerepresented by the construction of great houses andwater control features leading to grid gardens alongthe north side of the canyon. Thus, the great housepopulations were attributed to a Chaco-San Juantradition that incorporated two seasonal sets of leadersto organize decisionmaking. Vivian (1990:433-435)accepted the suggestion that Tewa (Ford et al. 1972),especially, and also Keres (Fox 1967,1972), ancestorswere present in Chaco Canyon; thus, he proposedcontinuity of this duality as a dominant factor in theirhistoric Pueblo life. Decisions of the two moietyheads are mediated through other sodalities whosemembers belong to both moieties, thus preventingfissioning (Ortiz 1965, 1969). Vivian's model incorporatesreasons for the origin of dual socialorganization, and how it would have operated in theChaco-San Juan tradition and continued into thepresent.Based on rainfall patterns and soil types, thefertile crescent in the southern and western San JuanBasin was considered to have been a good place forexpanding agricultural popUlations during BasketmakerIII and Pueblo 1. Such developing small-sitepopulations would be organized around clan andlineage leadership units that were flexible, dependingon the situation. They could fuse or fission. Theyevolved into the Cibola tradition that Gwinn Vivianattributed to the small-site population in Chaco thatwere akchin farmers along the south side of the ChacoWash. Today their traditions are seen among thewestern pueblos of Zuni and Hopi.Gwinn Vivian's interpretation of the data fromChaco Canyon and the San Juan Basin differs fromthat of the Chaco Project in several ways. This is due,in part, to how each model integrates accepted earlierperiods of cultural development into the Chaco andSan Juan database. During the Chaco Project, it wasnot possible to tie data from Archaic sites directly tothe Pueblo adaptation. Instead, the Basketmaker IIIand Pueblo I evidence was considered similar to thatfound throughout the region; and Judge et al. (1981)assumed that this was the baseline from which latersocial developments evolved. As a result, it was lessdifficult to assume that one unified system developeda ranked social structure with a center in ChacoCanyon. In contrast, Vivian (1990) distinguished four

Explaining Pueblo Social Organization 281distinct patterns in the late Archaic and followed thesetrajectories through time.Although Lekson (1984a) and Windes (1987[1])proposed that great houses contained suites of roomsthat were devoted to special functions between A.D.1050 and 1100, Gwinn Vivian (1990) considered greathouses to be mainly habitation units, in which thecooking and heating facilities would have been on theupper stories, much like Historic Pueblo units. Thesegreat house habitation sites were used by a number oflineages belonging to the Chaco-San Juan traditionthat shared leadership roles via dual social divisions.He cited the two wings in Pueblo Bonito as beingrepresentative of housing for two groups, with thecentral section as a place for mediation. Based onstudies of Tewa social organization (Ortiz 1965,1969), a group, or groups, with membership thatcross-cuts the dual organization would be able tomediate affairs, maintain social cohesion, and avoidfission. If this system existed, it would not provide apermanent elite class.The relationships between Chaco Canyon andSan Juan Basin communities are also affected bydifferent premises. Gwinn Vivian (1990) is hesitantto accept ceramic dates as evidence for the initiation ofgreat house construction. Because excavated greathouses in the San Juan Basin have tree-ring constructionin the eleventh century, Vivian viewedChaco Canyon as the central node in a local systemaround A.D. 800 that expanded outward only in theA.D. 1000s. The unusual physiographic location ofChaco Canyon led early on to a higher level of socialcomplexity, with expansion into the surrounding areasonly when out-migration was necessary to cope withchanging rainfall patterns and population growth.This contrasts with the in-migration for exchange orceremonial festivals proposed by Judge (1989) and H.Toll (1985; Toll and McKenna 1997).Another contrast is the projection of twodifferent traditions onto great houses and small housesites; one would expect them to differ in layout andmaterials recovered rather than simply in size. Yetarchitectural studies by Lekson (1984a) and McKennaand Truell (1986) documented similarities in roomsuite patterns prior to about A.D. 1050, whichsuggests differences in scale rather than tradition.Although the quantity of imports from excavated sitesis proportionately larger at great houses, the analysisof ceramic (H. Toll and McKenna 1997) and lithic(Cameron 1997b) artifacts, as well as faunal remains(Akins 1985), indicates that inhabitants of small sitesand great houses all obtained imported goods fromseveral different areas of the San Juan Basin andbeyond through time. The unusual numbers of gravegoods that accompanied the burials in great houses canalso be interpreted as being differences in scale orgreater wealth for some members of a single society,rather than as two different societies who use the sameTI1aterials (Akins 1986). Although Akins's sample ofhuman crania from the small house sites was verylimited, she found a few that could be linked to thosein Pueblo Bonito. It is difficult, therefore, to supportthe division of Gwinn Vivian's Chaco-San Juanpopulation in the great houses with a Cibolan traditionin small sites. The rotating simultaneous hierarchyproposed by Vivian could represent dual responsibilitiesshared by two different genetic groups usingthe same great house. Vivian's reasoning for thebeginnings of dual social organization during theArchaic provides a fruitful approach that needs furtherinvestigation.In summary, the early Pueblo peoples are acknowledgedas master farmers who were able toconstruct great houses, build roads, and importnumerous items from long distances during a period oflong-term favorable climatic conditions between A.D.900 and 1150. Yet, short-term climatic fluctuationsaffected crop production, and may have facilitatedchanges in social organization, especially during themid-twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Although theproposal that Chaco Canyon functioned as a redistributioncenter was not substantiated and a ritual orceremonial center model was proposed (Judge 1989),there is a lack of agreement on the type of socialorganization that existed during the Classic period.Some scholars (Akins 1986; Akins and Schelberg1984; Schelberg 1982a) thought the evidence fromburials and differences in sizes of great housesindicated a ranked or hierarchical society. Sebastian(1988; 1992) provided a model for how leadershipcould arise and how it might have been institutionalized.In contrast, H. Toll (1985, H. Toll andMcKenna 1997) and Gwinn Vivian (1990) favored acommunity-oriented society (see also Wills 2000).

282 Chaco Project SynthesisDiscussionInvestigations by colleagues continue to amassdata from areas outside of Chaco Canyon and to refinemodels, as well as offer new perspectives on Pueblocultural development. NPS archaeologists recognizedthe need to incorporate this new information into asynthesis to bring the Chaco Project into the present.Through a cooperative agreement with the Universityof Colorado at Boulder, Stephen H. Lekson organizeda series of mini-conferences that addressed severalrelevant topics. Participants included NPS personnel,Chaco Project researchers, colleagues who were currentlyinvolved in research, and topical experts; theypresented their viewpoints, discussed the issues, andsynthesized the data and concepts resulting from eachconference. Once the series of conferences ended, acapstone conference provided representatives fromeach mini-conference and additional non-Chacoanscholars with the opportunity to focus on results andinterpretations (Lekson 2005; see also Appendix C).Concurrently, my responsibility was to synthesizethe Chaco Project. Although it would have beenideal for the results ofthe capstone conference and thisvolume to be published as companions, this was not tobe. My goal in the remainder of this chapter is thereforeto acknowledge questions that still remain, bothwith the database and our interpretations or models ofsocial organization. The reader is encouraged to examineAppendix C for citations that provide in-depthdiscussions on specific topics.As Sebastian (2005) concluded, we still do nothave answers to many of our questions. In previouschapters, the lack of clarity about the function ofarchitectural features (e.g., great houses, large trashmiddens) was evident. Our estimates for popUlationsneed refining, as do our estimates for the number ofpeople that could be supported by farming in ChacoCanyon. Currently, Larry Benson (personal communication,2005) is re-evaluating soil productivity andwater quality in the canyon; and the number of peoplethat could be supported turns out to be even fewerthan the approximately 2,000 proposed by Windes(1987a[I]). Thus, any model of Chacoan societybased on currently available estimates is subject tofurther evaluation. We do have more data, moremodels, and more knowledge of where our problemslie (Mills 2002; Sebastian 2005).During the Chaco Project, the concept of Chaco,and things Chacoan, was greatly expanded. We nowask what Chaco represents (see articles in Kantner andKintigh 2005; Kantner and Mahoney 2000). Once werecognized that masonry styles and some architecturalfeatures present in Chaco Canyon were found inconsiderable numbers across a larger landscape, theneed arose for a definition of the territory encompassed.Tainter and Gillio (1980: 102) and GwinnVivian (1990, 1996) were among the first to questionthe extent of things Chacoan. Lekson (1991) includedany settlement with a "big bump" as part of his ChacoWorld; it covered much of the eastern Anasazi region.Doyel and Lekson (1992) described the eleventh- andtwelfth-century Chaco World as extending from MesaVerde to the Puerco-Little Colorado, but did not includethe upper Rio Grande or Kayenta areas. Yet LA835 on the Pojoaque grant in the northern Rio Grandeis a settlement composed of 15 small pueblos withassociated pit structures and a great kiva that span theperiod from the middle A.D. 800s through the earlyA.D. 1100s (Wiseman 1995). It is contemporaneouswith the Bonito phase developments in Chaco Canyonand the San Juan Basin. The presence of Red MesaBlack-on-white pottery suggests communicationbetween the two regions. Because LA 835 lacks agreat house, it is not included among the possible 224sites in the Chaco World database (Kantner2003a:Table 1). Our criteria for what is Chacoanneeds greater consensus (Kantner 2003b)."Communities" were thought to be composed ofa Chacoan structure and surrounding smaller sites (R.Powers et al. 1983). Wilcox (1996) used a 35-km(22-m) radius around community centers to plot greathouse communities across the landscape and suggestwhich ones might be interrelated and/or linked toothers. While some communities were spatially segregated,others were not. The size of a traditionallydefined community in which face-to-face interactioncould take place may not have included sufficientpeople to supply marriage partners (Mahoney 2000b).Further investigation by Gilpin (2003) indicated thatChaco-era community boundaries must at times haveincluded multiple clusters of habitation sites, and thatsome boundaries must have been porous, whichsuggested subregional inter-relationships.Chacoan structures in various physiographicregions were not identical in terms of masonry styles,

Explaining Pueblo Social Organization 283sizes of sites, layout, ceramic wares, or lithic materials,which suggests that the great house communitieswere not part of an interdependent orintegrated network (Kantner 2003b; VanDyke 2003).Mahoney (2000a: 17) proposed that the "ChacoExperience" may be a better description of the participationof the diverse popUlations that may have haddifferent roles for leaders and different motivations forconstructing great houses. She asked why leaderswould join this overarching experience. Did theyrecognize that mutual help could be best obtainedthrough an ideological structure that legitimized theirroles? Were there convergences of rituai traditionsamong multi-ethnic and multi-lingual groups that mayhave used great houses for exclusive ceremonies byspecific lineages, clans, or sodalities, and great kivasas inclusive ritual facilities? Or were local greathouses constructed to emulate Chacoan symbolism, inorder to compete for resources in an increasinglypopulated world? Mahoney (2000a: 17) suggested thatwe evaluate three possible models for leadership:• those using ritual to legitimize coercive powerand/or control over resources,• those who obtain economic privileges because oftheir status, and• those whose power is situational.The power base for Chaco and how it might haveintegrated diverse, and sometimes distant, Puebloareas received attention. When Judge (1979, 1983)suggested that Chaco may have functioned as a ritualor ceremonial center that pilgrims visited on a scheduledbasis, he envisioned resident priests whoprovided ritual service in exchange for economicgoods (see Earle [2001], and Renfrew [2001], formore recent discussion). Recently, Yoffee (2001)defined "rituality" to include political activities carriedout through ritual hierarchies, and applied this conceptto Chaco.. . . we can begin to cull elements of thoseinvestigations that do not assume thatChaco society is 'integrated' in any functional,systematic way. Rather, variousgroups and social identities seem to havecoexisted in Chaco within the context ofthe relations that called them into being.Although these relations are, at least inpart, irreducibly ceremonial, as it seems tomany, my term 'rituality' is not intendedto substitute a mode of cultural integrationin place of what others have seen as apolitical integration. Whatever coherencethe Chaco rituality might have had was theproduct of many local and regional decisions,and such stability as Chaco mayhave achieved covered over the multiplecleavage planes that made Chaco, andindeed much of the prehistoric Southwest,a ciassic example of organizational flexibilityin a harsh and unstable environment.(Yoffee 2001:67)Yoffee saw singularity in Chaco between A.D.900 and 1125 through the cotr.utt1on architecturalfeatures and imports held together through an overarchingceremonial system. He saw plurality throughdifferences in great house plans, communities, and thelinguistic and ethnic variety that must have beenpresent. He proposed that competition existed betweenthose performing ritual and local socialorganizations; some competition may have beenviolent, especially during a period of climatic disaster.He accepted John Ware's (2001; Ware and Blinman2000) admonition that whatever model we derive forChaco must lead into the present Historic Pueblopeople.If Chaco was organized as a rituality, we need todemonstrate how a hierarchy came to exist; the type ofhierarchy that existed; and how the hierarchy wastransformed, both before and after A.D. 1050 and1100. Cameron (1995), LeBlanc (2000), Lekson(1996), Lekson and Cameron (1995), and Stuart(2000) have begun to explore a trajectory for Pueblopeoples that leads from the past to present. Lekson(1999) provided a model for where Pueblo peoplewent after leaving Chaco Canyon; his stance assumeselite political leadership, which is not necessarily thecase .As Schelberg (1992) proposed, some type ofleadership existed by Basketmaker III. Sebastian's(1992) first attempt to evaluate how leadership aroseand was instituted has been followed by Aldenderfer(1993), who examined the role and function of ritualin foraging societies (e. g., those in the process of

284 Chaco Project Synthesissedentization, recently sedentary groups, and complexforager societies that had not yet institutionalized theirhierarchies). Because some form of hierarchy existsin all societies, the problem is determining if, andhow, G. Johnson's (1982) sequential hierarchy mighthave been transformed into a simultaneous hierarchy.Aldenderfer assumed that the function of ritual was asa means of communicating and justifying the acceptanceof existing social forms. An aspiring leaderwith moral authority, who could direct certainactivities that are critical to the survival of a groupthat had to adapt quickly to high-risk circumstances,could expand his control over other aspects of society.Control would be maintained if either environmentalor social circumscription makes it more worthwhile toaccept the hierarchy rather than endanger the good ofthe group, which is necessary for survival. Expansionof the influence of groups over other segments of thesociety would follow a similar pattern. If followersaccept expressions of authority from others that wereassumed to be part of an overall package, controlcould be institutionalized in the position of the ritualleader under favorable circumstances.Although there are several routes to this end,Aldenderefer (1993) thought that prestige is a necessarycomponent. The three ways that ritual leaderscan extend their range of prestige and social power bymanipulating and redefining ritual beliefs are: 1) usingritual to extend and enhance prestige; 2) combiningexisting moral authority (defined by ritual power,prestige, and wealth) into a new social entity; and 3)creating coercive force and protecting it throughchanges in ritual. In small-scale societies, persuasionis the key to cooperation; groups of kinsmen whocooperate effectively may be in a better competitiveposition than others of similar size. "The organizationof large popUlations into lineage or descent groupform appears to be a necessary condition for theeventualization of inequality in egalitarian societies"(Aldenderfer 1993:31). In his model, collapse is alsopossible; it occurs when the directions chosen by theritual leaders escalate and are maladaptive. Althoughthis brief summary does not do justice toAldenderfer's model, it reinforces the need to understandwhen, why, and how a power structure evolveswithin a society. The model allows for segments tocooperate in organizing labor, as well as in acquiringprestige items and surplus production. It integratesenvironmental factors with social variables (e.g.,mobility, ritual, inequality, and hierarchy), and allowsboth the evolution and devolution of ritual orhierarchical power.Aldenderfer's model was applied by Schachner(2001) to the Pueblo I period in the northern San Juanregion, when environmental changes were thought tohave influenced migration of various regional groups.Schachner accepted great kivas as ritual structures; inthe northern region that comprised his database, theywere often constructed away from the habitation sitesbetween A.D. 790 and 840. Between A.D. 840 and860, however, when most residents of the northernSan Juan moved into the Dolores River valley, greatkivas were no longer used; instead, oversized pitstructures with formalized floor features, which includedvaults and floor grooves and had evidence offeasting and ritual paraphernalia, were the integrativefeatures for multiple-family residents living in Ushaped units. The partial enclosure around thesestructures allowed control by particular segments ofthe society who could monitor the movement ofpeople and events. This change was associated withsimultaneous change in land tenure; change in ritualwas both an impetus and justification for such landtenure change. This was a short-term occupation,which may not have been acceptable to all segments ofthe society. After around A.D. 880, there was evidencefor the burning of large pit structures aspopulations abandon~d the Dolores River valley.Those who then settled at Grass Mesa again constructedgreat kivas and smaller pit structures devoidof ritual features, possibly indicative of a return toearlier ritual practicesjust prior to local abandonment.Schachner interpreted his data as evidence for a multitieredsystem in which there was some householdautonomy, as well as participation in large-scalecommunity events. The ritual transformations thatwere controlled by particular segments of the societyexisted for only a brief time. Schachner emphasizedsocial disruption through environmental factors andmigration of populations as forces that would causeritual transformations. He suggested how humanagents take advantage of some changes in the northernSan Juan, and how changes in that area may haverelevance for the Chaco area as populations movedsouth.Schachner's research is one attempt to find correlationsamong mobility, diversity in populations,

Explaining Pueblo Social Organization 285environmental fluctuations, and changes in ritualpractices that co-occur in the northern San Juan area.Schachner (2001) credits colleagues who are beginningto look at discrete features within structures, faunarelated to feasting, and ceremonial use of animals.Recently, others have begun to examine pictographsand petroglyphs to evaluate the role of ritual and eliteleaders within society (Schaafsma 2000). In theremainder of this chapter, I would like to exploresimilar evidence in the Chaco database to suggest atrajectory that leads to the historic practices:Pueblo ceremoniaiism is coordinated interms of a calendrical cycle where thesolstices and equinoxes are the orientingpoints. There is an implicit dualism betweenthe summer agricultural part of thecycle and the winter portion, \I/hen \l/arfareand hunting are stressed [Ortiz 1969: 106).Different portions of the year are emphasizedby different Pueblo groups. Forthe Tewa, the most intensive ritual periodis between the autumnal and vernalequinox, while for the Hopi it is betweenwinter and summer solstices [Ortiz 1969:105]. (Lamphere 1983:755-756)Based on data in Parsons (1936), as well as onthe reconstructions of the priest! y hierarchy describedby Reyman (1987) and Zeilik (1987), there are severalquestions that archaeologists might ask regardingritual practices in Pueblo society. When would weexpect the duality between winter/summer, turquoise/squash, or agriculture/hunting and warfare to begin?When might lineage affiliations be most important?When do we have evidence for clans and/or sodalities?When would cross-cutting sodalities become mostimportant? In a nonliterate society, how might knowledgebe passed on? Would there be a need for an elitestrata at any time, but especially between A.D. 1050and 1100?In the following discussion, I assume thatecological models and correlations with socialresponses provide a starting point for evaluation of aritual model, that some degree of mobility was alwaysan option, and that the Pueblo population includeddiverse groups with numerous ties that were flexiblethrough time. Braun and Plog (1982) and Dean et al.(1985) observed that exchange was most commonwhen interlocal environmental differences weregreatest; it becomes more prevalent when mobility orgroup movement decreases. Dean et al. (1994)specified when spatial variability and other climaticfactors that affected agricultural popUlations occurred,but were only able to correlate general populationtrends. Expected exchange and mobility patterns forthese trends include:• The general population grew steadily betweenA.D. 1 and 1000. Fluctuations between A.D.1000 and 1200 suggest that popUlations mayhave reached carrying capacity-or that mobilitywas an option; e.g., Herr (2001) documentednew settlements above the Mogollon Rim ineast-central Arizona.• Beneficial floodplain conditions existed betweenA.D. 400 and 750. Those depending onhorticulture would benefit. Minimal exchangemay have been sufficient to maintain relationshipswith others in the region.• High temporal variability in precipitation occurredbetween A.D. 750 and 1000. Anaccumulation of food reserves would beexpected.• High spatial variability in precipitation occurredbetween A.D. 1000 and 1150; this would be aperiod when interlocal production and exchangeis expected to be high.In his recent re-examination of climatic data forChaco Canyon and the San Juan Basin, Dean (1999)listed the following ecological hinge points:• change from erosion and low groundwater todeposition and high groundwater at A.D. 925and 1180,• change from deposition and high groundwater toerosion and low groundwater at A.D. 1130 and1250,•change from low to high temporal variability atA.D. 750,• change from high to low temporal variability atA.D. 1000,

286 Chaco Project Synthesis• change from low to increasing spatial variabilityat A.D. 1000, and• change from high to decreasing spatialvariability at A.D. 810 and 1130.In a semiarid environment where horticulture/agriculture is often marginal, there is a need forflexibility in subsistence practices and leadershiporganization to encompass changes in environmentalconditions and habitation location (Schelberg 1982a;stuart 2000; Gwinn Vivian 1990). As Vivian (1990)proposed, the importance of summer/winter, agriculture/hunting-warfare,would have been recognizedby Basketmaker III and probably earlier. Dual socialorganization accommodates the seasonality of agriculture,as well as the skills and physical attributes ofmen and women. Women would have been morelikely to stay closer to home to gather or tend crops,vs. men, who are unencumbered by children and couldhunt or take part in expeditions to obtain non localresources or to trade (Hagstrum 2001; Peregrine2001). A form of duality was probably recognized inmost societies as soon as dependence on cUltigensresults in part-time sedentism (see discussion in Willsand Windes 1989). The size of the community,composed of habitation sites and public architecture,would extend well beyond the local settlement,especially if scheduled activities allowed those fromoutside the immediate area to meet and find matesduring seasonal gatherings. Oral histories wouldretain information about the locations of resourcesaway from agricultural lands and proper behaviorduring interactions with kinsmen and associates indifferent areas where game, minerals, and othernecessary resources are found (Jojola 1987).During the years with beneficial floodplainconditions between A.D. 400 and 750, families wouldestablish ties to productive lands; yet neighbors neednot necessarily be relatives. Gwinn Vivian (1990)suggested that at least four popUlation segments livedin the San Juan Basin during Basketmaker III. Seealso data in Matson and Dohm (1994), Reed (2000),and Wilshusen and Ortman (1999), who indicate thepresence of at least two different groups living side byside in the northern and western Anasazi sites duringBasketmaker II through Pueblo I. The two styles ofpithouses discerned by Truell (1986:218-219) duringthe A.D. 600s suggest that more than one populationsegment was present in Chaco Canyon.With a number of different families/lineages, oreven linguistic segments, present in Chaco Canyon,sodalities and/or moieties would integrate membersand maintain solidarity; these organizations wouldbenefit from neutral public architecture. Early greatkivas would provide public space (Adler 1989; Adlerand Wilshusen 1990; Mahoney 2oo0b; Van Dyke2002), where information could be exchanged anddifferent population segments could perform specificrituals to ensure good crop production and successfulhunts. Recovery of turquoise and shell placed duringconstruction events in the great kiva at 29SJ423 by theA.D. 500s suggests the beginnings of a ritual practicethat continues into the present (Parsons 1936).In summary, the period from approximatelyA.D. 400 to 750 would have provided an improVedclimate for those practicing horticulture in the SanJuan Basin, where diverse and mobile populationsranged across a large area to obtain other resources.During periods of aggregation near farmable lands,integrating mechanisms would be needed to pass oninformation about regional resources, subsistencetechniques, and other groups who share some territorieswhere hunting and resource extraction tookplace. The existence of sodalities and moieties wouldhave enhanced the integration of these diverse andmobile populations that used a central locationintermittently. During some events, exchange ofspecial items would signify solidarity. Althoughfamilies who farmed a small local area probably madetheir own decisions about scheduling, larger groupswould have cooperated for some tasks; e.g., to hunt orprocure other resources at a distance. These groupswould have been led by the most experienced orsuccessful person, but a single leader throughout theyear was not needed. More likely, multiple leaders orspecialists whose knowledge about specific regionsand resources would be called upon as necessary.Overall high temporal variability in precipitationbetween A.D. 750 and 1000 would encourage increasedstorage to ensure sufficient crops duringperiods of poor return, suggesting a need for anincreased labor investment. The Pueblo I shift fromindividual storage cists to connected above-groundstorage rooms associated with pithouses has been welldocumented(Gillespie 1976; Truell 1986:249-250).

Explaining Pueblo Social Organization 287The construction of big-room suites and large kivasthat are the beginning units in great houses during themiddle A.D. 800s is thought to represent constructionthat functioned to increase storage capacity for multifamily,or cooperating, groups. (However, theMcElmo-style construction that begins at the end ofthe A.D. 1000s and is more marked during the earlyA.D. 1100s falls into a different precipitation patternand requires additional explanation.)Within this period, spatial variability in precipitationis low, but there are some fluctuations thatoccur in approximately 50-year segments that wouldpromote both fission and fusion (see correlation chartin Lekson 2005; and at http://www.srifoundation.org/Chaco/Chaco/html).During periods withhigher spatial variability in precipitation, those whoremained in place and continued to use areas withbetter soils and water availability would haveadvantages; establishing the rights of these foundingsegments would become important. Over time, thiswould strengthen the importance of founding familiesand lineages, and, eventually, clans.The first period of increased spatial variabilityof precipitation in Chaco Canyon occurs betweenA.D. 775 and 825. Increased interlocal reliance andexchange are expected, but no one family or leaderwould have a lasting advantage.Between A.D. 825 and 875, a slight decrease inspatial variability would encourage planting in severalzones within the local area and/or the dispersion ofsmall groups into new lands. The construction ofearly components at Pueblo Bonito and two other greathouses in better watered areas of Chaco Canyon(Judge et al. 1981) probably occurred during thewetter interval between A.D. 850 and 864 (WindesandD. Ford 1996:309). Big-room suites, courtkivas,and larger storage capacity suggest suprafamily use bythose possibly living and working at some distancefrom their central place. Based on the analysis of laterrooms at Pueblo Alto (Windes 1987[1]), it is assumedthat some suites were probably for habitation bymembers of the segments who constructed them.Additional space for kinsmen and associates duringfeasts would strengthen ties between those in the greathouse and those living at some distance, even if itwere only at a small site located in Chaco Canyon, theChaco halo, or elsewhere in the San Juan Basin.Increased spatial variability in rainfall betweenA.D. 875 to 900 would again foster increasedinteraction. At both 29SJ1360 (McKenna 1984) and29SJ629 (Windes 1993), there is evidence for use ofkivas by more than one family around this time.Architectural studies by Truell (1986) and Lekson(1984a) suggest continuity in form between small sitesand great houses; great houses probably functioned aspublic space for members in the local community, aswell as for those coming from more distant locationsfor short-term events. The great house settlementswould have the space and the surplus to host largernumbers during scheduled events. The few settlementswith great houses, and their size, during thisperiod suggest that most interaction was still amongfamilies or households. A small number of settlementsthat include later great houses-e.g., the greathouse at Skunk Springs in the Chuska Valley (Windesand D. Ford 1992)-suggest similar responsesthroughout the region. This is also the period whenpeople from the northern San Juan were moving south(Windes 2006a). Communities farther away from thecanyon, especially those situated around the marginsof the San Juan Basin, would take advantage of bettersoils, but rainfall patterns would affect them in thesame way, and cooperation among segments at levelsabove the household would have been advantageous.Previously established relationships would affectwhere different people settled; sodalities and moietieswould become increasingly important to ease thetensions among various groups who were now livingcloser together; e.g., at Pueblo Pintado (Windes1999).Between A.D. 900 or 950 and 1000, channelcuttingin Chaco Canyon (Force et al. 2002) wouldlower water tables; the canyon may not have been asdesirable a place to farm. M. Toll (2000) found aninverse relationship between perennials and comduring the Red Mesa period; com was at its lowestratio in the macrobotanical samples she analyzed. Oneway to alleviate stress is to spread out across the land.Six construction episodes at great houses in the canyonwere carried out during this period, including the firstconstruction stage at Hungo Pavi (Lekson 1984a: 152,Figure 5.1; Windes and D. Ford 1996:Figure 5).Early construction dates (A.D. 9OOs) are assigned togreat houses at Pueblo Pintado, the Chaco Eastcommunity, Padilla Well, Kin Bineola, and Casa delRio (Windes and D. Ford 1992), all located in better

288 Chaco Project Synthesiswatered areas in the Chaco halo (Marshall and Doyel1981:73-75).Were all great house communities integrated intoone system? Because there had been two great kivaseast and west of the central canyon duringBasketmaker III, it is possible that Penasco Blancomay represent an independent node on the west end ofthe canyon. Una Vida and Kin Nahasbas mayrepresent a similar independent community east ofPueblo Bonito. The early large pit structure beneaththe great kiva at Kin Nahasbas probably belongs tothis period, but it is replaced by later great kivas(Mathien and Windes 1988). The proximity of thisgreat house to Una Vida was attributed to the need forvisibility in a communications system that linkeddifferent areas of the canyon. No great kiva has yetbeen identified at Hungo Pavi; this great house mighthave been part of Pueblo Bonito's expansion into anarea that captured water flowing through MockingbirdCanyon.Within the Chaco halo, great kivas are absent insettlements at Padilla Well, South Gap, Fajada Gap,Chaco East, and Pueblo Pintado in the late A.D. 800sor early 900s (Windes et al. 2000:39). This suggeststhat most of these communities were not independent.A great kiva in the Kin Bineola area, 29Mc261 (VanDyke and R. Powers 2006b), may be early; this site isin an area that was previously inhabited and may havebeen independent throughout its history. Which of thecommunities in the Chaco halo were tied to those inChaco Canyon is not known.Assuming that all new settlements in the Chacohalo were not independent, there is some evidence tosuggest that existing social organization underwentmodification during the A.D. 900s, when several newminerals and species of shell appear in Chaco Canyonsites, as well as the first jewelry workshops (Mathien1997; Windes 1993:387). Around A.D. 900 or 950to 1000, Plog (1990, 2003) found that designs onblack-on-white ceramics become more geographicallyrestricted, which is expected if less overall spatialvariability in rainfall decreased the need for regionalinteraction. Some people in Chaco Canyon, however,were becoming tied more closely to other areas; asthey began to exhaust the wood resources in thecanyon (Samuels and Betancourt 1982), they began torely on southern and western associates to providetimber for roof construction (English et al. 2001).The growing numbers of trachyte-tempered ceramicsindicate that the Chuska Mountains provided suchresources. Windes (2004) proposed that migrationsfrom the northern San Juan followed the Chaco Riverthrough the Chuska Valley and into the Chaco halo.Those in Chaco would need to adjust their integrationof different social segments to accommodate thesechanges. As Sebastian (1992) proposed, this might bea time when competition among independent communitiesexisted, but no one was able to establishhegemony. Recognition of the importance of bothhorticulture and hunting through a moiety systemwould continue. The importance of other crosscuttingsodalities would require enhancement whenpeople migrated southward (Ware 2001; Ware andBlinman 2000).In summary, during the period between A.D.750 and 1000, there would have been severalfluctuations in local rainfall episodes. The increasedneed for storage would have increased the need forlabor investments in the production of sufficient crops.All leaders, of both families and larger segments,would have had to manage the distribution of storesduring some periods. If distribution to families(extended families and households) came first, it islikely that remaining lineage members came second,and that nonlineage neighbors might have been left totheir own devices. This would strengthen the importanceof lineage and/or clan affiliation. In addition,in-migration from the northern San Juan in the lateA. D. 800s would have led to the absorption ofadditional people, some probably into existinglocalities, with others becoming established in newlocalities. Those lineage segments on better wateredlands would have had advantages over other segments.But the variability in rainfall, both spatially andtemporally, would not have brought long-term successto all areas. Cooperation among different groupsacross space would have been emphasized. Theappearance of additional shell and turquoise items, andespecially jewelry workshops, suggests that there is anincreased emphasis on non subsistence materials thatmay have been exchanged for food or services, or thatthey may have served as symbols of prestige thatidentified cooperation among larger segments of thesociety. The extensiveness of the Red Mesa Black-onwhiteceramic design in sites across the Pueblo regionat this time suggests ease of communication and

Explaining Pueblo Social Organization 289interaction, even though more geographicallyrestricted black-on-white styles were evolving.The overall return to high spatial variability inrainfall in the San Juan Basin around A.D. 1000would encourage interaction, and also probably somecompetition throughout the San Juan Basin, if, asDean et al. (1985, 1994) suggest, this was a timewhen populations were beginning to reach carryingcapacity in some environments. In Chaco Canyon thisreturn occurred around A.D. 950, with low temporalvariability returning around A.D. 1000. Thus,aithough there was iess variabiiity in the timing ofrainfall through A.D. 1125, there was stillconsiderable spatial difference, which would suggestopportunities for much regional interaction.Because the Chaco halo is not as good foragriculture as the peripheries of the San Juan Basin(Powers et al. 1983), those living in the Chaco halo(Figure 8.6) may have been somewhat circumscribed,and thus have been forced to make local adjustmentsor move much longer distances, which would makemanagement of the ceremonial schedule more difficultor necessitate increased formalization to the successionof leaders performing priestly duties. Within thecanyon, there is evidence for local adjustments. Forceet al. (2002) indicate that slow aggradation of theChaco Wash began around A.D. 1025 to 1090; it wasenhanced by construction of a dam, an act that wouldprovide benefits to all those living in the canyon.Gwinn Vivian (1990) documented that water controlfeatures and gridded gardens existed around this time.Because these gardens extend for many kilometers,especially along the north side of the Chaco Wash, thebenefits would accrue to the managerial organization,which may involve representatives from one or moregreat houses. Both of these changes would haveimproved the horticultural base; yet populationestimates and the analysis of faunal resources suggestthe increased importance of procuring protein throughhunting (Akins 1985). Use of distant hunting groundsor procurement of imported meat through tradingpartners, as well as procurement of timbers for theroofs during great house construction, would placeemphasis on those who managed these segments of thepopulation. Rituals devoted to both sides of thesubsistence duality would increase.That such ritual emphasizing duality may haveincreased is supported by the use of two sections ofPueblo Bonito as repositories for human remainsrepresenting two different genetic lineages. These twosegments may have been the formally acknowledgedorganizers, who coordinated actions of the society,especially during the period from the early A.D.lOOOs through the early A.D. 1100s. Yet Schillaci's(2003) craniometric analyses indicate that there werefour genetic lineages in Chaco Canyon. There is datato suggest the presence of a third group in the easternsection of Pueblo Bonito that may have unsuccessfullychallenged the other two on more than one occasion.In the eastern section, Pepper (1920:267) recovered 10burials (nos. 6850 to 6860) from Room 80 that Turnerand Turner (1999: 112) reported were discarded.Pepper indicated that these burials were scattered inthe debris of the room and probably fell from an upperstory. If so, they deviate from the practice of placingburials in lower story rooms. The bones had evidenceof burning. Artifacts recovered from floor fillincluded a unique painted stone mortar, a number ofstone implements, bone artifacts and animal fragmentsthat included a deer antler and a porcupine jaw.If these two stories were used by the same lineage,then these artifacts contrast with those found in thetwo well-documented burial repositories, and suggestthe third group, which was not successful in itscompetition for leadership.Competition by inhabitants of the eastern sectionis supported through architectural changes. The earlyrooms in the eastern section of Pueblo Bonito weredestroyed by later remodeling (stage IV, A.D. 1060 to1075). The foundations for a large eastern extensionthat deviated from the more symmetrical and consistentlayout of the previous building were put inplace during construction of stage V (A.D. 1070 to1075; Lekson 1984a:Figure 4.20d). The rooms werenever completed, and by stage VI (A.D. 1075 to1085; Lekson 1984a:Figure 4.20f), the symmetricalshape of the pueblo was restored. Additionally, courtkivas are placed inside structures rather than in frontof rooms after A.D. 1050, which indicates that suprafamilyorganizations may have needed more privacy orprotection. This may correlate with the closing ofexterior doorways (Lekson 1984a) and suggest morecompetition among those groups utilizing the greathouses.

290 Chaco Project SynthesisEven earlier evidence of conflict is provided bythe head wounds recorded by Akins (1986) on theburials beneath the floor in Room 33 in PuebloBonito. Who was responsible for the wounds is notknown. With numerous lineages living in the area forseveral hundred years, it is not unlikely that clanswere becoming more important as kinship distancefrom original settlers grew. As division into greaternumbers of layered segments occurred, competitionamong various medicine or clan leaders is likely.Whatever the differences, they were resolved,possibly through fission, which might explain whysome segments of the popUlation may have migratedto the north to settle along the San Juan River in theA.D. 1080s-possibly during the drought period.Based on Pueblo religious practices (Parsons 1936,Reyman 1987; Zeilik 1987), if the fissioning segmentof the popUlation in Pueblo Bonito left with a fullcomplement of medicine priests to settle in an area thathad once been an ancestral home, the similarities inthe layout and size of the Salmon and Aztec greathouses might result. If the migrants maintained tieswith suppliers of ceramics, lithics, or other materialsthat signify the integration with some segments inChaco Canyon, similar artifact types would beexpected in their sections of northern great houses.If a third (or even more) competing segment(s)existed during the mid- to late A.D. 1000s, then theformalization of dual social organization throughmoieties may have occurred during this period in thecanyon. Certainly the droughts of the 1080s and1090s would reinforce the need for ritual leaders whocould deal with agriculture, as well as with hunting,trade, and warfare. Perhaps we see a combination ofsegments into a higher level of segmental organization.Great houses in "downtown" Chaco mightrepresent the highest level of segmental grouping; ifso, duality within these buildings would be expected.Also, there would be differences among architecturalfeatures if different segments at this level interactedwith different segments or groups throughout theregion or beyond. Those in the highest segmentsobtain unusual items such as macaws and copper beIlsthat signify links with leaders in similar roles.If a founding group used turquoise for offerings,this might account for the increased use of turquoiseand shell items as offerings (Mathien 1997). Therewould be increased focus on community rituals andthe appearance of part-time specialization to supportthese activities, at least in the central canyon, andpossibly in other areas where segments of these groupshad settled (possibly at the Andrews or San Mateocommunities).Turquoise is not the only important blue-greenmineral that is recovered archaeologicaIly. In herrecent preliminary study of azurite and malachite,Lewis (2002) proposed that by the Bonito period,numerous people gathered these minerals and preparedthem for use, but that only religious leaders used thepigments for painting or in ceremonies held in greathouses. Painted wood containing blue-green colorshas been recovered from Chetro Ket!, Pueblo Bonito,Bc 50, Kin Kletso, and Una Vida (Brand et al. 1937;Judd 1954; Pepper 1920; Gwinn Vivian et al. 1978).The only other occurrence of painted wood that Lewis(2002: 105) documented was from Aztec ruin (Morris1928). All these sites are assigned to the Classic orLate Bonito phases, when the dominant wares includeGallup Black-on-white and Chaco Black-on-white,with the Dogoszhi style as the dominant decorativetreatment. If, as Sebastian (1992) proposed, leaderswere able to weather the environmental problems,acknowledgment of their successful mediation withhigher powers was probably reinforced. Similarproblems would exist within other subregions, buttheir better soils and less constricted space may havelessened the pressures on their leaders.Outside the Chaco halo, additional areas mayhave been more attractive due to lower temporalvariability or overall increased precipitation, andfission was a likely solution to competition. Thatthere was a rise in construction of great houses duringthe A.D. 1000s is not unexpected. By establishing userights in different areas, segments would be able tospread the risk of crop failure. There would be a needto accommodate newly independent communities tomanage interaction and dampen competition (thefounding-father concept). Based on historic models ofreligious leadership (Reyman 1987; Zeilik 1987), wemight assume that not all new communities had thefull complement of medicine priests essential toestablish independence; such areas would have beenceremonially tied to a sun-watcher at home, e.g., inthe canyon or one of the other early great housecommunities. The lack of great kivas outside Chaco

------------Explaining Pueblo Social Organization 291Canyon in communities within the Chaco halo duringthis period suggests that fission may have occurred.People who moved out of Chaco Canyon or anyof the communities in the San Juan Basin wereprobably not members of founding lineages. Whenthey moved into a different area, they may havebrought only some of their priests and ritual practices.Based on ethnohistoric records, new groups couldhave been welcomed in an established community ifthey provided a service; e.g., the acceptance of Tewaat Hopi (Dozier 1954). Such change could also occurin the canyon. Depending on how extensive anetwork of trading partners existed during this period,one might also expect that an increased number of newitems could be made available when leaders visiteddistant areas; thus, the introduction of copper bellsand tuaca\vs, or the filed tooth of one rnan. in PuebloBonito, might signify such visiting by a few leaders.Competition among lineages to bring materials back totheir clans in the canyon may have fostered some ofthe massive building episodes recorded by Lekson.Evidence for an overarching organizationthroughout the Pueblo World is found in the rapidchange to the use of overall indented corrugated andthe Gallup-Dogoszhi style around A.D. 1030 or 1040.The latter design does not displace, but rather cooccurswith, more constricted design traditions (Plog1990, 2003). If the Dogoszhi style in ceramicsbecame an icon to the larger population and wasrepresentative of blue-green as Plog (2003) proposes,this may be representative of a unifying set ofpractices that were adopted regionwide. In addition toPlog's (2003) suggestion that this Dogoszhi style maybe representative of blue-green, Neitzel and Bishop(1990) thought it was indicative of Chacoan economic,political, and ceremonial power. The Dogoszhi designappears on a number of cylinder jars, found mainly inthe central area of Pueblo Bonito, which H. Toll(1990) suggested may represent storage for use onspecial occasions by participants in scheduled events.Crown and Wills (2003) reported that a few cylinderjars from Room 28 were repainted with these designs,which suggests changes that reflect the increasedimportance of a concept associated with these vessels.These data support expansion of the social organizationat this time-Judge's (1989) period ofexpansion. Sebastian's (1992) model explains howthe leading lineages may have institutionalized theirroles. Based on Reyman's (1987) and Zeilik's (1987)analyses of Pueblo hierarchy, the sun-watcher fromthe founding lineage may have regulated theceremonial calendar, assisted by other medicine chiefs.Were the leaders institutionalized? If one assumesthat different lineages are represented bydifferent symbols, there is evidence to support thepresence of multiple groups whose relationshipschanged through time. One line of evidence isrepresented by animal remains that mark closingceremonies. Voll (1978: 137) recorded the placementof the articulated front legs and skulls of four deer onan intentional sand-fill layer in the lower story ofRoom 92 at Chetro Ketl, which had type I masonrywalls (Figure 5.18). Akins (1985:353) and Truell(1986:225-227, Table 2.25) documented the placementof dog/coyote and turkey remains in differentkivas and pit structures-a pattern that Truell (1986)indicates is found in southwestern Colorado. Akins(1985:356) noted a difference in percentages of dogremains in Basketmaker III/Pueblo I sites, which mayindicate different attitudes toward these animals ortheir use by different lineages. When the total numberof remains from all proveniences were reviewed, dogsare present in greatest numbers during Pueblo II, whennumerous burials were recorded, but their presencedecreased thereafter.Other species are predominant among offeringsrecovered from great kivas. Bear claws, dogs, andmountain lion remains were among the itemsrecovered with turquoise and shell offerings in Kiva Qat Pueblo Bonito (Judd 1954:323-325). Early bearelements were recovered among Basketmaker IIImaterials from Shabik'eshchee Village and 29SJ423.Most bear elements, with the exception of thoserecovered from Pueblo Alto and Bc 51, are found insites with great kivas; to date most are from sites in"downtown" Chaco. A combination of bear claws andmountain lion claws has been retrieved from greatkivas at Pueblo Bonito (Judd 1954:323-324) and KinNahasbas (Akins and Bertram 1988:286). Akins(1985:356; Akins and Bertram 1988:288) consideredthe possibility that bear, wolf, and mountain lion wereused for ceremonial purposes. Judd (1954:324) indicatedthat bears are associated with war by HistoricPueblo Indians, and with the west, where the deaddwell. Bears are considered humans in animal form,so there is a taboo against killing them for food (Judd

292 Chaco Project Synthesis1954:65). Parsons (1936) connected bears with curingsocieties, and Stevenson (1904) illustrates bear pawson altars of the sword swallower and little fire fraternitiesat Zuni. Possibly three former lineage markersare represented here to mark the earliest lineages thatcooperatively used Kiva Q and eventually migrated toother areas.Because the greatest number of wealth itemshave been recovered from Pueblo Bonito, "the BonitoFactor" (H. Toll 1991), it is considered the centralplace within Chaco Canyon. Although Akins (1986)attributed the differences among grave goods andstature to different levels of an elite hierarchy, it ispossible that they represent offerings with leaders ofdifferent lineages who provided different, but equallynecessary, ceremonial practices to the community orwhose segments operated or contributed to differentaspects of the society. Contrast the higher quantitiesof shell and turquoise found with the two malesbeneath the floor of Room 33 with the 28 projectilepoints associated with the male in Room 330--thelatter a room that also had a few bear claws. Theseburials might represent leaders of lineages whose kinwere also buried in these repositories over time.Gwinn Vivian's (1990) suggestion that a commitmentto certain farming techniques that includedwater control systems allowed less leeway in subsistencepractices in Chaco Canyon may be one reasonwhy recognized membership in a lineage or clanbecame increasingly important. By the late A.D.1000s or early A.D. 1100s, it is possible that somegroups were adopting symbols to mark clan propertyand facilities where knowledge was passed on toyounger members.Clans, sodalities, and moieties may have neededa full-time presence in public structures by aroundA.D. 1100. At Pueblo Alto, Windes (1987a[II])identified a possible clan room (Room 143/236) justnorth of Kiva 10. Judd (1954, 1964) identifiedseveral ceremonial rooms at Pueblo Bonito. Pepper(1909, 1920) recovered a number of objects that aresimilar to those used by members of the historicmacaw totem at Zuni from Room 38 of Pueblo Bonito.Similarly, he recognized the effigy vessels in thisroom and adjacent Room 46 as being similar to twoHopi katsinas. Flagelots (flutes) from Room 33 aresimilar to those used by Hopi flute priests.That different clans and/or sodalities markedtheir space with wall decorations at this time is alsopossible. Truell (1986:186-189), and later Mathien(2003b), reviewed examples of wall decorations fromlarge and small sites. The sample is small andincludes incised figures, painted dados, and carvedfigures, in both rooms and kivas. The earliestexamples of such decoration appears in the FourComers region (including Chaco Canyon) during LatePueblo II, and the practice moved east and southduring Pueblo III. It reached its greatest extent duringPueblo IV, when military or competitive scenes appear(Brody 1991; Crotty 1995; Smith 1952). Throughoutall periods, the designs exhibit considerable variabilityin style, technique, and subject matter-such, in fact,that Crotty (1995:374) concluded that the Pueblo IVwall murals indicate a "mix of people with variedcultural traditions" and that the presence of thesemurals seems to have occurred and "flourished wherewidespread contacts were maintained." A similardiversity in Chacoan wall decorations supports thepresence of various traditions in Chaco Canyon(Mathien 2003b).Other recent studies suggest that activities ingreat houses were probably varied, and may havechanged to support different needs during severalconstruction periods or to meet the differentrequirements of various lineages, clans, sodalities, ormoieties using their allotted space. Recent studiesusing spatial syntax analyses by Bustard (1996) andCooper (1995) confirm differential traffic patternsamong room blocks at great houses, and between greathouse and small house sites, during the Early, Classic,and Late Bonito phases. Both investigators remarkthat although there is apparent symmetry in unitsconstructed at approximately the same time at PuebloBonito and Kin Kletso, they were not organized in thesame manner (compare Figure 9.1 with Figure 9.2).Although great houses were planned facilities, theroom blocks were not standard in size, form, or spatialorganization. Initially some domestic units werepresent, but looping interconnections among unitssuch as the central section of Pueblo Bonito (IB)suggest an interconnectedness that is not presentearlier. Classic and Late Bonito great house roomblocks were probably not intended for residential use;they were inconvenient for storage and would notsupport a redistribution model. They may representmultipurpose sections, with a variety of ritual

Explaining Pueblo Social Organization 293practices among their functions (Bustard 1996), orthey may be monuments to an elite (Cooper 1995).Cooper (1995) indicated that the overall pattern atSalmon and Aztec West was similar to the patterns atgreat houses in Chaco Canyon, but that the individualunits exhibited considerable variability and were notidentical to those in the canyon.Bustard (1996:252-257) documented diversity insmall sites, where she identified three growth patternsfor small house sites between A.D. 1000 and 1150:an agglomerative pattern of irregular rooms that werecharacterized by complex access rings; a modularpattern with similar, redundant units that had noaccess rings but did have one mealing unit that wouldunite the disparate units; and a single unit or roomblock that was similar to those in great houses. Thelast had wall foundations a!ld exhibited planning; theywere probably constructed for one group, but they hadno access rings. Thus, the diversity seen in greathouses is present at small sites, but the popUlationswithin them are integrated through different mechanisms.At some small sites, the mealing roomintegrates segregated storage areas with the plaza orpublic space; at great houses, the domestic roomsintegrate the public space in the plazas and thefeatureless rooms in the back. For great houses, theroom block modules were larger and doorwaysconnected newer construction with older units. Initialgreat houses were not simply small-site domestic unitswritten larger.If leading lineages maintained their power onlyas long as they remained in the villages they founded,it is likely that the evidence that has been interpretedas elite ranking in Pueblo Bonito fits well within theframework of historic Pueblo organization. In herreview, Lamphere (1983) considered the ceremoniesof contemporary Pueblo people to be shamanistic inworld view, b,ut with priests of powerful societiesrather than shamans as the real guardians of theceremonies. Although the agricultural cycle is thecentral focus of the ritual activity, hunting and curingrituals are equally important.Clues to the extent of power present in ChacoCanyon can be found in more detailed evaluations ofpictographs and petroglyphs as symbols that indicatethe degree of institutionalization of social position(Schaafsma 2000). In her study, Schaafsma comparedthe imagery in and around Chaco Canyon, and CasasGrandes in Mexico, in an attempt to determinewhether icons of political power are present.Although she recognized that this initial study is notdefinitive, evidence from Chaco does not support thepresence of an elite power structure within the canyonor its role as a central place within the San Juan Basin.Instead, Schaafsma suggested that Chaco shared acommon ideological and cosmological system withothers in the larger region. In contrast, the evidencefrom Casas Grandes supports a centralized sociopoliticalorganization. Based on this evidence, muchmore study is needed before we can understand thelevels of priestly power achieved by the Chacoans, butthe various lines of evidence suggest more competitionamong various leaders sharing a pan-Puebloideological system than an elite hierarchy, as R. Toll(1985) deduced. (See Feimnan [2000] and Feinman etal. [2000] for further discussion of differences inorganizational strategies of the Pueblo people.)The wetter period from A.D. 1100 to 1130would have lessened the need for cooperation ordependence of families and lineage segments on oneanother. Data from the canyon indicate a heavierdependence on com agriculture (M. Toll 1985, 2000).Yet the continued high spatial distribution of precipitationwould have maintained the need for tradeand interaction among the different areas. TheMcElmo structures with one small round roomsurrounded by many square rooms probably representlarge storage facilities that freed the earlier greathouses for other functions. The small kivas thatappear in Late Bonito phase great houses suggest thatearlier suprafamily organizations were not present, butrather that smaller segments needed permanent representativesin public structures at all times, or that therewas a change in function for the great houses. Thediversity in McElmo ceramic manufacturing locationsdocumented for Chaco CR. Toll and McKenna 1997)and lithics brought into the canyon (Cameron 1997b)support continued interaction. The decreased use ofGallup/Chaco pottery, however, suggests that Chacoanorganization changed, possibly as a result of fission,suggested by establishment of new communities (e.g.,Bis sa'ani), and the presence of two organizationcenters-one in Chaco and one in the north. If thefounders of northern great houses were not of thesame lineage group as those in Chaco Canyon, thematerial correlates would change, but there would not

294 Chaco Project Synthesisp337123 120 23Figure 9.1.Access graphs for Pueblo Bonito during stages IlIA (first and second floors) and VIA (firstfloor). (Taken from Bustard 1996:Figure 6-2.)

Explaining Pueblo Social Organization 2952So43Z124C522S2633 K0.2580 338::::: -:::.:..:;. ...4» = Building EntryB = Second FloorR = Pit Structure Rooftop= Assumed AccessFigure 9.2. Access graphs for Kin Kletso, stages IA and lB. (Taken from Bustard 1996:Figure 6-6.)

296 Chaco Project Synthesisnecessarily be a change in the underlying conceptsregarding social organization that were in place atthese population centers. If cooperating segmentsmaintained decisionmaking power, and the ability tofission alleviated the need for the highest level ofcooperating segments, then a return to earlier patternsis likely.Assuming that mobility was always an option ifone cared to move far enough, Schillaci's (2003)craniometric analysis suggests that the Chaco populationconsisted of at least four distinct groups, someof whom had ancestors from the north and whoeventually migrated to either the Hopi-Zuni or RioGrande areas. His results suggest movements of longdistances over time from southwestern Utah to ChacoCanyon (Pueblo Bonito western group) to later ancestralTiwa sites in the Taos area. The Durango areaof southwestern Colorado may have been ancestral tothose buried in the northern rooms at Pueblo Bonito,and their descendants may have moved toward theZuni area. The more homogeneous position of Aztecin Schillaci's study suggests a mixed group that drewfrom many lineages. The "Pax Chaco" (LeBlanc1999, 2000; Stuart 2000) that provided safe interactionand assistance across the region may representthe height of an integrating mechanism that developedearly among the northern groups and resulted in thedual social organization pattern that continues today.The droughts from A.D. 1130 to 1180 correlatewith decreased use of the canyon. Whether a remnantpopulation remained in the canyon or whether theMesa Verde occupation represents people moving backinto the area is yet to be determined, but McKenna's(1991) suggestion that Mesa Verde pottery is theculmination of a black-on-white tradition deservesadditional consideration. Droughts in the late A.D.1200s have been considered the cause for abandonmentof the area. There is a lack of Pueblo use ofthe central San Juan Basin and the Four Corners areaduring and after a second major drought at approximatelyA.D. 1275; Dean et al. (1994) indicate that aperiod of degradation with low water tables and hightemporal variability in moisture ensued until aboutA.D. 1500. These conditions would not make thecentral San Juan Basin an attractive area for agriculturalists.If violence and warfare among competinggroups (LeBlanc 1999, 2000), or even cannibalism(Bustard 2000; Turner and Turner 1999), occurred asthe result of insufficient food during droughts orperiods of poor crop returns, there may have been asocial taboo against moving back into the ancestralarea. Fowler et al. (1987), Lekson and Cameron(1995), Roney (1995, 1996), and Stuart (2000)document how different groups dispersed intoperipheral areas, most in the highlands. Hill et al.(2004), and Wilcox (Wilcox et al. 2003, 2004, 2005)model the dispersion of sites with 50 or more roomsfrom A.D. 1200 to 1600. As people moved apart,they lost the long-term settlement and leadershipwithin a central area. Without the large settlementswith numerous priestly leaders, some other integratingsocial mechanisms may have been emphasized.Katsinas add a new integrative feature to thesocial structure. The origin of katsinas is stilldebated. E. C. Adams (1991) proposed they began inthe Little Colorado area. Schaafsma and Schaafsma(1974) thought they originated in Mogollon territory.Crotty (1995) sided with Adams, and Lekson andCameron (1995) suggested they may have been presentin Chaco. Katsinas are well defined by A.D. 1250,when people are moving out of the F our Corners area.The question should be: What role do they fill?Historically, they assist in teaching the generalpopulation how to behave while they added a newintegrative feature to the social structure.If dual social organization began duringBasketmaker II in the northern San Juan and had along history of integrating different genetic andpossibly ethnolinguistic groups, then an emphasis ondifferent aspects of long-established traditions atdifferent times is not unexpected, given the hundredsof years that have elapsed since the dispersal of thesegroups from the Four Corners area through ChacoCanyon and into the distinct territories we recognizetoday for the Hopi, Zuni, Acoma-Laguna, and RioGrande settlements. With more distance separatingthe settlements and possibly less frequent interaction,the variations seen among historic Pueblo groupswould not be unexpected. Although some means ofmaintaining social intercourse would be necessary,their different trajectories, especially after eastern andwestern tribes interacted with Europeans, wouldprovide different historical patterns.When we admit the presence of at least two, butprobably more, distinct populations living in Chaco

Explaining Pueblo Social Organization 297Canyon early and recognize that mobility was anoption that could be employed at different times anddifferent places, we can begin to evaluate the diversityin material culture from a new perspective. Becausea dependence on hunting and collecting was probablyalways present, Gwinn Vivian's (1989, 1990) proposalof dual sequential hierarchy may weB have operatedearly, but it might not have been formalized until themid-eleventh century. Determining the individualtrajectories of different groups and modeling the socialorganization pose a challenge and provide many opportunitiesto study the Pueblo World. I hope that thenext generation makes as many inroads into understandingthis durable yet flexible history of the earlyPueblo peoples as the Chaco Project scholars did.

Chapter TenHistoric Period StudiesExcavations of the past season have uncovered typically Nava..1to cists, such as are today used by thispeople in parching com, and they appear at levels in the Chettro-Ketl ruins which certainly antedateconsiderably the entrance of the first Spaniards into New Mexico. (Bloom 1921:31)Photographs of four excavated masonry hogans built in the prehistoric pueblo of Una Vida were included.These were circular, single houses similar to Malcolm's (1939: 10) type 1. Similar masonry hogans atPueblo Bonito and Chetro Ketl were reported by Ellis (personal communication). (Gwinn Vivian 1960:29)Prior to the Chaco Project, the historic use ofChaco Canyon had received much less attention thanthat of the Pueblo occupation. However, during eachof the major research projects carried out in ChacoCanyon, some individuals studied the Navajo wholived in the area and were among the workers whoexcavated Chacoan sites (Figure 10.1). Judd (1954)recorded historic use by later cattlemen.The Navajo moved into the San Juan Basin afterthe Pueblo peoples left their homes (Gwinn Vivian1960); yet some stories suggest that both peoplesshared some space. The Gambler's Story, recorded byJackson (1878) and told by his Jemez Pueblo guide,Hosta, included an account of interactions betweenPueblo people and a man from the south. Because thestory was elicited after a visit to Pueblo Alto, at whichtime Hosta had not offered a name for the site,Jackson (1878:447) was unsure as to whether the storymight have been recited to cover for a lack of knowledgeabout Pueblo Alto. Another version recorded byMatthews (1889) did not identify the Gambler'shouse, but it did suggest interaction between Navajoand Pueblo people. (See also Chapin 1940.) Judd(1954:343-354) reported on discussions with OldWello, Joe Hosteen Yazi, Tomascito, Hosteen Beyal,and Padilla. Two of their stories included the Gambler'smyth-one told by Hosteen Beyal, the other byPadilla. Judd concluded: "From these several versionsof the Noquollpi tale, it is obvious that a gooddeal of the narrator goes into each rendering. And itseems equally certain, after listening to variousreminiscences of boyhood days in Chaco Canyon, thatthe average Navaho memory is no more reliable thanmemories elsewhere" (Judd 1954:354). Begay's(2004) recent discussion enhances our understandingof the role of this story in Navajo oral history. Hisaccount of Navajo stories indicates how some Navajoclans are related to Pueblo ancestors; it also points tothe importance of several sites in the Chaco area toancestral clans that recognize Pueblo intermarriage.One of the goals of the Historic period studies was torefine the chronometric data that suggest when theNavajo entered the canyon.Research into Navajo lifeways began early.During the Hyde Exploring Expedition, severalobservations of Navajo life were recorded by Pepper(1900, 1902a, 1902b, 1903, 1905a) and Tozzer (1902,1908, 1909). AleS Hrdlicka studied Navajo physiologyas part of a broader study of North Americanpopulations in the Southwest (Hrdlicka 1908:8).Additional glimpses into Navajo life and interactionduring this period are reported by McNitt (1957,revised 1966).Both Pepper (1920) and Judd (1954, 1964)recorded information from local Navajo on previousand contemporary use of the canyon. Judd (1954:53-58, Figures 4-6) documented garden plots and water

Figure 10.1.Richard Wetherill and Navajo in camp behind the north wall of Pueblo Bonito in 1896 or 1897. (Courtesy ofthe American Museum of Natural History; Chaco Culture NHP Museum Archive, no. 52561.)

Historic Period Studies 301control systems used by Rafael, Dan Cly, and TomChischilly-begay; he mapped their fields in relation toa drainage from which each captured water. Lowearth ridges, check dams, and natural features guidedstorm waters from higher areas into the garden plots.Additionally, abandoned hogan sites and formergarden plots gave testimony that there had previouslybeen more Navajo families living in the area (Judd1954:53).Judd (1954:343) reported on other historic useofthe canyon by two cattle companies-the CarlisleCattle Company, and the LC. Their use areas werebetween Hosta Butte and the San Juan River in 1879.Before 1895, the stone buildings that were part of theLC Chaco headquarters near Penasco Blanco werebeing used by Old WeIIo, and details about these twocompanies had faded from memory. Judd (1954:58and Plate 1) also indicated that the reservoir locatedjust southeast of Pueblo Bonito and the canal dug onthe north side of the Chaco Wash by Wetherill in 1902were part of the requirements for the Wetherillhomestead.During the SARIUNM/MNM research in ChacoCanyon, Bloom (1921) summarized historicaldocuments on Chaco Canyon; Brand (1937a) added tothis preliminary work. Hewett (1922: 119) noted that"there were numerous cysts, vaults and pits for whichwe have little precedent" as one of seven "surprises"he encountered during the 1921 field season, yet hesaid nothing about Navajo use of Chetro Ketl. Inaddition to archaeological investigations, the SARIUNM field schools studied language, culture, andarchitecture. In 1929, several students assisted JohnHarrington in a study of the Zuni language; JanetTietjens (1929) collected place names that includedSpanish, Navajo, and Zuni derivations for the largerpueblos and some of the more prominent landmarks inthe area. From 1933 through 1942, several fieldschoolprofessors (Clyde Kluckhohn, Malcolm Bissell,and Leland Wyman) lectured on Navajo culture ordirected research by field-school students on specifictopics (Brugge 1980). Archaeological studies ofNavajo hogans in the area were carried out byMalcolm (1939), Corbett (1940), and Farmer (1942).Several types of construction were recorded (e.g.,forked-stick, cribbed-log, circular-stone-wall), as wellas camps, fortified sites, ramadas, sweat houses, leantos,caches, burials, dance grounds, ovens, trashdumps, and petroglyphs. Unfortunately, none of theseresearchers combined the archaeological and historicalrecords in a comprehensive review.Prior to 1969, the most extensive, but unpublished,study that combines historical accounts andarchaeological data is that of Gwinn Vivian (1960).He conducted archaeological survey and excavationsto expand knowledge of Navajo sites in the area.Vivian obtained tree-ring samples that provided 25dendrochronological dates from five sites (Vivian1960:154). He compared his historical data forNavajo, Pueblo, and Spanish with archaeological data.He concluded that although historical documents indicatebrief encounters between Spanish and nomadicpeoples in New Mexico, some of whom could beNavajo, between 1582 and 1609, there was no positiveproof of their presence in the archaeological record.Between 1609 and 1680, however, documents indicateNavajo raids on Pueblo settlements and reprisalsresulting from these actions. There was some indicationof agricultural practices. From 1680 to 1704, theperiod of the Pueblo Revolt and reconquest, a numberof people from Jemez and Keres pueblos sought refugewith the Navajo, while inhabitants of Cochiti Puebloactually received com from the Navajo during times ofcrisis. Thus, during the seventeenth century, it waslikely that the Navajo were well settled into the SanJuan River drainages. Several districts were probablyunited under local leaders, but there was no unificationinto a larger entity. The Gobemador area, whichis known as a "Refugee" area, lacks archaeologicalevidence of Pueblo people until about 1700. A fewsites contain Navajo Dinetah utility ware. In theChacra and Big Bead Mesa areas, there are nodefensive sites or defensive architecture.From 1705 through 1716, Navajo raids on theRio Grande increased; Ute and Comanche attacked theNavajo; and Spanish troops began to penetrate Navajocountry, where they decimated crops and capturedpeople in retribution. Peaceful coexistence betweenSpanish and Navajo existed between 1717 and 1750.There is documentation of Navajo moving into theCebolleta area, only seven leagues from LagunaPueblo. A number of Navajo became Christians as aresult of missionary efforts in the area between SantaAna and Santa Clara pueblos. By 1750, a number ofmissions had been established; those at Cebolletafailed. Spanish homesteaders also entered the area and

302 Chaco Project Synthesisestablished themselves along the Rio Puerco of theeast. Competition for land then became a problem.This more intensive interaction between Navajo andPueblo peoples is reflected in the archaeologicalrecord. In the Gobemador area, masonry buildingsand tower-like structures, as well as pueblitos, arefound. There is evidence of settlement on ChacraMesa and Big Bead Mesa; on the former are siteshaving an emphasis on defense. Spanish trade itemsare rare in the Gobemador area and absent farthersouth. Gwinn Vivian saw the process of change in thedevelopment of masonry architecture and the ceramicmaterials. Based on faunal remains from ChacraMesa, he suggested that livestock were present butwere probably used for food rather than for wool andother products.After 1750, and until 1800, documentary evidenceindicates that, except in the Cebolleta area,where Spanish settlers obtained land grants andencroached upon the Navajo, there was less contactbetween Navajo and Pueblo peoples. At this time; theNavajo moved from their homeland in the north tosettlements farther south and west. Many moreNavajo sites are assigned to this period, both onChacra Mesa and Big Bead Mesa. In the newsettlements, there is evidence for a decline in Pueblostylearchitecture, but also some evidence of contactand trade. Very few Navajo sites are found in theGobernador area.Based on these observations, Gwinn Vivian concludedthat there is good correlation between thearchaeological and historical records. The formercould explain certain changes in the latter. When heexamined architecture and ceramics to test the ideathat Navajo culture remained stable through time, heconcluded that the Pueblo traits found in the Gobernadorarea were considerably reduced from what theywere in their homeland. Traits that evolved in theGobernador area were reduced and simplified in theChacra Mesa archaeological database. The Pueblopeople who moved into Navajo territory during the1600s were easily absorbed, but their traits andtraditions were not as easily integrated into the Navajoculture. When defense against the Ute became a majorproblem for the Navajo, there was a change in structuresfrom forked-stick to masonry hogans, a movesouth and west into new territory, and the appearanceof Pueblo trade pottery on Navajo sites on Chacra andBig Bead mesas. Sites in the south were less defensivein nature than those in the north, indicating a shiftback to more traditional Navajo ways when the enemywas not close by.In summary, knowledge about the Navajopeoples in Chaco Canyon was still limited in 1969.Although there were a number of ethnological studiescarried out during the SARIUNM field schools, mostof the data were incorporated into larger studies ofNavajo culture. The stories of the Gambler werevaried, and some investigators wondered how much toattribute to the individual storyteller. Documentationof the prior history of the Navajo in the Chaco areahad begun. A comprehensive survey of Navajo siteswithin the then-monument had not been undertaken,and the few reports that had been published werelimited in scope. It was not until Gwinn Vivian conductedthe survey on Chacra Mesa, and was able toassign dates to a number of structures and relate eventsto the historical documents, that we had a basicunderstanding of early Navajo use of the area.Vivian's research was limited to the period from 1600to 1800 and had not been published, although a summaryof this work appeared in Bannister (1965:116-202). He was, however, the first in Chaco to addresscausal factors for changes in the archaeological recordbased on historic documentation. His studies providedbasic information on historic adaptation in the Chacoarea prior to Chaco Project research.The key issues in 1969, therefore, included acomplete survey of all historic sites in the canyon;ascertaining more exact dates for when Navajo movedinto the area; enhancing Navajo history of use in thearea; and explicating relationships between Navajo andother culture groups. The Chaco Prospectus (NPS1969: 15-17) suggested survey, excavation, and examinationof documentary evidence within an ecologicalframework for three periods of use: Refugee, Navajo,and Recent Historic. These studies would easily becombined.After a discussion of major data-recoveryprojects carried out by the Chaco Project, and severalcontemporaneous studies in the area outside of parkboundaries, this chapter will conclude with anevaluation of what has been learned, and suggestionsfor future research.

Historic Period Studies 303Chaco Project ResultsChaco Project studies that encompassed the Historicperiod consisted of surveys, excavation, andethnohistoric research. After the inventory surveyfieldwork was completed, David M. Brugge assumedmajor responsibility for the analysis of the survey data(Brugge 1981b); additional survey that covered areasoutside of the then-monument boundaries (Brugge1986); ethnohistorical research (Brugge 1980); andexcavation (Brugge 1986). Additional reports includea history of the Chaco Navajo (Brugge 1984); anevaluation of the form and function of small sites(Brugge 1978b); and a description of rock-art figurescommonly depicted in the canyon (Brugge 1976,1977, 1978a, 1981a). In addition, Williamson(1983a, 1983b) examined the relationship betweenNav~o rock art and sky symbolism. Students of Dr.Oswald Werner of Northwestern University receivedcontracts to study Navajo place names (Fransted 1979;Fransted and Werner 1974) and Navajo views ofland(Levine and Werner 1976). In 1983 and 1984, surveyof four additional areas added to the park in 1980included numerous Historic period sites (Van Dyke2006a). Three chapters of the resulting report summarizewhat is known from that database aboutNavajo, Spanish, Mexican, and Anglo-American useof the canyon; e.g., the settlement pattern (Gleichman1987), artifacts (Warburton 1988), and ethnohistoricdata (W. Powers 1989).In 1985, the NPS contracted with ThomasMerlan and Frances Levine to assess the WetherillHomestead (Figures 10.2 and 10.3). These researcherssummarized the problems that Wetherillfaced while trying to establish his homestead, anddocumented buildings that were part of the homesteadat various times, as well as the archaeological potentialof the land (Merlan and Levine 1986). Between 1953and 1958, the homestead and the School of AmericanResearch/University of New Mexico research station(Figure 10.4) located south of the Chaco Wash andjust west of Casa Rinconada, were removed by theNPS. (See Hewett 1936 for plans and the initial useof the research station.)SurveyHayes (1981:34) attributed 659 sites (53 withSpanish-style hornos) to the Historic period. He didnot assign any components to Spanish, Mexican, orAnglo-American use. However, names of people whohad passed through Chaco Canyon during the late1800s and early 1900s were recorded. When Brugge(1981b:69) analyzed this historic material, he assigned845 sites to the Historic period. Often these sites hadmore than one component. Because of the data-collectionmethod employed, these components were notseparated into discrete categories during the analysisof artifacts.During 1973 and 1974, Brugge conducted hismore extensive archaeoiogicai and ethnohistoricaisurvey in the area from Pueblo Pintado on the east toKin Bineola on the west. He recorded 95 Navajocomponents, 13 with Spanish-American components,and 16 with Anglo-American components (Brugge1986). Included are some reported by G\vinn Vivia...1J.(1960) and the NPS inventory survey.The additional land survey recorded 364 siteswith Navajo or other historic components (Gleichman1987). Many of these sites were mUlticomponent ormultiethnic; some included Anasazi components.In summary, although these three surveyscovered the entire park, some sites were recordedmore than once. Brugge's (1986) survey also includedprevious sites studied by Malcolm (1939), Corbett(1940), and Gwinn Vivian (1960). Because these datawere not integrated into a single Chaco Projectdatabase, the following discussion does not combineresults.In his analysis of the inventory survey data,Brugge (1981b) redefined structural types associatedwith Navajo site components prior to categorizing datafrom all historic components. He then described thestructural types and numbers of each type recorded bysurvey crews prior to evaluating the availablematerial-culture remains.The majority of the structural types wereNavajo; predominant were hogans of several subtypes.Also recorded were pueblitos (Figure 10.5), houses(Figure 10.6), ramadas, windbreaks, corrals, sheepbeds, Iamb pens, sweat houses, ovens, pebble caches,and play houses. There was evidence for Spanish useof tents and salt licks. Anglo-Americans and Navajobuilt dams and mined coal. All three groups built

304 Chaco Project SynthesisFigure 10.2.General view of Pueblo Bonito and surrounding buildings taken in 1929 from the south sideof Chaco Canyon. A number of historic structures are visible. (Photograph from theGeorge A. Grant Collection, Chaco Culture NHP Museum Archive, no. 77417.)

Historic Period Studies 305Figure 10.3.A 1929 view from the North Mesa looking across Pueblo Bonito to the Pueblo BonitoLodge, the Chaco Trading Company, and Pueblo del Arroyo. (Photograph from theGeorge A. Grant Collection, Chaco Culture NHP Museum Archive, no. 77418.)

Figure 10.4.The School of American Research/University of New Mexico field-school station located on the south sideof the Chaco Wash, west of Casa Rinconada. (Chaco Culture NHP Museum Archive, no. 81528.)

Historic Period Studies 307Figure 10.5.Pueblito 3 at the Doll House site (29SJ1613). This is a two-room structure. (Photographfrom the David M. Brugge Collection, Chaco Culture NHP Museum Archive, no. 31529.)Figure 10.6.House 9 at the Doll House site (29SJ1613). (Photograph from the David M. BruggeCollection, Chaco Culture NHP Museum Archive, no. 3859.)

308 Chaco Project SynthesisFigure 10.7.Inscriptions from rock-art files for site 29S1206. (Chaco Culture NHP Museum Archive,no. 33000. William B. Gillespie, photographer.)roads and trails and piled stones into cairns. At 266rock-art sites, Navajo rock art was pictorial. Spanishand Anglo-Americans inscribed their names (Figure10.7), dates, and sometimes associations with townsor military regiments. Dates associated with Spanishnames suggested use of the area as winter grazingranges.The most abundant artifact type was pottery, andthe dominant types were Navajo. Pueblo trade wareson Navajo sites indicate exchange with Keres andTewa groups, Santa Ana, Acoma-Laguna, CochitiZia, Zuni, and Hopi. Other artifact types on Navajosites included lithics, two cradleboards, weaving tools,a beater, one digging stick, gaming pieces, three religiousobjects, two baskets, an arrow, and reworkedtrade items. No items attributable to Spanish orMexican culture were recovered. Anglo-Americangoods included items of trade: those used for dress andgrooming, household items, storage, tools, andtransportation (Brugge 1981b:95).Due to limitations in dating techniques, Bruggewas concerned about our inability to identify Navajosites in the Chaco area prior to the early eighteenthcentury. In spite of difficulties dating sites, Brugge(1981b:99-100) found differences between Navajosites assigned to the period from 1750 to 1820 andthose assigned to the period between 1880 and 1945.Not only were the earlier sites more clustered andgenerally located on the south side of the canyon, butthey were also more common on the eastern end of thepark. Later sites were more common toward the westernend, more scattered in location, and seemingly lessconcerned with concealment. Exposure to the sun,relationship to vegetation, and access to farm landswere noted.Brugge's (1981b:l00-l01) summary reiteratesand comments on points made by Gwinn Vivian(1960). The earliest Navajo sites date to the mideighteenthcentury. Prior to 1774, their only enemieswere other Indian tribes. After that, occasional warswith the Spanish induced some defensive retreats, butmany sites were close to agricultural lands. Farming,livestock-raising, handicrafts, and some trade withnearby Pueblo people existed; the last depended on theavailability of Euro-American goods and freedomfrom Spanish regulation. After 1818, warfare wasmore intense. Increased trade over the Santa Fe Trailbrought more firearms, especially after Mexicanindependence. Sites are almost invisible; if Navajo

Historic Period Studies 309lived in the canyon, there was far less trade fordurable goods. Although Navajo returned to ChacoCanyon after their release from Fort Sumner in 1868,there are no well-dated sites prior to the 1890s.Spaniards most certainly penetrated ChacoCanyon, but the earliest dated inscriptions areattributed to Anglo-American troops in 1858, nineyears after the first Anglo expedition and 35 yearsafter the first recorded Mexican entry. Evidence forSpanish-American sheep camps and settlers' cabins aresparse, but the inscriptions indicate their constantlyincreasing presence. By the end of the century,archaeological expeditions and trading posts had beenestablished in the area. Although farming and herdingwere important, wage work became more importantthrough time. Navajo presence is documented in thepark untii it was fenced.An integration of more detailed archeologicaldata with a chronicle of recordedevents within the Monument and theneighboring region will allow betterunderstanding of the historical and culturalchanges and processes. This initial surveysuggests some of the problems that must besolved if we are to have a clearerunderstanding of the historic period, andparticularly of Navajo history in the Chacocountry. The course of Navajo culturaldevelopment must be outlined more fully,and the effects of climate, erosion, interculturalrelations in trade, war andcompetition for resources, and acculturationaland adaptive responses need tobe determined. The great wealth of dataavailable with regard to archeology,climatic history, geological and ecologicalchanges, tradition, oral history, anddocumented history make this project onethat can carry our knowledge far beyondthe results of this beginning effort.(Brugge 1981b: 100-101)To remedy some of the problems noted above,an extensive survey of historic sites in a larger areawas carried out to obtain a sample of the range of sitetypes (Brugge 1986). One major contribution was anincreased number of tree-ring dates, which Bruggeused to place different sites and site types into broadtemporal groups. The earliest datable occupationsoccurred around the 1720s, when Pueblito-stylearchitectural sites suggest that immigrants of mixeddescent (Pueblo and Nav~o) entered the area.Population increases and decreases and constructionspurts correlated well with Ute and Comanche warfarein the 1740s and 1750s, a smallpox epidemic in 1781,and the construction of the railroad during the 1870s.Another contribution was the identification of specificstructures with an individual or individuals who mayhave used them, not necessarily contemporaneouslybut often consecutively over time. Navajo, Spanish,and English cognates for personal names and placenames were specified. Locations of winter campswere identified, as were summer agricultural fieldsand nearby settlements. The development of potteryand lithic trade and changes in trade contacts werepresented.For the additional lands survey analyses, sitedating was critical. Of the 364 sites, 187 componentscould be dated through the analysis of tree-rings,ceramic cross-dating, artifacts, or rock art. Sites wereassigned to three periods: the Pre-Bosque Redondoperiod, from 1700 to 1863 (50 components); the PostBosque Redondo period, from 1868 to 1930 (54components); and the Modem period, from 1930 to1980 (84 components) (Gleichman 1987:Table 6.1).Ethnohistoric information on 17 sites also helped placethem in time C\'V. Powers 1989). The majority of the221 inscriptions at 68 sites included Spanish surnames(91 percent of the 103 names). The presence ofHawikuh Polychrome sherds at two campsites onChacra Mesa (29MC476 and 29MC479) suggested anearly Navajo presence, probably between 1600 and1680, which Gleichman considered questionable. Theearliest tree-ring dates, taken from six samples fromthree hogans at 29SJ2606 on Chacra Mesa, clusteredbetween 1771 and 1793 and complemented datagathered by Brugge (1986) and Gwinn Vivian (1960).There were no sites in either the Kin Klizhin or KinBineola areas that predated the late nineteenth century;one site, 29SJ2782, from the South addition, wasearlier. All remaining early sites were found onChacra Mesa, confirming Brugge's observations of theearliest settlements on the eastern end of ChacoCanyon and slow movement toward the west. Basedon two tree-ring dates and informant data, the latestuse was a corral at 29MC391 on Chacra Mesa duringthe mid-1950s.

310 Chaco Project SynthesisHistoric sites were assigned to 21 functionallydistinct types (two types of habitation sites, six typesof temporary camps, and 13 other types) that weredescribed in detail. To test her site typology,Gleichman then classified most of the sites into fivemajor types: two types of habitation sites (multiplehabitationand single-habitation sites) and threetemporary camp classifications (temporary shelters,stock-holding facilities, and isolated ovens andhearths). The number of unidentified structures,ceramic scatters, and Euro-American refuse sites,which would also be representative of temporarycamps, were too few to be included. It was assumedthat these site types would have been distinguished bylength of stay. Using the number and variety ofartifacts that made up assemblage size and variability,plus the presence of heavier objects and the number offeatures at a site, several tests were conducted to determineif these five site types were distinct. The testsgenerally supported the typology, and Gleichman wasable to conclude that the sites were functionaUy, asweU as morphologically, distinct. The greatest similaritywas between single-habitation sites andtemporary camps, rather than between singlehabitationand multiple-habitation sites; she attributedthis to the similarities in length of stay, even thoughthe single-habitation sites contained structures similarto those at multiple-habitation sites.Gleichman 's analysis of settlement was less clearcut, in part because data from the arbitrarily definedfour Chaco additions were too limited to include thefull range of land use by anyone Navajo family overtime. The archaeological data suggested someseasonal use of all four areas in both winter andsummer. Although the ethnohistorical data verifiedthis interpretation, the issue of how to relatearchaeological data to models remained unresolved.To analyze economic change through time,Gleichman (1987) used the land stratification presentedby A. Cully and Toll (1986) to evaluatewhether locations of habitation sites in the fouradditions reflected changes in subsistence patternsduring the 1700-1863, 1868-1930, and 1930-1980periods. Only from 1868 to 1930 did the highestpercentages of land with good grazing and waterresources correlate with the number of sites withhabitations, primarily on Chacra Mesa. From 1700 to1863, when the Navajo were thought to havedepended most heavily on agricultural production,Chacra Mesa also had the largest number of habitationsites, even though the South addition would have hadthe greatest amount of land with high agriculturalpotential. Gleichman thought that either a boundaryproblem (the Chacra Mesa addition is very close to theChaco Wash) or the variables considered wereinadequate for the type of testing that was beingcarried out. In this instance, proximity to the ChacoWash may have been more important. Based on hertest of the effects of distance from habitation sites tokey resources, the latter explanation is probably morerelevant. She concluded that no single factor wasmost important. Changes in site locations on theChacra Mesa addition suggest that the archaeologicaldata support the ethnohistorical record.Evaluation of demographic change is fraughtwith difficulties, especially when most sites are notwell dated. Gleichman (1987) reviewed previouspopulation reconstructions, discussed the problemsinherent in using either carrying capacity of the landor the average family size per habitation structure, andprovided some estimates of population size prior to thePre-Bosque Redondo period (1700 to 1863). Hercalculations suggest a slight drop in population onChacra Mesa after 1800, but the data did not providea clear indication of population changes after the late17OOs.Gleichman's analysis supported the earlier workof Brugge regarding historic Navajo economy and landuse, as well as popUlation trends. Dating of sites stillremains a problem. Gleichman's analysis also benefitedfrom research conducted outside of ChacoCulture National Historical Park by K. Kelley (1982)and by Bailey and Bailey (1986). In contrast to earlierstudies, however, Gleichman's analysis indicated thatthe size of family herds remained the same both preandpost-1930, when the livestock-reduction programtook effect. She attributed this discrepancy to thepreservation of corrals, the key variable in her analysisof number of livestock present at anyone time. Herdiscussions of assumptions, methods, and explanationsfor the results obtained, especially when evaluatinglocalities restricted by modem boundaries rather thanuse areas of the people who lived there, are apropos tonot just this research but also to all survey areas whereboundaries are arbitrarily imposed on the landscapewithout regard to use by the people under study.

Historic Period Studies 311Warburton (1988) examined artifacts in relationto features and structures to determine behavior inparticular areas of sites. This approach differed fromthat of Brugge (1981b, 1986), who looked at categoriesof artifacts across sites. In Warburton's study,7,700 artifacts from 281 sites were analyzed; 1,850were non-European sherds and lithics, and 5,850 wereEuro-American in origin. Because 1,400, or 24 percent,of the Euro-American artifacts were from onesite (29S12966), this material was discussedseparately; but when the results of the analysis ofmaterial from this site were compared with resultsfrom other sites, trends observed in each were thesame. Such results added weight to conclusionsreached during the analysis of sites with fewer than 20artifacts and sites with more than 20 artifacts.Warburton's three major conclusions were: 1)site date is significant; 2) feature function is notsignificant, a conclusion that differed from K. Kelley'S(1982); and 3) "site function does not determineartifact assemblage composition, but assemblage sizeand variability may correlate with site type." The goalof correlating particular artifact assemblages withspecific ethnic groups was difficult to achieve becausesome of the artifacts were more time-specific thanculture-specific. What Warburton did determine isthat there was an increase in artifacts on sites throughtime. The change in the composition of artifactassemblages over time was not as clear as hoped.Overall, her study supported the work of Gleichman(1986), K. Kelley (1982), and Brugge (1986) regardingthe historic settlement of the Chaco area.In summary, survey data improved through time.The initial analysis by Brugge provided a frameworkfor site types and periods that was expanded throughhis more intensive survey and the additional landssurvey. Most of Brugge's conclusions were supported;e.g., those regarding historic Navajo economyand land use, as well as population trends. Additionally,the earliest Navajo settlements were on theeastern end of the canyon, and there was slowmovement toward the west. Figures 10.8 through10.15 represent a graphic view of this movement fromthe 1600s until recent times. Although these maps arebased on chronological divisions in the NMCRISsystem and do not reflect the divisions presented inany of the reports listed above, they provide a generalpicture of change in habitation sites and camps, andillustrate movements of people through time.Ethnohistoric data gathered by Brugge during theextended survey, by York (and reported by W. Powers1989) during the additional lands survey, and by otherinvestigators such as K. Kelley (1982) providecomprehensive information on changes in site use byseveral Navajo families through time. Nav~o reactionsto the use of land by Spanish-Americanherders, the Sargent Ranch, and federal regulations arereflected in the archaeological record.ExcavationOne historic site was excavated. This multicomponentNavajo site, located on a bluff on the southside of Chaco Canyon, was named the Doll House site(Brugge 1986). The assigned number, Bl, includesNPS inventory survey numbers 29SJl613, 29S11637,29S11639, and 29SJ1644; George Buckingham'Sunpublished 1968 survey numbers Bc 386, Bc 387,and Bc 388; Gwinn Vivian's (1960) CM 23; andprobably one of the sites in Malcolm's (1940) survey(Brugge 1986:88-89). It is located in a sparse piiionjuniperwoodland, but the surrounding area containsa diversity of plants in a varied environment (Figure10.16). Water is available in three nearby springs,and crops could be grown near the mouth of the twoside canyons that border the bluff. Local vegetationwould provide food for grazing and browsing animals.This multicomponent site was chosen forexcavation because it would provide data on intrasiterelationships and would permit an evaluation oflongtermoccupational shifts to more transitory uses.Brugge was interested in four Navajo issues: 1)flexibility and adaptability to natural resources,technology, and other people; 2) levels ofsociopolitical organization; 3) how challenges fromthe natural environment, such as disease, were met;and 4) the effects of inter-ethnic relations.Based on archaeological data available prior toexcavation, features at the Doll House site (Figure10.17) were thought to cluster into four periods:those about 50 years old (cluster IV); 150 years old(cluster III); 200 years old (cluster I); or 250 years old(cluster II). Brugge did not see a break in timebetween clusters; he thought each cluster mightrepresent use by an extended family of differentgenerations, probably related through the female line.

w-NFigure 10.8. Map 1, locating Historic period site components attributable to the Pre-Pueblo-Revolt period or prior to 1692 (n= 1).(Data courtesy of the Office of Historic Preservation, New Mexico Cultural Resources Information System, overlaidon aerial photographs digitized by Richard Friedman for the Chaco Culture NHP database.)

Figure 10.9.Map 2, locating Historic period site components attributable to the Post-Pueblo-Revolt period, 1692 to 1753 (n=9).(Data courtesy of the Office of Historic Preservation, New Mexico Cultural Resources Information System, overlaidon aerial photographs digitized by Richard Friedman for the Chaco Culture NHP database.)

Figure 10.10. Map 3, locating Historic period site components attributable to the Pre-Reservation period, 1753 to 1868 (n=33).(Data courtesy of the Office of Historic Preservation, New Mexico Cultural Resources Information System, overlaidon aerial photographs digitized by Richard Friedman for the Chaco Culture NHP database.)

Figure 10.11. Map 4, locating Historic period site components attributable to the Early Reservation period, 1868 to 1880 (n=4).(Data courtesy of the Office of Historic Preservation, New Mexico Cultural Resources Information System, overlaidon aerial photographs digitized by Richard Friedman for the Chaco Culture NHP database.)

Figure 10.12. Map 5, locating Historic period site components attributable to the Middle Reservation period, 1880 to 1920 (n=24).(Data courtesy of the Office of Historic Preservation, New Mexico Cultural Resources Information System, overlaidon aerial photographs digitized by Richard Friedman for the Chaco Culture NHP database.)

Figure 10.13. Map 6, locating Historic period site components attributable to the Late Reservation period, 1920 to 1945 (n=43).(Data courtesy of the Office of Historic Preservation, New Mexico Cultural Resources Information System, overlaidon aerial photographs digitized by Richard Friedman for the Chaco Culture NHP database.)

Figure 10.14. Map 7, locating Historic period site components attributable to the Recent period, post-1940 (n= 13). (Datacourtesy of the Office of Historic Preservation, New Mexico Cultural Resources Information System, overlaidon aerial photographs digitized by Richard Friedman for the Chaco Culture NHP database.)

Figure 10.15. Map 8, which combines Historic period site components from the Post-Pueblo-Revolt through the EarlyReservation periods, 1692 to 1868 (n=46). (Data courtesy of the Office of Historic Preservation, NewMexico Cultural Resources Information System, overlaid on aerial photographs digitized by RichardFriedman for the Chaco Culture NHP database.)

320 Chaco Project SynthesisFigure 10.16. Structures 1, 2, and 3 at the Doll House site (29SJl613) as seen from Structure 5.(photograph from the David M. Brugge Collection, Chaco Culture NHP Museum Archive,no. 20513.)

Historic Period Studies 321(_ 29SJI604Cluster /.... -- ...ClusterIII.... _.... - .../ .14 \•·7,III1\9 I.6 .-51 \ I_ ;/ \ ' , SHERO AREA- -,. - - ~ ... -" 'I POT HOLES/ \ 1.24 I'21 • el8 \ II,I J, I I I\ 16., I723; ~ OOL~ HOUSE,':'7:/ ,_,/I -19 I I 027 I Cluster IV\)/l~""""I)'O~O~~~__'-,-~O __'-=-O~LO_~O fEET92982009Figure 10.17. Map of the Doll House site (29S11613). (Taken from Brugge 1986:90.)Depending on the period, dangers from enemyattack should be reflected in architecture and materialculture remains. Subsistence and other economicmaterials should vary through time. Initially, mostlylocally available materials would be found. Importedobjects would increase through time, depending onwhether or not friendly relationships existed betweenthe Navajo and other Native American groups, and theNavajo and whites (both Hispanic and AngloAmericans). Based on ethnographic data, severalpropositions were outlined about how buildings wouldbe constructed and used and when and how artifactswould be discarded. Seasons of use would also bedocumented through the age of animal remains,pollen, etc. Priority during excavation was given tothe two oldest clusters.

322 Chaco Project SynthesisDetailed descriptions of excavated and unexcavatedfeatures were provided, as was an analysis ofmaterial remains. Most excavated structures in clustersI and II were estimated to have been used between1740 and 1800. Pueblito 3 and houses 2 and 4 reflectedthe architectural tradition of the LargoGobernador area. House 7 and hogans 8 and 10 mayrepresent use by the subsequent generation, probablyseasonally, over a period of several years prior toabandonment. Hogan 1 and House 9 were located soas to have served as lookouts; the presence of loopholesand better preserved walls, like those in Pueblito3 (Figure 10.5), suggest that these three structuresmay have served as places where hunters and warparties could gather sporadically. Hogans 14 and 15were not excavated; evidence suggests late-eighteenthcenturyuse for Hogan 14 and nineteenth-century use(possibly as a campsite) for Hogan 15. Shelter 22 alsosuggested short-term visits to the area rather thanpermanent home sites.Cluster III was interpreted as representingnineteenth-century use. Concealment and flight (lightconstruction and sparse trash), rather than fortification,were inferred (Brugge 1986: 133). Short-termand intermittent use correlates with what would beexpected during the period of warfare, when Spanishand American military expeditions traveled throughthe area.Cluster IV definitely reflected twentieth-centuryuse. Hogan 24 was part of Rafael Mescalito's summercamp, dating to approximately 1927. Mescalitofarmed here until 1936, herded sheep in the area untilthe 1940s, and wintered on Chacra Mesa. Structure28, a miniature cliff dwelling, was built by CharlieAtencio, the son-in-law of Katherine Mescalito.The area in which the Doll House site is locatedwas used as winter camp by Navajo George and hisextended family after the return from Fort Sumner.Although a direct relationship to earlier occupantscould not be established, family claims and ethnographicdata suggested that there was a connectionthrough Navajo George's wife, a member of theTachii'ni clan, who may have had use rights to thearea (Brugge 1986:137). Among those included inNavajo George's family who continued to use the landwere his sister, Mrs. Rafael Mescalito, and hisgrandson, Willie George.Based on ethnographic and archaeological data,Brugge (1986: 137) concluded that the clan system wasalready in place in the mid-18oos and that rights werepassed down bilaterally. He thought that the earlysettlement on the bluff was probably by Navajo whohad Pueblo ancestry. Pueblo traits, however, slowlydecreased as a response to the social environment;e.g., defense from enemies, and perhaps theacceptance of the Blessingway teachings during theoccupation of cluster III, and probably as early as thecluster I settlement, in which House 9 (Figure 10.10)exhibited considerable religious complexity, whichindicated that the residents were definitely moreNavajo than Pueblo. "The ceramic data providestrong indications that the traditional Navajo conceptsof division of interior space were already beingpracticed by the 18'" century on Chacra Mesa, at leastwith regard to the cooking area" (Brugge 1986: 120).Similar inferences were obtained from the analysis ofartifacts recovered from the exterior of the dwellings.Changes in subsistence practices were found.Data from clusters I and II (sites that were approximately200 or 250 years old) suggest reliance onagricultural products and storage. After 1868, storagefacilities are rare (or possibly earlier ones werereused), and the presence of faunal remains indicatesan early importance for pastoralism, which continuedthroughout site use.Trade relationships existed throughout site use,but it was not possible to determine whether earlytrade was with Pueblo relatives or friendly Pueblopeoples located away from the Spanish. Foreignartifacts-e.g., metal and glass beads-increasedthrough time, but it was difficult to decide who craftedthe metal objects.Brugge was careful in his determination of whichaspects ofthe foreign culture were adopted or rejected;he believed that adoptions should reflect decisionsbased on urgencies of the time and place. Sometimes,when circumstances change, accepted foreign practiceswill be rejected and a revitalization of culture results.History of the Chaco NavajoOne of Brugge's research goals was to provide adetailed history of the Chaco Navajo from theirperspective. Brugge (1980) included a wealth of

Historic Period Studies 323information, beginning with that gleaned from recordsof early Spanish explorers of New Mexico through thefirst half of the twentieth century. He incorporatedinformation on climate, range conditions, and cropyields for years when it was available.Clues as to how the great houses may haveacquired Spanish names (Simpson 1850) were found inSpanish documents dating from 1823; they indicatethat Jose Antonio Vizcarra passed near Pueblo Pintado(also referred to as Pueblo del Raton), Cerrito Fajada,and El Penasco. Brugge (1980: 12-13) expected thatother Spanish rr.ilitary had been in the area and werewell acquainted with the ruins in Chaco Canyon.Continuing throughout this carefully researchedvolume, Brugge provides the names of people whoentered Chaco Canvon. and when. and whv. Included~--~----- ------- -----J---7---- -- - 7 '"are explorers and military troops; archaeologists;homesteaders; traders; Spanish and Anglo stockmen;Indian agents; land surveyors; and, most recently,those involved in extracting mineral resources fromthe surrounding land. As these outsiders began to usethe land, their actions and reactions with regard to theNavajo were based on their cultural backgrounds,which had different social and political orientationsfrom that of the local inhabitants. By the late nineteenthcentury, foreigners fully controlled the area;their rules and regulations brought a division of landsthat could be obtained as homesteads or throughallotments. The expansion of the railroad in the Westclaimed other territory in what is known as the"checkerboard" pattern. Discovery of mineral resources,such as coal, gas, and oil, which were foundon Navajo lands in the San Juan Basin, provided theimpetus for the organization of the Navajo tribalcouncil, with its chapters and chapter houses, to aidwith political organization of the tribal people dealingwith these issues. All these variables brought changesto the former Navajo lifestyle. Brugge's history endswith the final fencing of Chaco Canyon NationalMonument in 1946-1948. In his closing statement, henoted that many white ranchers have recently soldtheir lands to the Navajo tribe so that the Navajo havenow reclaimed much of the land around ChacoCanyon. Their way of life, however, has been greatlyaltered in the process. Brugge recognized that race,language, and culture are not always independentvariables; he demonstrates how Pueblo, Spanish, andAnglo-Americans are intertwined in the processes ofNavajo culture change.Brugge's research added much to our knowledgeabout Navajo history, as well as the interactionsbetween Spanish and Anglo herders and the Navajoduring the past century and their effects on Navajoculture. He provided several hypotheses about thebeginnings of certain practices; e.g., the introductionof the Blessingway and its acceptance by the Navajo.He suggested the existence of the clan system for over150 years. He documented the earlier reliance onagriculture and an increase on pastoralism throughtime.Although we still do not know exactly whenNavajo settled in the Chaco drainage, their presenceon Chacra Mesa in the early 1700s was confirmed.Early sites on Chacra Mesa did not manifest as manyPueblo features as those in the Gobernador area, andevidence for ritual is similarly less spectacular.Agriculture and pastoralism provided a way of life inthis outpost of Navajo culture. It was not until approximately1770, when the Spanish shifted alliance tothe Ute, that data in the Chaco area indicate participationin warfare that drove out neighboring Spanishcolonists. An extension of Navajo settlement fartherwest in Chaco Canyon seems to have taken place aboutthis time. The smallpox epidemic of 1781 is reflectedarchaeologically in the number of hogans that appearto have been abandoned and the drop in tree-ring datesthat indicate the construction of new homes. Ensuingwars throughout the next several decades probablybrought Spanish troops through the area, and the lackof datable Navajo remains suggests considerabledepopulation around Chaco. Brugge suspected frequentvisits and use by a few Navajo for hunting.Only after Anglo-American government tookover and peace ensued after the Long Walk to FortSumner does an influx of Spanish and Anglo herdersand traders appear in the area. Major changeswrought through the resulting intercultural interactionsincluded increased trade, some wage labor, the need toestablish claims to land, and eventually an increase incompetition for land use areas. As lands were fenced,many traditional Navajo ways were circumscribed andcultural changes were necessitated. Lands used bythree of the wealthiest Navajo stockmen-Navajo

324 Chaco Project SynthesisGeorge, Delgadito, and Bit'ahnii Ts'osf-were slowlyencompassed by Ed Sargent's holdings, and theirdescendants eventually abandoned some of their allotments.Stock reduction programs (to eliminateerosion), World War II, and mineral development onNavajo lands brought more pressure and change.In summary, Brugge's data confirmed andexpanded on Gwinn Vivian's (1960) earlier work. Hisresearch into the historic records and excavations atthe Doll House site provided considerably more detailthat indicated good correlation between the twodatabases. He also found that these data fit with theoral histories that were provided by current residentsof the area. Yet Brugge (1986: 148-160) presented anumber of ideas pertaining to demography, defense,economy, sociopolitical structure, religion, andclimate that needed more testing. A detailed understandingof how many decisions made about Navajoculture in distant places, and sufficient knowledgeabout what the Navajo were doing during the earlyyears were lacking. How Navajo arrived at decisionsthrough time, especially at an individual or clan level,remained a puzzle.Some of Brugge's questions were addressedduring the Chaco additions survey (see above). Basedon ethnohistoric data collected by Fred York, W.Powers (1989) outlined three major goals: 1) toevaluate and discuss Navajo and historic land ownershipand use and the effect of various events,legislation, policy, etc., on those uses; 2) to analyzesite usage and settlement patterns with regard tofencing, seasonal use, and subsistence practices thatoccurred; and 3) to identify site attributes that indicateseasonality and discriminatory factors in sites. BothYork and W. Powers realized that data from theadditional lands survey areas alone were insufficient toproperly address these issues; throughout her presentation,Powers relied on work by Bailey and Bailey(1986), Brugge (1981b, 1986), and K. Kelley (1982)for data to expand knowledge about family use of theChaco areas.York's data on the use of sites generally datedbetween 1920 and 1950. He focused on the peoplewho lived in the sites and the seasons of use. Powerswas more concerned with competition over land, notjust among different ethnic groups, but also among theNavajo themselves. What became evident were thenumerous interrelationships among families and clanswho used most of the sites for which data wasgathered. W. Powers, therefore, suggested thatintermarriage may have been a mechanism thatfurthered cooperation among groups and providedthem with a means to acquire resources.W. Powers suggested seasonal use of sites.Although no reasons were given for selection ofspecific locations for sites, availability of water wasthe reason for winter use of the entire Chacra Mesa.Summer residences were predominantly in ChacoCanyon, south of Chacra Mesa prior to fencing, andlater north in the Escavada drainage. In addition towinter residences for herding families, sites on ChacraMesa included trails; play hogans; locations of squawdances; and male and female sweat lodges associatedwith the largest Navajo family settlement-that ofNavajo George and his descendants and relatives. KinBineola was used in the spring; and Kin Klizhin wasused in both the spring and summer as an area wherefields were planted and herds were kept, predominantlyby 'Asdzaa Bilfilani and her descendantsand relatives. Spanish herders later used Kin Klizhinin the winters.Most information from informants dealt withsites on Chacra Mesa, and indicated that most familieswere related to each other, either by descent or bymarriage. Although there were a number of hoganson some sites, not all of them were used continuously.People using portions of Chacra Mesa often rebuilt inthe same location after a period of years. Thus,population may not be as high at anyone time asarchaeological data might suggest. Informants alsorecognized some circular structures as either chickenhouses or dog houses; these had been recorded asstorage rooms by the survey crews. Many hogans hadbeen lamb pens that had been roofed to prevent attackby coyotes rather than habitations. The major differencebetween the structures is that lamb pens do nothave east-facing entryways; size and location werealso more variable. Who built trails and who usedwater sources were established, but rights over wateruse were not ascertained.Data on which trading posts were used byseveral families was obtained. At some sites, thearticles obtained from trading posts were present;informants could describe how other large objects such

Historic Period Studies 325as stoves were built from other materials.Two events restricted Navajo mobility: theacquisition of large tracts of land, particularly by EdSargent beginning by 1910; and the fencing ofland bythe National Park Service, which was initiated in 1934and continued in 1947 and 1949. Some informantsindicated that their families had used land south ofChacra Mesa and switched their summer quartersnorth to the Escavada.Archaeological and ethnohistorical data supportedland use patterns documented by Brugge(1986); Bailey and Bailey (1986); or K. Kelley(1982). On Chacra Mesa, the family of NavajoGeorge-one of the richest of the Navajo herders at theturn of the century-responded to restrictions thatcame about as a result of the piesence of Spanish andother Euro-Americans after around 1880; the spread ofthe railroad; the fencing of land; the bad winter of1931-1932; the Great Depression; and herd reductions.Inscriptions by Spanish herders were notpresent prior to about 1900; they represented 24percent during the period from 1900 to 1928, and 76percent from 1929 to 1947. These numbers reflect theincreased use of this area by those employed onpartido contracts through time or as Sargent's ranchhands. Because of the westward expansion of therailroad, the presence of archaeologists, Sargent, andthe National Park Service, those Navajo living in theChaco region had more opportunity than some Navajoin other regions to enter the wage labor market early(Figure 10.18). This allowed a shift to smaller andmore permanent camps beginning in the 1930s; and by1960, the shift toward permanent camps was nearlycomplete.Data from the additional land survey complementsthose from other studies, and provides in-depthinformation on several areas, particularly that of thefamily ofNav~o George on Chacra Mesa. It providessufficient depth to show how ties among families wereestablished and how they could have been usedthrough time. Although W. Powers could notdescribe how competition between and among Navajofamilies occurred, her suggestion that intermarriagemay have been a method to increase cooperation andprovide a means to access necessary resources is aninteresting one that needs further exploration.Related Research ProjectsBrugge (1986: 160) regretted not being able toexplore data relative to decisions made at somedistance from Chaco and their effects on the historicpopulations of the area. Material from two contemporaneousstudies (Bailey and Bailey 1986; K. Kelley1982) that address some of these issues has alreadybeen referred to during the discussion of the additionallands survey. During the late 1970s, the developmentof gas, coal, uranium, and oil resources in the SanJuan Basin brought about a series of environmentalassessments and archaeological surveys of areas thatwere to be mined. One located to the east of thepark-the Gallo Wash Mine-is a 26 km 2 (67 me) leasein T 18-25 N, R 5-13 W, that was formerly part of theSargent Ranch. This land was surveyed in 1977 and1978 by John Wilson (1979). K. Ke!!ey thenconducted an ethnohistorical and ethnoarchaeologicalstudy of 78 Historic period site components. Herfocus was" the history of Sargent' s stock-raising outfitand related business interests ... against the backdrop ofchanges in the southwestern sheep-raising industry"(K. Kelley 1982:vi). She correlated changes in thelivestock market and government regulations withchanges in the use of land by both Anglo-Americanand Navajo land users. Repercussions from changesmade by Sargent as he reorganized his large stockraisingbusiness also affected local Navajo land usepatterns.K. Kelley's ethnohistory focused on threefamilies (those of Navajo George, Hastiin Ts'6si, andDine Litsoi) and how they reacted to Sargent'sresponses to decisions made by the U.S. governmentand the railroad, both of which owned numerousunconnected sections of land in the area. Kelleyindicated there was usually a two- to six-year lag timebetween the passage of new regulations inWashington, D.C., and evidence of change in theChaco area. Use of sites by the three families andtheir descendants through time illustrated how familiesmaintained their ties to a locality while shifting locationsof land use among relatives over time. Forexample, between 1920 and 1929 there was noevidence of herders' camps attributed to either Sargentor the Navajo. These years encompassed a period ofreduced water availability, so Sargent would havefound the supply insufficient for his herds and grazed

Figure 10.18. Opportunities for wage labor included excavations at archaeological sites; e.g., Pueblo Bonito in 1924 during theNational Geographic Society expedition. (Courtesy of the National Geographic Society; Chaco Culture NHPMuseum Archive, no. 14, listed as being from the Maxwell Museum of Anthropology of the University of NewMexico, and described as mine cars pulled over narrow-gauge track.)

Historic Period Studies 327them elsewhere. Navajo herders who had fewer animalswere unable to use the land because they wouldincur trespass violations and repercussions frombreaking the law. Kelley also documented how a fallin livestock prices after 1940 and the forced purchaseof railroad land by Sargent between 1940 and 1944 ledto the downsizing of herds. Continued decreases inthe profitability of livestock eventually led to the saleof the Sargent Ranch in 1958 to the Navajo Nation,which had earned income through the sale of mineralleases on their lands. The land once occupied byNavajo was thereby returned to Navajo use.K. Kelley indicated how sites attributed to largescaleNavajo stock owners, small-scale Navajo stockowners, shepherds who worked for Ed Sargent, andoil-drilling crews exhibited different manifestations inthe archaeological record. These differences wereevident in the number of sites recorded, complexes offeatures in each site type, artifact assemblages, andspatial distribution through time. Differences weretied to land-ownership policies; the distribution ofwater rights; fluctuations in the wool, livestock, andoil markets; differences in stock-raising practices; andthe technology used in oil drilling and production.Kelley'S contribution complements Brugge's researchfrom the standpoint of detailed ethnohistories of localland users. Her evaluation of the broader economicfactors affecting all users of the area adds the perspectivethat Brugge had hoped to attain.A second study carried out by Rosalie Fanale(1982), a student at George Washington Universitywho worked in the NPS Remote Sensing Division,evaluated Navajo rangeland management-its changesthrough time, and how these changes affected Navajocultural practices. She was concerned with socialpressures that affected the productivity of semiaridlands and with explaining processes of change in termsof the relationship of pastoral people to exogenousgovernments. Four basic questions were: 1) Did theNavajo have an indigenous land management system?2) Were there changes in Navajo land use in the latenineteenth and twentieth centuries? 3) To what extentis environmental degradation a result of an exogenousconstraint; e.g., government programs and laws? 4)To what extent are other explanations of environmentaldegradation appropriate?Maps prepared from LANDSAT images wereuseful before and during interviews with informants todetermine which areas had been used prior to 1930slaws and other governmental restrictions. Interviewswith older Navajo provided a late-1800s foundationfor understanding range management practices.The indigenous Navajo land management systemwas seen as an adaptation to seasonal, as well asyearly, fluctuations in the environment. Not only didthe Navajo practice daily, seasonal, and yearly rangerotation, but also the principles of visiting and invitingrelatives to share an area during good environmentalconditions that provided a buffer to the landscape intimes of stress prescribed this behavior. Longdistancemobility was considered normal and allowedpeople to have close contacts. Proper behavior amongkin and clan systems was important. The concept ofharmony was expressed through love and friendship,which were the basis of the proper way of life. Fanaleconcluded that traditional Navajo land use was definedby regulating principles as follows:• Land resources should be respected, and whenthey are plentiful, they should be shared amongrelatives living nearby or farther away.• Rather than depleting a range, people shouldtemporarily move away with their animals andvisit relatives, thereby letting the land rest.• Rather than specific preferences for moves or aspecific order of preference (e.g., nearer relativespreferred over more distant), there is awide choice of destinations (as well as the timingand duration of each move) that encompasses thebroad network of kin; the details of each movedepend on situational and contextual factors,especially history of family contacts andenvironmental conditions.• Which way it goes-moving away or invitingothers in-depends on environmental conditions,which are themselves highly variable from yearto year and from place to place (Fanale1982: 142-143).

328 Chaco Project SynthesisLong-distance mobility through socially constitutedpatterns of land-sharing was a key issue that had notbeen previously explored.Once Fanale determined that families ranged forlong distances and that their culture was based onfamily (and clan) sharing of resources (depending onthe current state of grazing areas), she reviewedgovernment regulations and how they affected theability of the Navajo families to cross boundaries toreach other pasturelands. Because different regulationsand regulating agencies controlled land use offand on the reservation, she was able to demonstratedifferences in behavior among Navajo in three areas ofinvestigation: Crownpoint, southwest of ChacoCanyon; the Chaco Plateau; and Chaco Canyon East(mostly Chacra Mesa).Fanale also traced the effects of exogenous rulesand regulations on mobility of the Navajo; how thelack of mobility affected environmental conditions;how non-Navajo practices also affected the environment;why stock reduction and regulation did notimprove range quality; and the changes taking placewithin the cultural system as a result of these effects.She suggested that many of the range managementprograms initiated by the federal government in the1930s had an opposite effect, because they wereimplemented too hastily and without a thoroughunderstanding of Navajo culture. The power ofAnglo-American ranchers had more effect on governmentdecisions than the few voices of fieldadministrators. In the end, stock reduction, divisionof the land into administrative units, off-reservationcompetition with whites to obtain grazing permits, andrecent grazing regulations all prohibited the Navajofrom their traditional range management policies, andalso affected their cultural concepts of land sharing.As a result, Fanale recommended that governmentplanners examine the histories and cultures oflocal people to determine what effects on an outsidesociety rules and regulations will have. Even ifchanges are successful from the point of view of thedominant culture, there may be deleterious effects onindigenous groups who must conform even though theregulations destroy their basic cultural system.Both K. Kelley (1982) and Fanale (1982) informon historic use of the area and address broader issuesoutlined in the Chaco Prospectus; i.e., the impact thathuman cultural events have upon the habitat, and howan adverse effect on the environment affects culturaldevelopment.Assessment of the ResearchRecommendations for research listed in theChaco Prospectus for the Refugee, Navajo, andHistoric periods were followed. The inventory survey(Hayes 1981) and the additional lands survey(Gleichman 1987) provided complete coverage of allNPS lands. Only a few sites reflect possible Pueblotraits. All Navajo and Recent Historic or EuroAmerican sites were recorded and data entered into thestate system (NMCRIS).Brugge (1980b, 1986) conducted an intensivesearch of the archival records pertaining to SpanishNavajo-Pueblo contacts. Although no excavations inthe few earliest sites that reflected Pueblo traits werecarried out, Brugge's thorough discussions and interpretationssuggest that true Refugee period sites werenot present; Gleichman's (1987) data (with twoexceptions, which she questioned) support thisconclusion. The dates obtained for the earliest sitesand the intermingling of Navajo and Pueblo traits atthese sites suggest that the people were probably moreNavajo, possibly having some ancestral or social tieswith Pueblo people, than Pueblo.Excavation at the Doll House site indicated longterm,but not continuous, use of this area of ChacraMesa (Brugge 1986). Oral histories confirmed use ofthe site by one family, that of Navajo George. It ispossible that there were clan ties through his wife'sfamily prior to 1863. Through oral histories gatheredby Brugge (1986), York (in W. Powers 1989), andKelley (1982), there is now a reasonable outline of theuse of land in this area by a number of Navajofamilies.Brugge's history of the Chaco Navajo includeddata on natural resources and their use, the effects ofchanges in climate, and other ecological data (seerecent summary that incorporates current research inBrugge 2004). Although Navajo use of the Chacoarea included agriculture, for the past century theydepended more on raising livestock, and more recentlyon wage labor, to earn a living. This was not so much

Historic Period Studies 329the case during the 1700s and early 1800s; we haveless knowledge about the Navajo adaptation at thattime, and it is difficult to draw too many parallels orimplications for prehistoric Pueblo adaptations fromthese data.Although the writtlrs of the Chaco Prospectus(NPS 1969:8) did not necessarily intend their sectionon the "Implications of Interaction BetweenContinuous Distinctive Cultural Systems" to beapplied to the Historic period as defmed in thischapter, the data from the Historic period can be usedto examine this statement: "Present evidence indicatesthere were three distinct cultural systems exploitingthe Chaco Canyon environment. What are theimplications of the presence of several communitytypes toward an understanding of the pace of culturalchange in Chaco Can.yon?" Ethnohistoric data onNavajo, Spanish, and Anglo-American use and interactionsin the area since 1848 provide considerableinsight into the reasons for culture change. Thereports by K. Kelley (1982) and Fanale (1982)expanded on the work of the National Park Service toshed light on the interrelationships among differentculture groups outlined in the prospectus. Forexample:• What external culture contacts may be discernedas influencing cultural evolution?• What demographic movements can be discussedin the record of cultural evolution?• What insights into diversity and change in socialorganization and what implications for past orcontemporary social problems can be ascertainedfrom archaeological data?The information on historic people clearly supple-ments and corrects some of the interpretations madebased solely on the archaeological record.Several issues remain. The Gambler stories toldby the Navajo have some basis, probably during theRefugee period when Pueblo Indians moved intoterritory occupied by the Nav~o (Begay 2004), but itis not clear what area the Gambler stories specificallyrecord. It is possible that the intermingling of culturesillustrated in these stories occurred in the Chaco area,or possibly in another locale that was changed to suitthe storyteller. There is little evidence of Pueblo useafter A.D. 1300; and there is little evidence of Navajouse prior to the A.D. 1700s, when Pueblo traitsappear in Navajo sites.Pueblo and Navajo peoples did live together inother areas; e.g., the Jemez and Gobernadorhomelandof the Navajo. Some situations-e.g., the cooperationof Hosta (Jemez Pueblo) and Sandoval (Navajo)guides who accompanied Simpson through Chaco in1849, suggest that Navajo and Pueblo people hadnumerous occasions to exchange stories. One canonly speculate on conversations between Hosta andSandoval as they participated in a number of Spanishand American expeditions in northern New Mexico,and how each would have adapted these stories for hisown use as circumstances changed.At the beginning of this chapter, two quotationsindicated the lack of interest in Historic period sites atthe tum of the century. The Navajo features at ChetroKetl were not well documented, possibly becauseHewett was so interested in the excavation of aChacoan great house that he did not consider themimportant. The work carried out during the ChacoProject has remedied much of this deficit, but therestill remains more to examine through botharchaeology and oral history.

---- -- --- ----~-- -

Chapter ElevenThe Chaco Project from a Broader PerspectiveIt will soon be forty years since I observed that our task was to "explicate and explain the total range ofphysical and cultural similarities and differences characteristic of the entire spatial-temporal span. of lr.an'sexistence" (Binford 1962:218). I went on to say, so long ago, that by explanation I meant "thedemonstration of a constant articulation of variables within a system and the measurement of theconcomitant variability among the variables within the system.« (Binford 2001:400)Because the Chaco Project evolved during theperiod when theoretical perspectives changed from oneof culture history to one of processual archaeology,models examined by the Chaco Project were based onsystems theory and cultural ecology. Each periodunder study was examined as part of regional developmentthat originally encompassed the Chaco Basin butwas later extended to cover the San Juan Basin and itssurrounding highlands. From a cultural resourcesmanagement perspective, especially as it relates tointerpretation of the resources of Chaco Canyon, thiswas a successful program that involved specialistsfrom numerous fields. Much was learned about howpeople adapted to local conditions through time.At the same time, Binford (2001), who was oneof the major proponents of processual method andtheory, focused on the interrelationships between cultureand the environment by evaluating ecologicalvariables and population as two semi-independentsystems. By using several frames of reference in hiscomparisons, he demonstrated how environmental andcultural variables operated as part of a system and howchanges in one affected the others. He recognizedthresholds at which patterns in subsistence behaviorthat affect social organization would change. Usinghis methods, A. Johnson (1997) examined horticulturaladaptations in the American Southwest. Someresults are directly relevant to studies of ChacoCanyon and the San Juan Basin. This chapter willdescribe how the Chaco Project database fits withinthis even broader research framework. The followingdiscussion only highlights results pertinent to theSouthwest; it illustrates the measuring devicesdeveloped and the thresholds that indicate whenbehavioral changes would occur among huntergatherers.Two Studies in Culture and EcologyBased on his analysis of data culled from studiesin ecology and 339 documented ethnographic huntergatherercases, Binford (2001) examined huntergathererbehavior from different environmentalsettings. He does not advocate environmental determinism;he emphasizes the need to understand theenvironmental conditions under which decisions aremade and why they represent the most efficientresponses to risk management in given situations.Once the environmental constraints on basicsubsistence strategies (i.e., dependence on terrestrialplants, terrestrial animals, and aquatic resources) areunderstood, it is possible to model expected behaviorthat varies with the types and proportions of resourcesutilized. Labor investments for each subsistencestrategy differ; social organization differs amonggroups focusing on specific types of resources, aswell as with seasonal availability. With increasedpopulation densities, adjustments in labor investmentsare required and lead to changes in group organization.Among some more complex hunter-gathererdata sets, ranked leaders are present, even though theirtrajectories toward complexity differed. The researchof both Binford and A. Johnson illustrates the

332 Chaco Project Synthesispotential that studies in culture and ecology providefor explaining human behavior, and demonstrates howethnographic case studies can be used, not in analogy,but rather in homology, to shed light on thearchaeological record.Binford's Hunter-Gatherer StudiesBinford (2001) constructed his ecological frameof reference by evaluating worldwide terrestrialhabitats with regard to climate and available biomass.His goal was to anticipate variability in subsistencestrategies that result only from differences in theeffective environment, which affects relative dependenceon plants and animals, and in some instancesaquatic resources. Information on latitude, longitude,mean annual temperature, mean annual rainfall, meancoldest month, mean warmest month, mean rainfallduring the wettest and driest months, and the numberof months after the warmest month were used tocalculate effective temperature (E.T.). E.T. becamehis scaled measuring device for delineating whatsubsistence practices, either alone or in combination,would be followed if humans were simply anotherspecies in the larger ecological system that harvestedresources in proportion to availability.For 339 hunter-gatherer cases, the data recordedincluded 1) estimates of dependence on hunting,gathering, and fishing; 2) the size of the areaoccupied; 3) the total popUlation, its density per 100km 2 , and its group size during the most dispersedresidential period (group size 1), the aggregatedresidential period (group size 2), and annual orperiodic gatherings not necessarily focused on subsistence(group size 3); 4) the number of moves andtheir distances throughout the year, and whethermoves were into and out from a central location orfrom camp to camp; 5) the vegetation type in whichthe group was located; and 6) general soil type foundwithin the group's range. Seven types of system stateswere recognized: mounted hunters, agriculturalists,mutualists, egalitarian groups without leaders, egalitariangroups with leaders, ranked societies withwealth differences, and ranked societies with elitestatusgroups.When initial comparisons between environmentaldata and ethnographic cases were made, Binford(2001: 158) discovered that no hunter-gatherer caseswere located in true deserts and alpine tundra. Veryfew were found in semidesertic scrub areas, which arethe world's most prevalent plant formation and thesecond-driest environment in terms of annual rainfall.In these heavily water-stressed and nonproductivehabitats are found only pastoralists, agriculturalistswho use some form of irrigation or other unearnedwater resource, or industrial states (Binford 2001:137). As a result, he questioned prior reasoning thatplant domestication took place in areas where plantsoccurred in natural abundance. He also found aninverse relationship between the presence of ungulatesand hunter-gatherer populations. If domesticationmakes it possible for humans to utilize marginal areasthat were previously unoccupied and domesticationopens up new niches while increasing the productivityof older ones, he asked what factors led to changes inniche use and how they affected cultural systems.The domestication of either plants or animalsrepresents one form of intensification. Evaluation ofintensification due to subsistence stress indicated thathumans usually increase their dependence on terrestrialplants when the resource mix permits it(Binford 2001:212-213). Aquatic resources supplementa plant-based strategy or are adopted when plantswere inadequate to support a primary subsistencestrategy. Binford's research included discussions ofdifferent-size social units located within areasfavorable to plant, animal, or mixed subsistence bases.Large-scale Units. Analysis of data for westernEurope indicated that the lower the populationdensity, the later plant domesticates appeared. Exceptfor those populations dependent on terrestrial animals,once domestication occurred, there were dramaticincreases in ethnic group size among sedentary peoplesrelative to their mobile analogues. For these sedentarygroups, there also was a dramatic decrease in the sizeof the area used. There are a few exceptions, in whichthe number of persons and the size of the area increaseconcomitantly. These exceptional groups maintainmultiyear residential sites, and they are sociallycomplex. They tend to rely on aquatic resources, orthey may be mutualists or forest-product specialists, orpeople who recently adopted horticulture. Success inwarfare or alliance-building among sedentists also ledto increases in the area controlled as intensificationincreases (Binford 2001:223).

A Broader Perspective 333Among archaeological distributions in Europe,there was much diversity in hunter-gatherer populationsthat previously inhabited the area where theLBK culture is located. Binford suggestedthat much of the cultural diversity extantamong hunter-gatherers was replaced byrelative homogeneity across the same rangeof environmental variability. It is reasonableto imagine that the appearance of anew niche, accompanied by an increase insystem complexity, might well be signaledby the disappearance of some of the characteristicsof the habitat that have beenrendered irrelevant in the new effectiveenvironment. In short, a new niche mayreplace previous multiplicity and diversitywith a larger but relatively morehomogeneous cultural organization (comparedwith the prior system) that isassociated with a considerable shift ineffective environment. (Binford 2001 :203)Evaluation of ethnographic cases led to thegeneralization thatThere does not appear to be a 'selfdefining'constant structuring the numberof persons included in hunter-gathererregional units, dialect groups, or ethnicunits. The data reveal that large-scale,collective human groups co-vary in sizewith environmental variables. Large-scalemacro units are presumably selectivelyconditioned, and the extent to which theycan be thought of as system state indicatorsis also variable. (Binford 2001:225,generalization 7.18)Micro-group Units. Binford recognized thatdepending on the system state condition, variablesfound in one setting may interact in different ways soas to produce either similar or different organizationalproperties among these cases. To better understandhow these differences arose, Binford shifted analyticalscales to see if he could identify a self-defining constant.In the ethnographic database, there is a considerablerange in dispersed residential groups, orgroup 1, household size per 100 km 2 for thosepracticing different subsistence strategies, as follows(Binford 2001:346):mounted huntersagriculturalistsmutualistsegalitarian groups, noinstitutionalized leadersegalitarian groups, withinstitutionalized ieadersranked societies, no elite leadersranked societies, with elite leaders3.6929.6023.9713.1514.8046.7451.08Among plant-gatherers, group 1 size varies withaboveground productivity. People who depend totallyonterrestrial plants tend to be foragers with residentialmobility. They have small group 1 units inhabitats with low primary productivity. For animalcollectors,foods were acquired at some distance fromthe residential camp and transported back. The residentialgroups tended to be large. They have largergroup 1 sizes in low primary production settings. Ina cool, temperate setting and all warmer settings,people who depend on terrestrial animal resources areorganized in terms of forager strategies withresidential mobility. Two thresholds would affectsubsistence strategies (Table 11.1). Between theArctic and Equatorial zones, where either hunting orgathering would be exclusive subsistence patterns,there is a mix in the dependence on ei ther strategy. Atan effective temperature (E.T.) value of 12.75degrees, the growing season is such that plantdominantsubsistence patterns end. Toward the upperend of the warm temperate zone, at an E. T. value of15.25 degrees and 35 degrees latitude, the need forstorage becomes part of the subsistence strategy, butstorage is also found in the archaeological and ethnographicrecord where higher E.T. values are calculated.In these instances, storage is one of severalstrategies that can be adopted when groups need tointensify their food-production levels. This variable,therefore, is correlated both with environment andother variables that suggest intensification. Above thestorage threshold, the dependence on stored foods was

334 Chaco Project Synthesis1'Ec:::~"0c::8associated with a decreased length in the growingseason. Larger group 1 sizes were found to increasefrom a median value of around 10 persons at E. T. 15to around 19.5 at E.T. 11.53. At lower E.T. values,group 1 size decreased. For those groups where E. T.values were less than 15.25 degrees, mobile residentialwork groups originating in sedentary settlements werelarger than groups that were maximally dispersedcomponents of residentially mobile people..,]..oo!1'" o...D~oo00Binford assumed that dispersed residential groupsize should reflect the labor demands required for bulkprocurement and processing, and that the mostdispersed residential population sizes are either aresponse to the season with the least food abundance,in which group 1 size reflects minimal mobility andminimal food demands per areal unit, or a response tothe number and spatial distribution of patches ofconcentrated resources, as well as temperaturevariability at such patches. To evaluate variouscombinations of environmental and popUlation sizevariables, Binford devised the group size model fordispersed hunter-gatherer popUlations who would beexpected to 1) use minimal technology in habitats thatdiffered in subsistence resources, and 2) utilize theseresources in proportion of their availability. Hecalculated habitat diversity, species stress, human size,and prey access to determine expected popUlationdensity values for the areas where basic weather datawere available. Calculations were standardized for100 km 2 units. He specified relationships betweenbasic food resources, the structure of the habitat, andthe organization of labor relevant to forager andcollector strategies. For the first condition, the size ofthe labor force needed to process food in bulk wouldincrease depending on the length of time for which thegroup depended on stored foods and the number ofdifferent stored foods that needed to be processed atone time. He determined the number of moves andthe distances moved, and the minimum number ofproducers and consumers (as well as dependencyratios) necessary for each subsistence strategy .Minimal size is favored to reduce mobility costs.-~f"0ou.~o~::l0'UJThe division of labor varies with the quantity ofresources that must be obtained over a short period oftime. When men and women focus on the samespecies, men usually procure while women process.When more than one species need to be processedsimultaneously, several work groups are organized.

A Broader Perspective 335Assuming that male and female terrestrial huntergathererscontribute 50 percent to the total food consumedby a group and that the division of labor is suchthat males and females focus on different species andorganize independent work parties, it was possible toestimate the minimal group size for foragers at 18.98persons, or at 9.49 if the sexual division of labor wascollapsed. When the male-female division of laborcollapses, group sizes decrease to about half theminimal size of groups with a 50:50 division oflabor.The greater the dependence of the group onterrestrial animals, the greater the proportion of thediet that is obtained by males. When the malesassume greater responsibility for the procurement ofterrestrial animals, the minimal group size increaseslinearly as does the percentage of their contribution tothe total diet until thresholds are reached. For thosedependent on plant resources, this threshold is reachedat a 49 to 50 percent contribution, and there seems tobe no bias toward collectors. For animal-dependentgroups, the threshold occurs when 77 percent of themale contribution to all food is reached. After that,the male contribution may continue to increase, butthe group 1 size decreases. When the group sizemodel was compared to the ethnographic data, themodel worked for cases that meet assumptions, butthere was considerable variability among cases thatviolated one or more of the assumptions.Once mobility is no longer an option due toincreasing population, changes in labor organizationwould occur at the same time that mobility becomesincreasingly ineffective. Mobile residential workgroups that originate in sedentary settings are largerthan the maximum dispersed components of residentiallymobile people at similar locations. Yet there isa dramatic decrease in the area occupied by sedentarypeople relative to that occupied by mobile people.When stress occurs, one way to obtain more food is toincrease the labor input. Within an ethnic group,intensification operates throughout the range of socialsegments; it operates best among larger groups whenthey are constrained in geographic expansion and thearea available for use becomes smaller.Binford (2001:318-332) found that G. Johnson's(1978, 1982) value of six decisionmakers per segmentof population did seem to result from an organizationalfactor. The number of nuclear families in thesmallest groups of hunter-gatherers at foraging campsclosely matched this number during periods ofcollapsed division of labor. The average groupconsisted of 10.5 persons (mUltiply dependency ratioof 1.75 by six), which compared fairly well with theaverage of the smallest node in the bimodal distributionfor cases dependent on terrestrial plants, andwith 10.23, the number derived from the minimalmobility model. When doubled, so that six men andsix women supported 21 persons, the results Were notthat different from 17.49, the average group size inthe ethnographic data, and 20.47, the number derivedfrom the minimal mobility model. Binford concludedthat the minimal decision group and the minimalmobility group numbers fit the same pattern. Thefamily was the basic organizational scale for group 1units; the household is the basic unit only when it islarger than the group 1 size or the household equalsthe family. Examples of the latter are mountedhunters and net-hunting mutualists who have verylarge group 1 units. A third pattern in which theorganizational number of six occurs was found amongthose hunters who reduce risk by pooling theirconsumable products (Winterhalder 1990).Aggregated Residential Units. Group 2units, or aggregated residential units, were notnecessarily built on group 1 units. The socialorganization of hunter-gatherers in these residentialunits is based on segments that work together incooperative units. Based on his terrestrial model, forgroups obtaining most of their food from plants,group 2 size increases as subsistence diversityincreases. The nonpacked groups are organized interms of networks; the family is the unit that decideswith whom to cooperate and where to locatethemselves with regard to maximum subsistencesecurity. The composition of these larger units variesthroughout the year as segments participate indifferent tasks and reunite with others at a later date inrisk-pooling cooperative associations. Within thelarger group, these associations are not necessarily tiedthrough kinship; rather, the task at hand and theabilities of the participants affect the choice ofpartners. Thus, the composition of the aggregatedresidential group changes as different segments movearound the landscape. More than two work groupsmay be organized each day as the packing threshold(when maximum diversity in niche breadth is reached)is approached (Binford 2001:422).

336 Chaco Project SynthesisOnce the packing threshold is reached, subsistencediversity decreases and group 2 size decreases.The pattern of minimizing group size to reducemobility is no longer important; the daily laborrequired increases as the group works within a smallerhome range. Group size is further reduced as a functionof decreases in subsistence diversity and thesplintering of groups into new residential units that aresituated adjacent to the resources upon which eachgroup focuses. Splintering accompanies a concentrationof labor upon those resources that respond best toincreased labor with increased net returns. A segmentedsocial organization may result among those forwhom the adoption of horticulture progresses slowly.For those who change subsistence strategies at a rapidrate, organization became complex and exhibited internalsocial ranking. Inherited leadership also appearsamong some elite segments.As a result of his detailed modeling and comparisonsagainst frames of reference, Binford derived aset of packing thresholds that indicate the populationdensities at which system state organizations wouldchange (Table 11.2). The first threshold (line 0, orminus 0.57 persons per 100 km 2 ) represents theminimum number of people that must be present inorder to sustain themselves in a habitat.The second threshold (line 1, or 1.57 persons per100 2km) represents the popUlation density at whichthose who specialize in obtaining either aquaticresources or terrestrial animals in settings with relativelynarrow niche breadth change their subsistencestrategy. Aquatic specialists tend to expand theirniche to include plant foods. Terrestrial hunters willeither begin to utilize plants or they will extensify.Mounted hunters of the Great Plains are one exampleof an extensification strategy, which is considered oneroute to ranked social organization. The introductionof the horse allowed former semi sedentary horticulturdliststo utilize a new ecological niche-thebison. The sizes of their smallest residential groupsand their seasonal aggregated groups increased dramaticallywhile the population density decreased to3.69 per 100 km 2 • The response was reflected in asocial scale in which larger dispersed and aggregatedgroups responded to the need for cooperative labor.All remaining nonpacked hunter-gatherers areorganized in terms of networks, for which the familyis the basic decisionmaking unit. Because there isseasonal segmentation and rejoining into larger groupsand these larger groups are not necessarily made up ofthe same composition as previous ones, networksallow broad contacts within the ethnic unit, but theaggregated residential units have much fluidity.The third threshold (line 2, or 9.098 persons per100 km 2 ) is the packing threshold where there ismaximum diversification in niche breadth. Mobilitydisappears and many new patterns emerge as populationscontinue to increase. Binford (2001:435-437)calls this the point of self-organized criticality, wherethere is a transition from a relatively stable generichunter-gatherer pattern to one with greater instabilitythat former subsistence tactics cannot arrest. Abovethis point, there are complex hunter-gatherers (rankedsocieties with elite, or ranked societies with wealthdifferentiation); mutualists (who rely on exchange oftheir specialized products with neighboring groups toobtain sufficient food); or those who domesticateeither plants or animals.Those who become specialists often developranked societies. Those who had been primarily dependenton terrestrial animals had responded tointensification by reducing dependence on largerterrestrial animals and shifting to terrestrial animalshaving smaller body size. In warmer temperate zones,they increased dependence on plants; in cool to coldenvironments, this shift was to aquatic resources,which was their only option (Binford 2001:368).Once the packing threshold is reached and populationsare focused on the use of patches, institutionalizationof leaders of groups who own the most productivepatches occurs when those in less productive patchesmeet with insufficiencies and become indebted to thosewho have surplus to share in return for labor or craftitems. The craft items eventually mount up, andleaders with wealth differentials emerge.For those dependent on plants, when mobility isno longer an option and no aquatic resources areavailable, they can either expand their diet breadth tospecies that increase net return but that are less efficientto obtain, or they can increase their laborinputs for processing and storage. Major changes totheir social organization can thus be delayed as theygain time and space utility through the use of residentialpatches. Thus, not all hunter-gatherer groups

Table 11.2. Population thresholds identified by Binford (2001).8LineNo.o234No. of Persons I100 km 2-0.571.579.09852.677304.99Comments on thresholds estimated from group size model.Minimal population density for occupation by hunter-gatherer populations based on terrestrial model. Hunter-gatherers tend tospecialize and have relatively narrow niche breadth. They have very low achieved population densities and low rates ofpopulation increase. There is no balanced mutualism found below line O.Threshold for terrestrial hunters. They become mounted hunters; extensification allows specialists. For those dependent uponterrestrial plants, there is a general increase in subsistence diversity concurre'nt with growing population density. For thosedependent on aquatic resources, specialization decreases.Packed conditions reached. Terrestrial animal specialists rely on plant foods. Terrestrial plant specialists increase labor. Bothoften reduce space to concentrate on patches. Some horticulturalists and pastoralists share this space. Domestication might beadaptation, but not a linear result.End of nonranked generic hunter-gatherer groups. End of nonranked groupl>. Modified hunter-gatherers share space.Hunter-gatherer subsistence practices end.• See Binford (2001 : Figure 11.16)

338 Chaco Project Synthesisadopted status based on ranked hierarchies as theycrossed this threshold. Those in areas with highsubsistence diversity adopted age-graded secretsocieties and other social entities to provide neededservices along their route to social complexity. Theseleaders arrange periodic feasts, organize funeral rites,and supply wives to more distant settlements.At the packing threshold, reasonable responsesare to shift to horticulture or pastoralism to increasethe amount of food available. These choices are probablya response to biases in the habitat. Thus, domesticationis a response to packing; it is not a directresponse to population pressure alone, but also todifferent rates of growth that can be affected byconditions in neighboring regions, processes of fusion,or circumscription. It appears later in settlements thatare less conducive to high rates of population growth(e. g., where pathogens affect food storage), andappears more rapidly in areas where there areconstraints on population expansion.Sedentism is not a prerequisite to agriculture;complete sedentism is not expected until almost alllabor investments are devoted to a single venue forproduction of non mobile food resources (Binford2001:438). Some labor investment strategies forplant-dependent foragers include ways to render plantsedible, storage, cultivation of the plants themselves,and selection of a limited number of domesticatedplants for cultivation.The fourth threshold (line 3, or 52.677 personsper 100 km 2 ) marks the end of non-ranked huntergathererpopulations. Modified hunter-gatherers(complex leaders), mutualists, horticulturalists andpastoralists, and extensified or mounted huntergatherersshare space on graphs derived from plottingthe species diversity against the loglo populationdensities.The last threshold (line 4, or 304.99 persons per100 km 2 ) marks the space in which all hunter-gatherersubsistence practices disappear.Binford concluded that complexity evolves intwo ways. One path is through the integration of previouslyindependent systems, such as forest-productspecialists or mutualists. In these instances, ownershipor wealth is bartered for food. The other path isthrough intensification, which may result in complexsocial organization when resources occur in patches,or, if subsistence diversity is high, in egalitariansocieties that maintain age- or sodality-related leaders.One [path to complexity] is associated withscalar changes in group size as, for example,among hunter-gatherers who areprimarily dependent upon terrestrial plantsand have the highest values for populationdensity. In these groups, increased complexityis represented by secret societiesand social differentiation based on anindividual's progress through a series ofaggregated sodalities.These societal structures are also embeddedin a social fabric that features ownership orunchallenged association of persons withspecific, highly productive locations forresource exploitation. Intensification is apparentin the increased labor inputsrequired at the time of harvest and preparationfor storage, as well as during thefood processing required for immediateconsumption. This pathway to intensificationis associated with decreased dependenceupon terrestrial animals of large bodysize and a shift of male labor into rolespreviously assumed by female laborers,particularly the collection and processingof plant materials.At the same time that group size increases,there is an institutionalization of regularregional interactions among the growingcommumtIes. Round-robin hosting andmutual participation in mortuary rites andeducational events are major expressions ofthe development of regional, institutionalizedinteraction, as are moieties, whichperform complementary functions thatcrosscut at least some of the residentialunits. (Binford 2001:432-433)There are, therefore, several paths that lead to thesame outcome. The similarities between horticulturalistson the eastern seaboard of North America, theplant-dependent hunter-gatherers of California, andthe Pueblo peoples of the American Southwest, all of

A Broader Perspective 339whom fall between the fourth threshold and the lastthreshold, suggested to Binford that similar kinds ofdensity-dependent changes affected each of thesedifferent societies.A. Johnson's Southwestern HorliculturalistsPueblo horticulturalists were studied by A.Johnson (1997), whose goal was to determine why thepace of the adoption of horticulture and the process ofvillage formation vary across the Southwest. Becausethe environment has changed very little over the past4,500 years, the Southwest offered an opportunity toexamine the transition to food production. At thisregional scale, Johnson examined 25 Pueblo and 15non-Pueblo ethnographic cases. The initial conditionsthat formed the basis for explaining the pace andprocess of the development of food-producing strategiesand village formation were subsistence, mobility,population density, and group size.Based on permanent settlements, surface treatmenton ceramics, and aspects of house forms,adaptive strategies for each of the cases were classifiedinto three adaptive phases:Phase I represents the span of time betweenevidence of the earliest maize and the initial appearanceof early pottery and round houses. Huntinggatheringis the primary subsistence strategy. In thisphase, cultigens were considered seasonal supplementsto the gathering of wild resources, which is differentfrom the adoption of horticulture. Sites with theearliest maize are located in contexts of relativelystable hunter-gatherer groups. At the end of phase I,plain pottery, more permanent sites, and an increasedreliance on cUltigens occur.Phase II covers the span of time from the appearanceof plain pottery to the construction of siteswith up to 100 rooms, integrative features, andtextured and painted pottery. This period was indicativeof a horticultural adaptation, which is a subsistencespecialization around which other activities ofthe group are organized. This strategy appears in theleast stable hunter-gatherer areas. Organization of thehorticultural strategy will vary with aspects of thelocal environment.Phase III begins with the appearance of large(more than 100 rooms), aggregated sites with communalarchitecture represented by large integrativefeatures and massive labor investment. Agriculture,or farming, as the chief subsistence pursuit, providedsubsistence needs. The earliest population aggregationsand evidence for a permanent, stable aggregatedcommunity are found in different environments.Aggregation responds to labor needs that are found inareas with tbe lowest subsistence diversity. Foodproduction responds to mobility options in areas withhigher subsistence diversity.Throughout the Southwest, horticulturalsites are located in environments wherehunter-gatherer subsistence options wouldhave been least diverse, and least stable.Under conditions of population packing,labor investment in horticulture wouldhave been the only intensification option inthe Southwest, where aquatic resources arenegligible. In areas where hunter-gatherersubsistence diversity is expected to be low,any reduction in mobility options associatedwith population packing could lead toa critical reduction in subsistence options,forcing greater reliance on a much narrowerrange of resources. Investment inhorticultural strategies could mitigate therisk of relying on such a narrow range ofwild resources in a number of ways. First,it could increase the utility, from thestandpoint of humans, of primary productivity-e.g.,grasses with large seeds aremore useful than shrubs or grasses withsmall seeds. Second, it could increase thepredictability of both the timing and theamount of resources available. Finally,increased labor investment in fertilizing,watering, and weeding, could increaseyields beyond the productivity of thenatural vegetation. While the distinctionbetween non-horticultural and horticulturalsite locations follows the niche breadthgeneralization throughout the study area, itis expected that the organization ofhorticultural strategies will vary dependingon which aspects of local environments

340 Chaco Project Synthesiscontributed most to the destabilization ofhunting and gathering economies. (A.Johnson 1997:47, emphasis in original)Subsistence diversity was measured as a standarddeviation of subsistence dependence. Higher standarddeviations indicate lower subsistence diversity and.narrow niches; lower standard deviations indicatehigher subsistence diversity and broader niches.Greater subsistence diversity correlates with a slowertransition to dependence on horticulture (A. Johnson1997:39). The southern area, represented by theHohokam culture, had a shorter phase I and relativelylonger phase III duration than did the Eastern andWestern Anasazi pattern. Longer phase I and phase IIdurations occurred in areas where projectedsubsistence diversity is highest, but phase III wasshort. By deriving standard deviations for the projectedsubsistence diversity of horticulturalists, A.Johnson was able to confirm that measurements ofniche breadth did operate in the same manner forhorticulturalists as they did for hunter-gatherers. Shealso found that the environmental conditions supportingthe least stable hunter-gatherers are the sameas those that support the most stable horticulturalists.The earliest evidence for com was found on siteswhere hunter-gatherer niche breadth was greatest; theearliest horticultural sites are located where huntergathereradaptations would have been the least stable(A. Johnson 1997:44). Thus, the context for theintroduction of maize is different from that of its usein a horticultural subsistence strategy. She also foundevidence for different environmental contexts for theearliest examples of population aggregations and thosewith permanent, stable population aggregations.A. Johnson chose to examine the distribution ofaggregated sites with 50 or more rooms in NewMexico. She then calculated the standard deviation ofsubsistence specialties. There were few aggregatedsites in New Mexico prior to A.D. 1000 (N = 11); allare located in areas with moderate or low diversityprojections for horticultural subsistence diversity (A.Johnson 1997:50). The San Juan Basin had very lowhorticultural subsistence diversity (A. Johnson 1997:Figure 3.5). Between A.D. 1000 to 1200 and 1300,the shift in the number of aggregated sites in settingswith high subsistence diversity went from 17 percentto 80 percent.To examine the effects of diverse subsistencestrategies on the stability of human social organization,A. Johnson focused on the differences betweenEastern and Western Pueblo social and ceremonialorganizations. For the Historic Pueblo world, therewere general patterns in social organization-e.g.,clans, moieties, and medicine societies-but there weregraded variations in social organization from east towest (Table 11. 3). Johnson concluded that differencesin conditions for social organization (i.e., populationdensity, group size, mobility, and subsistence system)led to distinct adult labor organization patterns.Values for the cooperative labor group size (i.e.,number of households controlling access to productiveresources) were related to the intensity of agriculturallabor. When values of agricultural intensity wereeither high or low, individual households were theprimary resource access group. When values weremoderate, communal access is common (Adler 1994:89).When A. Johnson evaluated her sample ofPueblo agriculturalists, there was a distinct divisionbetween those who owned land individually versusthose with communal ownership at 25.5 standarddeviations (s.d.) from subsistence. The values of acooperative labor group size increased whensubsistence strategies were rated as less diverse.Below the standard value of 25.5, the primary accessgroup size was characterized as cooperative laboramong clans who are the social unit involved in landtenure and work parties. Above 25.5, there weredramatically different group sizes and increasingdivergences. This led to implications for variability inceremonial organization. The number of secretsocieties increased with the need to maintain theintegration of large social units that only occasionallycooperated in economic pursuits (Johnson 1997:68).Yet there was also a relationship between the numberof integrative structures and the total population.Acoma, Oraibi, and Zuni had more secret societies,but also had the largest populations in clan-basedsocieties (ca. 850 vs. less than 300 in others).... the diversity of subsistence strategiesconditions adult labor requirements andthat the relationships between economicall yinterdependent primary resource accessgroups and periodically cooperative labor

A Broader Perspective 341Table 11.3. Comparison of differences among Eastern and Western Pueblo groups.aTraitWestern Pueblos (Hopi, Zuni,Acoma, and Laguna)Blurred (Eastern Keres)Eastern Pueblos (Rio GrandePueblos)LinealityMatrilinealPatrilinealOrganizationExogamous clans. Affect personaland public life through naming,marriage, land ownership, use ofsprings and reservoirs, eagle eeriesand feathers, houses, kivas, andwork parties. They maintain theceremonial system.Clans important. Mixedsystem.Moiety system representsduality and directionality;e.g., east-west, and northsouth.A woman joins herhusband's moiety at marriage.Medicine societiesWeakStrongWeakIntegrative structuresSmall kivas function as men'shouses; ceremonies performedinside. Kivas vary from 2 to 13per village. From 10.6 to 17.5families per kiva at Hopi and 31.8at Zuni.No small structures.Two large structures.Large kivas used specificallyfor moiety functions.Social organizationClanMoietyDry farmIrrigationSmall integrative structureLarge integrative structureLower subsistence diversityHigher subsistence diversityLarger primary access group - clanSmaller primary access group- individual household.Less intensificationGreater intensificationSubsistence strategiesDiverseLess diverse, more intenseMore current demands on adultlabor; need larger labor pool.Clan-basedIndividual householdSmaller integrative structures;mens' houses; general-purposestructures.Large integrative structuresfor ceremonial purposes only.Combine moieties, dancegroups, and cross-cuttingsecret societies. Other typesof structures used for socialhouses, rehearsal halls, etc.More stableLess stable• Taken from Johnson (1997).

342 Chaco Project Synthesisgroups, in tum, condition investment inand organization of ceremonial orgamzation.(A. Johnson 1997:70-71)To link her results with archaeological evidence,A. Johnson evaluated integrative structures (i.e.,men's houses, society houses, rehearsal halls, andstructures reserved for ceremonial purposes) againstthe total population of historic pueblos (A. Johnson1997:71). A relationship was found. She also linkedthe divergence in the scale of integrative architecturewith that on the scale of labor organization. "Puebloswith a more-diverse, predominantly dry-farminghorticultural adaptation with both land tenure andperiodic work parties organized by relatively largeeconomically cooperative units--

A Broader Perspective 343that is related to differences in altitude. For mammals,there are many small-body-size animals withsmall home ranges and reduced niche distributions.Based on the hunter-gatherer ethnographic cases in thistype of environment, Binford (200I:Table 5.10)projected an average of 14.69 people per 100 km 2 ; anarea of 217.28 km 2 per group; a 42.76 percent dependenceon terrestrial plants; a mean household sizeof 6.17 people; a mean size of largest annual socialaggregation of 50.10 people; and an 8.36 averagenumber of annual residential moves per year forforaging groups.Based on available data (Gillespie's 1985: 18),the E. T. value for Chaco Canyon today would be13.53, which places it in the cool temperate zone. Itis within the storage threshold where one wouldexpect generic hunters 4-"d gatherers to SPend someperiods of time in collecting and preparing foods(either plant or animal) for use during the nonproductiveseason; e.g., gathering of pinon nuts onChacra Mesa (Wills and Windes 1989). However,there is considerable variability in topography withinthe larger region. Different E.T. values are expectedin these microhabitats. Binford (2001) listed a numberof E. T. values for more distant neighboringhunter-gatherer popUlations; they range from 13.59for the Kaibab Southern Paiute in Arizona (wherestorage is expected) to 15.83 for the Lipan Apache inTexas (where storage would not be needed).Based on current climatic conditions, which havebeen similar for the past 4,000 years (A. Johnson1997), there would have been no aquatic animals orlarge game on which to rely. Prior to that, there wasclimatic change at the end of the Pleistocene. Usingmethods refined by Reid Bryson (Bryson and Bryson1995) that depend on longitude, latitude, and elevation,high-resolution and site-specific models ofclimatic change could be reconstructed. By developingsuch reconstructions, it might be possible toaddress some questions. For example, did large gameanimals habitually use the San Juan Basin? What dothe few Paleoindian points recovered in Chaco Canyonrepresent? The rate of change in environmental conditionscould also be compared with the modelsdeveloped by Betancourt and VanDevender (1980) andHall (1977). If changes at the end of the Pleistocenemade it less risky for those dependent on terrestrialmammals to switch to plant food, it should be possibleto predict when the changes in technology (e.g.,switch from atlatI to bow and arrow) would appearand compare the predicted results with thearchaeological data.Based on areas of 217 . 28 km 2 per group dependenton terrestrial plants, the number of people livingin the San Juan Basin during the Preceramic periodmay not have been packed. There may have manyseparate groups that might have belonged to differentsegments, be they linguistic or cultural. How mightthese be correlated with Gwinn Vivian's (1990)delineation of four Archaic populations duringBasketmaker II? When might the threshold of 52.677persons per 100 km 2 be reached and mobility nolonger be an option for foragers dependent uponterrestrial plants? When might the threshold of304.99 persons per iOO km 2 be reached, at which nonrankedhunters and gatherers no longer exist? Becausethe Historic Pueblo people fall within the zone wherehunter-gatherer cases with the highest populationdensity were charted, what might this imply for thelevel of social complexity in Chaco Canyon and theSan Juan Basin during the Classic Bonito phase?Due to the low productivity for the area andfluctuating rainfall patterns, how might periods ofbetter rainfall alleviate population stress, which mightallow Pueblo horticulturalists to maintain nonrankedsocial organization during the Classic Bonito phase?Calculation of population density per 100 km 2 couldelucidate differences among communities, and perhapsindicate how the canyon differed from the rest of theSan Juan Basin. Could nesting of segments in the canyonhave reached a higher tier that brought togetherlarger work groups during certain occasions? Was themovement out of the Four Comers area a response inpart to the ability of Pueblo people to pursuesubsistence in wider niche breadth locations elsewhereand not necessarily a response to drought alone?After Pueblo people left the San Juan Basin, theregion was open for use by different people. InChapter 10, the issue of the earliest Navajo presencewas not resolved. Because no other populations wereliving in the region after A.D. 1300, would huntergatherershave been easily visible? With Young's (inCameron and Young 1986) ability to distinguishwhich lithic scatters are Archaic and which Navajo,would it be worthwhile to re-examine data from lithic

344 Chaco Project Synthesisscatters to see if there is an earlier Navajo presence, aswell as where the scatters are located? Once populationpacking was reached, horticulture would havebeen the likely option for the Navajo, but with theintroduction oflarge mammals (i.e., cattle, sheep, andhorses) after Spanish settlement in the AmericanSouthwest, there was an opportunity to use this desertscrub land in a new way. Given the options thatBinford presented, the pastoralist adaptation of theNavajo people is an expected subsistence practice.The key is understanding how and when populationpacking is reached, not just in Chaco Canyon, but alsothroughout the San Juan Basin.Using Binford's results in this manner does notcontribute to theory-building, but it would assist parkmanagers and interpreters in further refining theculture history of this area. As an organizationresponsible for a major cultural park and a WorldHeritage Site, the NPS needs the most accurateinformation available for interpretive purposes. Manyopportunities remain to study the Chaco Canyondatabase in ways that benefit both the public and thescientific community.

Appendix AExcavated Sites in Chaco CanyonFive major archaeological expeditions haveexcavated sites in Chaco Canyon. Tables A.I throughA.5 provide information on the sponsors of theinvestigations, the sites excavated (by name and sitenumbers), the excavators, the dates and extent ofexcavation, and references relating to the work. Whena site is listed on more than one table, there is a crossreferenceunder extent of excavations.

Table A.t. Sites excavated or examined by the Hyde Exploring expedition.V-l~0'1Site Name Site Number(s) Excavator( s) Date(s) Extent of Excavations Reference( s) n::r;.:>nSponsored by HEE 0"dPueblo Bonito 29S1387 George H. Pepper 1896-1899 190 rooms over four years. Judd (1954, 1964) 2. '"'(t)LA 226 Richard Wetherill Trash mounds. In 1916 Nels Lekson (1984a:l09-144) ... nBe 253 Nelson and Earl Morris Pepper (1899, 1905b, en'

Table A.1. (cont'd.)Site Name Site Number(s) Excavator( s) Date(s) Extent of Excavations Reference(s)Mound 3 William C. Farabee 1901 Midden Andrews (1970)Alfred M. TozzerMathien (2oo1a)Mound 4 William C. Farabee 1901 Midden Andrews (1970)Alfred M. TozzerMathien (2oo1a)House Site William C. Farabee 1901 8 rooms Andrews (1970)Alfred M. TozzerMathien (2oo1a)Wetherill Mesa Pueblo Mesa Tierra William C. Farabee 1901 7 (of approximately 40) Andrews (1970)LA 17220 Alfred M. Tozzer rooms; Marshall et al. (1979)3 kivas Mathien (2oo1a, 2002)Kin Neole (1/3 mile west ? Frederic Putnam 1899 100 graves Akins (1986:Table B.1)of Kin Bineola)AleS HrdlickaRelated to Period orProject"'Cemetery"' 1 mile east Warren K. Moorehead 1897 Unknown, probably a trash Akins (1986:118-119)of Pueblo Bonito midden Lekson (1984a:110)Moorehead (1906)Pueblo Bonito 29S1387 Warren K. Moorehead 1897 Rooms 53 and 56 Akins (1986:118-119)LA 226 Moorehead (1906)Bc 253Pueblo del Arroyo 29S11947 S. 1. Holsinger 1901 Arc enclosing plaza. Site later Holsinger (1901:51)LA41947 excavated by Judd (Table Judd (1959)Bc 254 A.2). Lekson (1984a:209-223)Holsinger'S site 2 miles S. J. Holsinger 1901 Mound Holsinger (1901)east of Kin KlizhinHolsinger'S site 1 mile S. J. Holsinger 1901 Mound Holsinger (1901)>"0"0northwest of Kin Klizhin(l)::sQ..~.>w~-.I

Table A.2. Sites excavated or examined by the National Geographic Society expedition.I.J.)~00Site Name Site Number(s) Excavator(s) Date(s) Extent of Excavations Reference( s)n::r~nPueblo Bonito 29SJ387 Neil M. Judd 1921- 198 rooms and kivas. Trash Judd (1954, 1964) 0'"dLA 226 Monroe Amsden 1927 mounds. Previous excavations Lekson (1984a:109-144)....Bc 253 Frans Blom by Pepper (Table A.l). Pepper (1920) 2.(pH. B. Collins..... nL. C. Hammond tI:l'

Table A.2. (cont'd.)Site Name Site Number(s) Excavator(s) Date(s) Extent of Exc;avations Reference(s)Judd's Pithouse No.2 29SJ1678 Neil M. Judd 1922 Pit structure 12 feet below valley Douglas (1935:44)(1.6 km/1.0 mile east of LA 41678 floor; dendro dated to ca. A.D. Judd (1923:136,Pueblo Bonito Bc 194 720 and 777. 1954:15, 1964:21)Pit structure beneath 29SJ387 Neil M. Judd 1925 Judd (1964:22)Pueblo Bonito West LA 226Court trench Bc 253Pit structure beneath 29SJ387 Neil M. Judd 1925 Judd (1964:22)Room 241 of Pueblo LA 226Bonito Bc 253Ruin 3 (6 miles east of Monroe Amsden 1925 L-shaped puc~blo with 8 rooms, Amsden (1925)Crownpoint near Kin dating to Early Bonito phase. Bustard (1996:97-99,Ya'a) Figure 4-6)Ruin 13 (in side LA 65441 Monroe Amsden 1925 L-shaped puc~blo with 7 + rooms Amsden (1925)tributary to Kin Bineola and a kiva dating to Classic Bustard (1996:124-125,Wash) Bonito phase:. Figure 4-23)Pit structure 9 miles east Frank H. H. Roberts, Jr. 1926 Judd (1927a: 168,of Pueblo Bonito, in 1964:21-22)gully in opposite bankfrom Arroyo House orHalf House beneathTurkey HouseArroyo House or Half 29SJ1657 Frank H. H. Roberts, Jr. 1926 Partial pit structure R. N. Adams (1951)House LA41657 Judd (1927a: 168,Bc 244,373 1964:21)Shabik'eshchee Village: 29SJ1659 Frank H. H. Roberts, Jr. 1926-1927 2 pithouses and several storage Judd (1927a:165-166)a pithouse 9 miles east LA 539 cists on western side of gully, Roberts (1928, 1929)>-of Pueblo Bonito Be 256 18 pit structures, court, great "C"C(l)kiva, and 48 storage bins.::sQ.~.>-Vl~\0

Table A.2. (cont'd.)Site Name Site Number(s) Excavator(s) Date(s) Extent of Excavations Reference( s) ::rtI>n0Roberts' small house or 29S12385 Frank H. H. Roberts, Jr. 1926 9 rooms and East Court, several Amsden and Roberts '"C'"1Turkey House LA 42385 burials in Pueblo II and Pueblo (n.d.).2.(DBc262 III house and mound. Bustard (1996:101-102).... nJudd (1927a:165-166, en1964:21) '

Table A.3. Sites excavated or examined by the School of American Research/University of New Mexico field schools.Site Name Site Number(s) Excavator( s) Date(s) Extent of Excavations Reference(s)Large Puebws:Chetro Ketl 29S11928 Edgar L. Hewett 1920-1921 Approximately ll30 rooms, great Hawley (1934)LA 838 1929-1935 kiva, court kiva" and about 8 Hewett (1936)Bc246 others. Later excavations of 2 Leinau (1934)rooms by NPS (Table AA). Miller (1937)Lekson (1983b, 1984a:152-192)P. Reiter (1933)Gwinn Vivian et al. (1978)Casa Rineonada 29SJ386 Gordon Vivian 1930-1931 Great kiva Gordon Vivian and ReiterLA 841 (1960)Be 255Kin Kletso 29S1393 Edwin Ferdon 1934 9 rooms and 2 kivas. Later Lekson (1984a:238-246)LA 2464 excavations by Gordon Vivian Gordon Vivian andBc248 and Mathews (Table AA). Mathews (1965)Kin Nahasbas 29SJ392 Dorothy Luhrs 1935 Great kiva and one room in Hewett (1936)LA 152 great house. Luhrs (1935)Bc249 Mathien and Wmdes (1988)Gordon Vivian and Reiter(1960)Talus Unit No.1 29S11930 Paul Walters, Jr. 1933-1937 27 rooms and 6 kivas. Later Lekson (1985a)LA 2470 Margaret Woods NPS excavation of Kiva J (Table M. Woods (1933, 1934aBc 257 AA). 1934b, 1935, 1937, 1938)SmaU Sites:Anna Shepard's site 29S1200 Anna Shepard 1929 3 rooms and trench Dutton (1938:11)LA 40200 Truell (1986: Table 2.1)Bc 114Cacique's Sanctum 29S11924 Richard Vann 1930 2 rooms Vann (1930) ::I0..LA 41924 Phil Drucker~.Bc 86 >>'1:l"0(IIV)VI.....

wUttvnSite Name Site Number(s) Excavator( s) Date(s) Extent of Excavations Reference(s) ::rI>'n0Kin Sabe 29SJ823 W. W. Postlethwaite 1931 Previous work by Wetherill and Judd (1954, 1959, 1964) ."'"ILA 40823 Alden C. Hayes 1937 Pepper (1896-1900) and by Judd Pierson (1956:43)Table A.3. (cont'd.)..2.Bc 263(ljMabel Harding (1925). Postlethwaite (1931)..... nTruell (1986:Table 2.1)(J')Talus unit 29S11927 Sally Pearce 1932 Partial excavation of 2 rooms Pierce (1932)LA41927Bc 89Talus Rock Shelter 29S11936 1932 Shelter with firepit and storage Bannister (1965:193-1"94)LA 41936 cists. Exposed room walls. Hawley (1934b:63)Bc 98-99 Floor cleaned. Truell (1986:Table 2.1)Cliff cavities: 29S11944 Hurst Julian 1932 Series of cliff cavities between Julian (1933)PS 1, PS2, PS3 LA41944 Dorothy Keur 1933 Chetro Ketl and Pueblo Bonito Pierson (1956:34-35)Ul, U2 Bc 130, 133 (U) (PS) and behind Kin Kletso (U).Bc 481 Paul Reiter 1932 Few burials Maher (1947)Gordon Vivian Truell (1986:Table 2.1)R. F. Maher 1947 Gordon Vivian notes inCCNHP Archive No. 393)Hutch's site 29SJ838 Charles Hutchinson 1934 6 rooms and 2 kivas of Brand (1937a:26)LA 40838 Albert Ely previously looted site. Pierson (1956)Bc 126 J. Charles Kelley Truell (1986:Table 2.1)CCNHP Archives Nos.487,570,1031,1193,1194Kin Chinde 29S1799 Bertha P. Dutton 1934 4 or 5 rooms and trash midden. Brand (1937a:26)LA 40799 Marion Hollenbach Pierson (1956:41)Bc 61 Truell (1986:Table 2.1)Leyit Kin 29S1750 Bertha P. Dutton 1934 14 rooms, 4 kivas, and trash Dutton (1938)LA 41750 1936 midden.Bc 24, Mound26'

Table A.3. (cont' d.)Site Name Site Number(s) Excavator(s) Date(s) Extent of Excavations Reference( s)Pit houses near Casa Bc64A Joseph Maloney 1936 1 pit house and 5 cists Pierson (1956:42)RinconadaGordon Vivian and Reiter(1960:Figure 3)Bc 50; Tseh So 29S1394 Donald Brand 1936 Most of site Brand et al. (1937)LA 40394 Florence Hawley Kluckhohn and ReiterBc 50 Frank Hibben (1939)Wesley Bliss Pierson (1956:39)Nan Glenn 1937 Numerous papers inBarbara Clark 1938 CCNHP ArchivesF. Seltzer 1939Donovan SenterGordon Vivian 1947Raymond RixeyBc 51 29SJ395 Clyde K1uckhohn 1937 Most of site Kluckhohn and ReiterLA 40395 Florence Hawley (1939)Bc 51 William Mulloy Pierson (1956:40)Wesley BlissCCNHP archivesA. R. Kelly 1938Walter Taylor 1939Gordon Vivian 1949-1950Bc 52, Casa 29SJ400 William Mulloy 1940 19 or 20 rooms and 3 kivas Mulloy (1941)Sombreada LA 40400 1941 Truell (1986:Table 2.1)Bc 52CCNHP ArchivesBc 53, Ignorance 29S1396 Frank H. H. Roberts, Jr. 1940 20 rooms, 4 kivas, trash midden, Pierson (1956:40-41)Hollow LA 40396 Paul Reiter 1941 and earlier pit house excavated Truell (1986:Table 2.1)Bc 53 by Judd. CCNHP ArchivesBc 54 29S11922 Ripley Bullen 1941 4 rooms, parts of others, and 3 Bullen (1941)LA 41922 William Mulloy kivas. Truell (1986:Tab1e 2.1)>Bc54 Paul Reiter CCNHP Archives :gBc 55 29S11921 Theodora Buggeln 1941 2 or 3 rooms Pierson (1956:41)LA 41921 M. Chandler Truell (1986:Table 2.1) x'Bc 55 >wVIwg0..

Table A.3. (cont'd.)Site Name Site Number(s) Excavator(s) Date(s) Extent of Excavations Reference( s) (1::rBc56 29SJ753 Paul Reiter 1941 8 rooms, 2 kivas, and burials Pierson (1956:41)LA 40753 CCNHP Archives 234, '"d'"IBc 56 (also Bc 235,250-256 ..s.78-83)()Bc 57 2951397 Paul Reiter 1942 9 rooms, 4 kivas, earlier pit Pierson (1956:41)LA 40397 structure beneath trash. Truell (1986:Table 2.1) So(PBc 57enr;;'Bc 58 29SJ398 C. Burroughs 1947 10 or llrooms, 2 kivas Pierson (1956:41)LA 40398 Stanley Stubbs Truell (1986:Table 2.1)Bc 58CCNHP ArchivesTom Mathews's site 2951399 Thomas Mathews 1947 16 to 20 rooms, 3 kivas, trash Mathews (1947)LA 40399 Gordon Vivian midden. Stabilization led to Pierson (1956:42)Bc 59 excavation of 3 additional Truell (1986:Table 2.1)rooms. CCNHP Archives 2160g,2059-2061Half Housel Arroyo 29511657 R. Adams 1947 Portion of pit house, previously R. N. Adams (1951)House LA 41657 L. Knudson excavated by Roberts. Judd (1964)Bc 373 M. Raphael Truell (1986:Table 2.1)Gordon Vivian andMathews (1965)wU!~~()0(P.....C/)~:::I

Table A.4. Sites excavated or examined by the National Park Service between 1937 and 1969.Site Name Site Number(s) Excavator(s) Date(s) Extent of Excavations Reference( s)Large Pueblos:Chetro Ketl 29SJ1928 Gordon Vivian 1947 Room 93 Lekson (1984a:152-LA 838 Charles B. Voll 1964 Room 92. The SARIUNM field 192) Gwinn Vivian etBe 246 Martin T. Mayer schools had previously excavated a1. (1978)much of the east side of this great Voll (1978)house (Table A.4).Kin Kletso 29S1393 Thomas Mathews 1950 Excavated remainder 0 f this great Lekson (1984a:238-LA 2464 Gordon Vivian 1951 house. Ferdon previously 246)Bc248 1953 excavated 9 rooms and 2 kivas Gordon Vivian andduring SAR field season (,rable Mathews (1965)A.3).Pueblo del Arroyo 29S11947 Leland Abel 1950 Re-excavation and stabilization of Holsinger (1901)Tri-Wall Structure LA 41947 Gordon Vivian the tri-wall structure. Previously Judd (1959)Bc 254 tested by Holsinger and partially Lekson (1984a:209-excavated by Judd (Tables A.1 223)and A.2). Gordon Vivian (1959)Una Vida Gordon Vivian 1956 Kiva C, trench across east wing Gillespie in Lekson1957 from Room 6 to Room 56, and 5 (1984a:79-94)Navajo hogans; 15 rooms in NE1960 corner. In 1979 Akins andGillespie would reexamim: severalrooms.Talus Unit No.1 29S11930 Joel Shiner 1959 Kiva J. IPrevious excavations by Shiner (1961)LA 2470SAR field school (Table A.3).Be 257SmaUSites:Three-C site 29SJ625 Gordon Vivian and H. K. 1939 9 rooms Gordon Vivian (1965):g>LA 41625 Boone~Be 243 Gordon Vivian and R. 1949 2 kivas ::l0.Rixey Later re-examined by Chaco >wtiltil

Table A.4. (cont'd.)~VI0\Site Name Site Number(s) Excavator(s) Date(s) Extent of Excavations Reference( s) n::r29S11 054 1 Gordon Vivian 1947? 2 rooms and 1 kiva Pierson (1956)LA 41054 Truell (1986:Table 'i:I'"IBe 363 2.1) ..2.(l>0....Be 48 Be 48 (possibly Martin Maher 1947 Truell (1986:Table enBe 3951) 2.1) 0....:::::sBe 50, Tseh So 29S1394 Gordon Vivian 1947 Previously excavated by UNM Truell (1986:Table(l>C/lLA 40394 Raymond Rixey field schools. 2.1) r;;'Be 50Be 51 29SJ395 Gordon Vivian 1949-1950 Previously excavated by UNM Truell (1986:TableLA 40395 field schools. 2.1)Be 51Headquarter's site 1 Gordon Vivian 1950 Trench Gordon Vivian andMathews (1965:81)Headquarter's site 2 29SJ515 Gordon Vivian 1950 4 rooms Gordon Vivian andLA 40515 Mathews (1965:81)Be 21129S1240 Gordon Vivian 1957 1 of2 rooms, 1 kiva Truell (1986:TableLA 40240 2.1)CCNHP Archive2172F29SJ589 Zarro Bradley 1958 10 rooms, 1 kiva, 1 oven, 1 cist, Bradley (1971)LA 40589and a Pueblo I pithouse.Be 236Lizard House 29S11912 James Maxon 1960 17 rooms and 3 kivas Maxon (1963)LA 41912 William BrombergBe 192Bromberg's ditch 29S11095 William Bromberg 1960 Partial excavation of water control Bromberg (1961)LA41095 James Maxon feature.Be 364I»(')0e-

Table AA. (cont'd.)Site Name Site Number(s) Excavator(s) Date(s) Extent of Excavations Reference( s)Voll's site 29SJ827 Charles Voll 1962 18 rooms, 3 kivas, and 2 plazas Voll (1964)LA 40827 Roland RichertBc 362 (and Bc250)Gallo Cliff Dwelling 29SJ540 Donald Morris 1966 1 kiva at west end Abel (1974)LA 40540 Leland Abel 1967 4 roomsBc 288Martin MayerGeorge Buckingham

Table A.5. Excavations and tests conducted by the Chaco Project.~Ul00nSite No. Site Name Excavator(s) Year Nature of Test or Excavation References ::r-I>'n0Pre-ceramic~..3. '""29SJ116 Thomas Mathews 1973 Archaic: 20 m of surface stripped; hearth excavated. Mathews's field notes~nLA40116 Peripheral tests. .....en'

Table A.5. (cont'd.)Site No. Site Name Excavator(s) Year Nature of Test or Excavation References29S1721 Bc 164 Thomas C. Windes 1973 Basketmaker III-Pueblo I and Early Pueblo III: McKenna (1986)LA40721 excavated 1 kiva, 2 pithouses, 6-7 cists or baking pits, Truell (1986)and 1 room. Windes (1976b, 2006a)29S11659 Shab ik' eshchee Alden C. Hayes 1973 Basketmaker III-Pueblo I: previously-excavated site Hayes (1975)LA41659 Village John Thrift revisited. Roberts uncovered 18 pithouses, 48 storage Thrift (field notes)bins, 1 great kiva, and 3 small trash middens. Wills and Windes (1989)Excavated 2 pit houses and storage cists.Windes (2006a)29S1724 House block 1 Thomas C. Windes 1974 Pueblo I: excavated 10 rooms, ramad.a, 1 pithouse. McKenna (1986)LA40724 House block 2 1976 Trash tested. 2 other tests. Truell (1986)Windes (1976c, 2006a)29MC184 Thomas C. Windes 1975 Pueblo I: shallow test trenches placed in trash mound. Windes (field notes; 2006a)LA4008129SJ597 Thomas C. Windes 1979 Pueblo I: tested pit structure. Windes (field notes)LA40597Bruce Anderson 1980 Pueblo I-Early Pueblo II: 4 tests, 1 firepit, 3 heating Bradford (field notes)James Bradford pits, 1 burial and trash midden. Windes (field notes)James TrottThomas C. WindesJames Bradford 1981 Trash Bradford (field notes)29SJ626 Thomas C. Windes 1975 Pueblo I-Early Pueblo II: 6 shallow tests in 3 rooms and Wmdes (field notes, 2006a)LA40626trash midden.James Bradford 1983 Bradford (field notes)Peter J. McKennaMcKenna (field notes)Judy Miles Windes (field notes, 2006a)Thomas C. Windes'1:l29SJ627 Marcia L. Truell 1974 Pueblo I-Early Pueblo II: excavated 25 rooms, 6 pit McKenna (1986) '1:l(1lLA40627 1975 structures, trash midden. Truell (1986, 1992) ::sQ..>

Table A.5. (cont'd.)w0\0Site No. Site Name Excavator(s) Year Nature of Test or Excavation References n::r29SJ629 Spadefoot Toad Thomas C. Windes 1975 Pueblo I-Early Pueblo II: excavated 8 rooms, 1 McKenna (1986)LA40629 site 1976 ramada area, 2 pithouses, 1 kiva, and trash midden. Truell (1986) '"dWindes (1993) ..9. '"'29S11360 C. Randall Morrison 1974 Pueblo I-Early Pueblo II: excavated 14 rooms, 1 pit McKenna (1983 1984, 1986) Ct:ILA41360 Peter J. McKenna 1979 house, 1 kiva, 1 ramada, and 3 trash pits. McKenna Truell (1986) '

Table A.S. (cont'd.)5ite No. 5ite Name Excavator(s) Year Nature of Test or Excavation References295J692 N 5tone circle Thomas C. Windes 1974 5tone circle: 20 recorded, 2 cleared and mapped Windes (1978)LA40692to1978295J692 5LA4069229S1866LA40866295J919LA4091929511326LA4132629511419LA4141929511474LA41474295Jl505 ELA4150529511505 WLA4150529511533LA4153329511565LA4156529511572LA4157229511660LA41660

Table A.S. (confd.)VJ0\NSite No. Site Name Excavator( s) Year Nature of Test or Excavation Referencesn:r~()029SJ1976 A'"dLA41976'"I.g.~()29SJ1976 B.....LA41976en'

Appendix BChronology ChartsThroughout the Chaco Project, a number ofdifferent chronologies were revised as refinements indating method were available. The following tablessummarize the terminology and ceramic types usedduring different an.alyses; the chart provides R-Ooverview of how all of these are correlated.Table B.l. Ceramic typological time used in artifact analyses. aCeramic Spans forArtifact AnalysisCeramic SpansRevisedPhaselCeramic PeriodDominant Painted Ceramic Type(s)A.D. 1120-1220A.D. 1100-1140Late Bonito Phase(Late Mix)Gallup Black-on-whitePuerco Black-on-whiteChaco McElmo Black-on-whiteMcElmo Black-on-white (local varieties)A.D. 1020-1120A.D. 1040/1050-1100Classic Bonito Phase(Gallup)Gallup Black-on-whiteA.D. 1020-1040Red Mesa Black-on-white and GallupBlack-on-whiteA.D. 900-1020A.D. 900-1040/1050Early Bonito900-975± Early Red Mesa975+-1040/50 Red MesaRed Mesa Black-on-white• Taken from Windes (1987[I1I]:Table 1.2).

Table B.2. Bonito phase ceramic assemblages. aPhaselPeriodBlack -an-whiteBlack-an-redCulinaryLate Bonito PhaseA.D. 1100-1040Late MixChaco-McElmo Black-on-whiteGallup Black-on-whitePuerco Black-on-whiteMcElmo Black-on-whiteChuska Black-on-whiteToadlena Black-on-whiteBlack Mesa Black-on-whiteMancos Black-on-whiteSosi Black-on-whiteSocorro Black-on-whiteWhite Mountain red wares (types unidentified)Tsegi Orange wares (Black-on-red and polychromes)Puerco Black-on-redWingate Black-on-redWingate PolychromeChuskan corrugated (unidentified)Cibola corrugated (unidentified)indented corrugated (types unidentified)Coolidge CorrugatedBlue Shale CorrugatedChaco CorrugatedHunter CorrugatedMancos ? CorrugatedClassic Bonito PhaseA.D. 1040150-1100GallupGallup Black-on-whitePuerco Black-on-whiteRed Mesa Black-on-whiteChuska Black-on-whiteToadlena Black-on-whiteBlack Mesa Black-on-whiteMancos Black-an-whiteTsegi Orange wares (types unidentified)San Juan Red waresTusayan Black-on-redCibola corrugated (unidentified)Chuskan corrugated (unidentified)indented corrugated (types unidentified)Exuberant CorrugatedCoolidge CorrugatedBlue Shale CorrugatedTohatchi CorrugatedEarly Bonito PhaseA.D. 975±-1040/50Red MesaRed Mesa Black-on-whiteEscavada Black-on-whiteNewcomb Black-on-whiteBurnham Black-on-whiteSan Juan Red wares (types unidentified)La Plata Black-on-redDeadman's Black-on-redCibola/Tusayan plain grayCibola narrow neckbandedCibola neck indented corrugatedChuskan neck indented corrugatedChuskan narrow neckbandedTohatchi BandedEarly Bonito PhaseA.D. 900-975+Early Red MesaRed Mesa Black-on-whiteWhitemound Black-on-whiteTunicha Black-on-whiteKana'a Black-on-whiteLa Plata Black-on-whiteSan Juan Red wares (types unidentified)Deadman's Black-an-redLa Plata Black-on-redBluff Black-on-orangeSanostee Black-on-redCibola/Tusayan plain grayCibola narrow neckbandedTohatchi BandedKana'a neckbandedCibola neck indented corrugatedChuskan neck indented corrugatedLino Gray• Taken from Windes (1987[I]:Table 8.15). Types are arranged in descending order of frequency.

Appendix B 365Table B.3. Dominant ceramic types by period used by Truell (1986) in analysis of architecture of smallsites. aPeriodBlack-an-whiteBlack-on-redCulinaryLate A.D. 1100s to1200sChaco-McElmo Black-on-whiteMcElmo Black-on-whiteMesa Verde Black-on-whiteChaco McElmo Black-on-whiteNava Black-on-whiteCrumbled House Black-on-whiteWingate Black-on-redSt. Johns PolychromeTusayan PolychromeHunter CorrugatedMummy Lake GrayLate A.D. 1000s toMiddle 1100sGallup Black-on-whitePuerco Black-on-whiteMancos Black-on-whiteChaco McElmo Black-on-whiteSosi Black-on-whiteBiack Mesa Biack-on-whiteMcElmo Black-on-whiteBrimhall Black-on-whiteNava Black-on-whiteToad1ena Black-on-whiteChuska Mesa Black-on-whiteTusayan Black-on-redPuerco Black-on-redWingate Black-on-redChaco CorrugatedMancos CorrugatedBlue Shale CorrugatedMiddle-Late 900sto Early-Middle1000sRed Mesa Black-on-whiteNewcomb Black-on-whiteBurnham Black-on-whiteNaschilli Black-on-whiteCortez (Cortancos) Black-on-whiteEarly Gallup (mid 1000s) Black-on-whitePuerco-Escavada Black-on-whiteDeadman's Black-on-rednarrow neckbandedneck corrugated:Capt. Tom's CorrugatedNewcomb CorrugatedCoolidge CorrugatedTohatchi NeckbandedMiddle-Late 700sto Early-Middle900s700s to Early 800sdominantsKiatuthlanna Black-on-whiteRed Mesa Black-on-whiteWhitemound Black-on-whitePiedra Black-on-whiteTunicha Black-on-whitePena Black-on-whiteWhitemound Black-on-whitePiedra Black-on-whiteDeadman's Black-on-redBluff Black-on-orangeKana'a wide neck banded"narrow" neck bandedLino GrayGrey HilIs GrayTohatchi Neckbanded500s to Early 700sLa Plata Black-on-whiteWhite Mound Black-on-whiteLino Black-on-grayPiedra Black-on-whiteAbajo Black-on-orangeBluff Black-on-redSanostee Black-on-orangeLino GrayLino Fugitive• Taken from Truell (1986:Table 2.3). Types are arranged in descending order of frequency.

Table B.4. Chaco chronology as updated by T. C. Windes. sw~Pecos Classification Chaco Project Dates (A.D.) Ceramic Assemblage (dominant Major Architectural Events Other Events n:rPhases types) I»("l0'"t:jLate Pueblo III Mesa Verde 1200 to 1300 Mesa Verde Black-on-white Aztec East constructed. Major repopulation ...,0indented corrugated (rock and Reoccupation of great houses........(l)("lsherd temper).....enPueblo III McElmo 1140 to 1200 McElmo Black-on-white Little or no construction in Major depopUlation; '

Table B.4. (cont'd.)Pecos ClassificationChaco ProjectPhasesDates (A.D.)Ceramic Assemblage (dominanttypes)Major Architectural EventsOther EventsLate Basketmaker IIILa Plata600 to 700La Plata Black-on-whiteLino GrayObelisk GrayShallow pithouses, dispersedsettlementModerate storagefacilities (surface cists)Basketmaker IIILa Plata500 to 600La Plata Black-on-whiteLino GrayObelisk GrayShallow pithouses. Twoaggregated communities withgreat kivasModerate storagefacilities (surface cists)Late Basketmaker IIBrown ware400 to 500Obelish gray wareBrown wareUnknownUnknowna Taken from http://www.colorado.edu/conferences/chaco/chronology.htm. Published in Cameron and Toll (2001:Table 1).

--" 0'-;u",'60::~.2Il.U..'"~ cc: c0 2O>uCIO ..Co0 ::=.u_OJQl -:'6 ~ ....::.~O"l_O!:..~~ ~~.:;~~or----VcnD~(2005l___,co .. (1\.2 .. .. ~~-=:.~:~~Reiii) ~a; ¥It::" :;~ "'-!~£. 0;; " ~ c> ..., 0"'OJ"';::. r a: :r Q. .=~ ~~t9.ll .,.:; a: ~;::. ~;::.~~130012001100'000900800o«~ 100~600-P ....'blo IIIPueblo. 1IPueblD IBosketmOKer miQ. ~ Lote PuebloID' Meso Verde. 0 2 1200, 1220-1320 Post -S,.st• ..,.,"-MHO Verde Lofe PU$blolIl Mesa V.rdea> "f!~ U; Loti Bon,to DC ~OO "30-12W~COUOPH McElmo Pueblom t.lic['mo0801'\1\0 Pho§.e :!:~ 1120- 1220Great Pueblu, "- ELot. IIOO~'"(orll Puebo m:M14dl. ! 100, fUoorQol'lllol ion Lote Bonito Eorl),Pu.blom lQre Bon I to'--- lOle 1000. CIOUIC Son-ito E,;ponl1on OG 400 IO!()-I!~O00s5IC BOnito Lote f\ul'blo n CloniC BonitoHo"o Butte 1020 -1120PhaseForm~;lofIOt'lLof!-Pueb1oli [arly-Mid 1000.Ifl 0. t .. Eo,ty BOl'1ito~id-lole 900,Eori)' P .. eblollWII'I.g.ote PhonEortJ 8011.10Early BOnito9'1'0-1020 Inllio\ilotlDn DG 300Early PuebloD: 890-1025Olvelopmenlo1Red Meso Phose Rid Me\oPhose Eotl)'·M,d 900, ~t.PI-Eorl'fPltPueblo820-920K1Q~ulhlC)nno pt\Pueblo I?ueb\o I Pre - System OG20DKIOhJthlonn.QPh Mld-Lala1OCX While Mound Whl1e MoundModlf'ed8asIH:fmakt"rWhite Mo.md Ph.I 700-820 --- 700-900 tarty Pueblo IWhileMOllnd PhLQ Plato Pr,o'5oeEotly 700\ ---lot.600. ~~-noBOS1(,fmOktr.JI DGIOO BosHlmoll.ermLa Plata PhO"! La Floto La Ploto!!10O, ., !)QDs 8DJ1o.elmokermIlOOIlOOI 100. 000900saorooGOO:'00~oo400Bos~etmoke' ItBO$kelmo,erBrO«'I'I'llWoreLateBo.llt1moke~nBrowrr\Jrare400300B-osk"tmoke' JIArchOIC300200100aArchOICI200, DOoFigure B.l.Correlation of Pecos classification with various assigned dates and phase terminology as applied to ChacoCanyon (1924-2001).

Appendix CThe Chaco Synthesis ProjectAs completion of the publications of the NPSChaco Project drew to a close, the importance of reevaluatingthe results and interpretations of the datafrom the Pueblo adaptation, along with continuingresearch by younger scholars and experts from otherareas, became evident. The Chaco Synthesis Project,under the direction of Stephen H. Lekson, \1Iasdesigned to address specific topics during a series ofsmall conferences, and to bring these discussionstogether in a capstone conference that would presentthe latest interpretations. It was important todisseminate information on these conferences asquickly as possible and to make the results available tothe Native American community and the generalpublic as well.Throughout the project, there have been manyopportunities for scholars and laymen to trackprogress. Interim reports were provided. Lekson andBurd prepared a brief review entitled "A NewSynthesis of Chaco Canyon Archaeology, " which waspublished in Anthropology News 41(9),2000. Leksonand Burd (2001; foreword in Society and Polity-TableC.2) wrote a mid-project overview. Summaries of themini-conferences also appeared in ArchaeologySouthwest 14(1), Winter 2000. Included in the latterwere:"Ancient Chaco's New History," by Stephen H.Lekson, pp. 1-4;"Economy and Ecology, " by R. Gwinn Vivian, pp. 5-7· ,"Organization of Production," by Catherine M.Cameron and H. Wolcott Toll, pp. 8-9;"Architecture," by Stephen H. Lekson, pp. 12-14;"Chaco World," by Nancy Mahoney, pp. 15-17; and"Society and Polity," by Linda S. Cordell and W.James Judge, pp. 18-19.These summaries alerted interested researchers to thedire~tions in which the mini-conferences were headingand that they should expect more extensive reports ofthe results.The professional publications, summarized inTables C.l through C.7, indicate where these resultsappear, either as published papers or books, or in awebsite database.Several popular volumes are also based, in part,on the Chaco Synthesis Project. Brian Fagan (ChacoCanyon. Archaeologists Explore the Lives of anAncient Society, Oxford University Press, New York,2005) graciously took on the job of presenting apersonal view that incorporated lessons learned fromhis work in Africa. At the same time, David GrantNoble (2004) had been planning to update an earlieredited collection of papers; he was able to expand thecoverage and obtain many additional viewpoints(Table C.8). Additionally, Kendrick Frazier (2005)revised his volume entitled People of Chaco: ACanyon and Its Culture.Two websites contain information about thesynthesis project at its inception and its end (http://www.colorado.edu/Conferences/Chaco.cdarc.org; andhttp://www.srifoundation. org/Chaco/Chaco.htrnl).John Kantner designed and maintains the Chaco W orIdwebsite at http://sipapu.gsu.edu/Chacoworld.htrnl,which he updates as new information becomesavailable.

370 Chaco Project SynthesisIn summary, the Chaco Synthesis Projectprovided an excellent assessment of the place of ChacoCanyon in the Pueblo World, and its history. Itacknowledged the important groundwork that resultedfrom the Chaco Project. Although many new analysesby numerous researchers since that time refine theconcepts proposed at the close of the Chaco Project,some of the same questions remain for the nextgeneration of scholars to address.

Appendix C 371Table C.l. The organization of production.When:Where:Organizers:Outside Specialists:Project Director:NPS Project:Other Attendees:March 21-23, 1999University of Colorado, BoulderCatherine M. CameronH. Wolcott TollTimothy EarleMelissa HagstrumPeter PeregrineLord Colin RenfrewStephen H. LeksonPeter J. McKennaFrances Joan MathienThomas C. WindesKarin BurdMichael LarkinPublished Results:Cameron, Catherine M., and H. Wolcott Toll1999 "The Chaco Organization of Production Conference." Society for American Archaeology 17(4):24, 29.Articles in American Antiquity 66(1), January 2001, as follows:Cameron, Catherine M., and H. Wolcott Toll"Deciphering the Organization of Production in Chaco Canyon," pp. 5-13.Renfrew, Colin"Production and Consumption in a Sacred Economy: The Material Correlates of High Devotional Expression atChaco Canyon," pp. 14-25.Earle, Timothy"Economic Support of Chaco Canyon Society," pp. 26-35.Peregrine, Peter N."Matrilocality, Corporate Strategy, and the Organization of Production in the Chacoan World," pp. 36-46.Hagstrum, Melissa"Household Production in Chaco Canyon Society," pp. 47-55.Toll, H. Wolcott"Making and Breaking Pots in the Chaco World," pp. 56-78.Cameron, Catherine M."Pink Chert, Projectile Points, and the Chaco an Regional System," pp. 79-102.Mathien, Frances Joan"The Organization of Turquoise Production and Consumption by the Prehistoric Chacoans," pp. 103-118.Windes, Thomas C., and PeterJ. McKenna"Going Against the Grain: Wood Production in Chacoan Society," pp. 119-140.

372 Chaco Project SynthesisTable C.2. Society and polity.When:Where:Organizers:Outside Specialists:Project Director:NPS Project:Other Attendces:May 3-7,1999Fort Lewis College, Durango, CO.Linda S. CordellW. James JudgcNancy MahoneyMark VarienJohn WareHenry T. WrightNorman YoffeeStephen H. LeksonFrances Joan MathienThomas C. WindesSusan BryanKarin BurdMichael LarkinPublished Results:Cordell, Linda S. and W. James Judge2000 "The Chaco Society and Polity Working Conference." Society for American Archaeology 18(2):7, 10.Cordell, Linda S., W. James Judge, and June-el Piper2001 Chaco Society and Polity: Papers from the 1999 Conference. New Mexico Archeological Council Special Publication No.4. New Mexico Archeological Council, Albuquerque. Chaptcrs included:Lekson, Stephen H., and Karin Surd"Foreword," pp. vii-ix.Cordell, Linda S., and W. James Judge"Perspectives on Chaco Society and Polity," pp. 1-12.Mahoney, Nancy"Monumcntal Architecturc as Conspicuous Display in Chaco Canyon," pp. 13-29.Windes, Tom"Housc Location Patterns in the Chaco Canyon Area. A Short Dcscription, " pp. 31-45.Varien, Mark D."We Have Lcarned A Lot, Sut We Still Havc More to Learn," pp. 47-61.Yoffee, Norman"The Chaco 'Rituality' Revisited," pp. 63-78.Ware, John A."Chaco Social Organization: A Peripheral View," pp. 79-93.

Appendix C 373Table C.3. The Chaco World.When:Where:Organizers:Outside Specialists:Discussants:Project Director:NPS Project:NPS Park Personnel:BLM:Other:Other Attendees:September 25-27, 1999Arizona State UniversityNancy MahoneyKeith KintighJohn KantnerDennis GilpinSarah HerrWinston HurstJ ames KendrickKathy RolerRuth Van DykeDavid AndersonRoger AnyonTimothy PauketatStephen H. LeksonFrances Joan MathienRobert P. PowersThomas C. WindesDabney FordCharles WilsonSarah SchlangerDavid DoyelKarin BurdMichael LarkinPublished Results:Articles in Kiva 69(2) Winter 2003, as follows:Kantner, John"The Chaco World," pp. 83-92.Kintigh, Keith"Coming to Terms with the Chaco World," pp. 93-116.Van Dyke, Ruth M."Bounding Chaco: Great House Architectural Variability Across Time and Space," pp. 117-139.Durand, Kathy Ro1er"Function of Chaco-Era Great Houses," pp. 141-169.Gilpin, Dennis'Chaco-Era Site Clustering and the Concept of Communities," pp. 171-205.Kantner, John"Rethinking Chaco as a System," pp. 207-227.Database:http://sipapu.gsu.edu/Chacoworld.htmlIncluded are 224 possible great houses outside Chaco Canyon.

------ --------------374 Chaco Project SynthesisTable C.4. Economy and ecology.When:Where:Organizers:Participants:Discussants:Project Director:NPS Project:NPS Park Personnel:Other Attendees:October 28-30, 1999University of Arizona Desert Laboratory, Tucson, AZ.R. Gwinn VivianCarla Van WestJeffrey S. DeanJulio BetancourtNaney 1. AkinsMollie S. TollBrian FaganEnrique SalmonWilliam DoolittleStephen H. LeksonFrances Joan MathienThomas C. WindesDabney FordCharles WilsonKarin BurdMichael LarkinPublished Results:Vivian, et al.2005 Chapter entitled Economy and Ecology and Appendix to The Archaeology of Chaco Canyon: An Eleventh Century PuebloRegional Center, edited by Stephen H. Lekson. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.Included is chart coordinating different economic and environmental data through time.

Appendix C 375Table C.5. Chaco, Mesa Verde, and the confrontation with time.When:Where:Organizers:Participants:NPS:February 24-26, 2000University of Colordo at BoulderPatricia LimerickStephen H. LeksonVine Deloria Jr.Leah DilworthAnn FabianPeter GoinRobert GreenleeRoger KennedyTessie NavanjoSimon OrtizEnrique SalmonReg SanerCharles ScogginRussell BodnarFrances Joan lYfathien

------------------------------------376 Chaco Project SynthesisTable C.6. Chacoan architecture.When: September 28 - October 3, 2000Where:University of New Mexico and Chaco Culture National Historical ParkOrganizers:Stephen H. LeksonThomas C. WindesOutside Specialists: Wendy AshmoreTaft BlaekhorsePatricia FournierRichard FriedmanBen NelsonAnna SofaerJohn SteinPhillip TuwaleststiwaJay WilliamsOther Specialists: David StuartNPS Project: Frances Joan MathienJohn D. SehelbergNPS Park Personnel: Russ BodnarG. B. CornucopiaDabney FordCharles WilsonOther Attendees: Karin BurdMichael LarkinPublished Results:Lekson, Stephen H. (editor)2006 Architecture of Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, in press. Chapters include:Lekson, Stephen H."Foreword""Introduction to Chaco Architecture"Windes, Thomas C."Gearing Up and Piling On: Early Greathouses in thc Chaco Basin"Van Dyke, Ruth M."Great Kivas in Time, Space, & Society"Neitzel, Jill E."Interpreting Pueblo Bonito's Architecture"Lekson, Stephen H., Thomas C. Windes, and Patricia Fournier"The Changing Faces of Chetro Ketl"Ashmore, Wendy"Building Social History at Pueblo Bonito"Kievit, Karen"Seeing and Reading Chaco Architecture"Stein, John, Rich Friedman, and Taft Blaekhorse"Revisiting Downtown Chaco"Sofaer, Anna"The Primary Architecture of the Chacoan Culture"

Appendix C 377Table C.7. The capstone conference.When:Where:Organizer:Participants:Public volume:NPS:October 16 - 19, 2002University of New MexicoLynne SebastianCatherine M. CameronW. James JudgeJohn KantnerKeith KintighStephen H. LeksonWilliam LipeBen NelsonH. Wolcott TollBrian FaganDavid Grant NobleRussell BodnarStephanie DuboisDabney FordFrances Joan MathienRobert P. PowersThomas C. WindesCarla Van WestR. Gwinn VivianPublished Results:Lekson, Stephen H. (editor)2005 The Archaeology of Chaco Carryon: An Eleventh Century Pueblo Regional Center. School of American Research Press,Santa Fe.Lekson, Stephen H."Chaco Matters: An Introduction"Vivian, R. Gwinn, Carla VanWest, Jeffrey S. Dean, Nancy J. Akins, Mollie S. Toll, and Thomas C. Windes"Economy and Ecology"Lekson, Stephen H., Thomas C. Windes, and Peter J. McKenna" Architecture"Toll, H. Wolcott"Organization of Production"Kantner, John, and Keith Kintigh"Chaco World"Judge, W. James, and Linda S. Cordell"Society and Polity"Wilshusen, Richard H., and Ruth M. VanDyke"Chaco's Beginnings: The Collapse of Pueblo I Villages and the Origins of the Chaco System"Lipe, William D."Chaco: Notes from the North"

378 Chaco Project SynthesisDuff, Andrew, and Stephen H. Lekson"Chaco: Notes from the South"Nelson, Ben A."Invoking Distant Ideals: Mesoamerican Content in Chaco Context"Wilshusen, Richard H., and W. Derek Hamilton"Revitalizing American Archaeology: The Chaco Project in Historical Context"Sebastian, Lynne"The Chaco Synthesis"

Appendix C 379Table C.S.In Search of Chaco: New Approaches to an Archaeological Enigma, edited by David GrantNoble. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe. 2004Judge, W. James"Chaco's Golden Century," pp. 1-6.Vivian, R. Gwinn"Puebloan Farmers of the Chacoan World," pp. 7-13.Windes, Thomas C."The Rise of Early Chacoan Great Houses," pp. 15-21.Lekson, Stephen H."Architecture, The Central Matter of Chaco Canyon," pp. 23-31.Toll, H. Wolcott"Artifacts in Chaco: Where They Came From and What They Mean," pp. 33-40.Cordell, Linda S."Chaco's Corn. Where Was It Grown?," p. 38.Kuwanwisiwma, Leigh J."Yupk5yvi. The Hopi Story of Chaco Canyon," pp. 41-47.Swentzell, Rina"A Pueblo Woman's Perspective on Chaco Canyon," pp. 49-53.Begay, Richard M."Tse Biyah 'Anii':ihe. Chaco Canyon and Its Place in Navajo History," pp. 55-60.Brugge, David M."The Chaco Navajos," pp. 61-69.Kantner, John"Great-House Communities and the Chaco World," pp. 71-77.VanDyke, Ruth M."Chaco's Sacred Geography," pp. 79-85.Malville, J. McKim"Sacred Time in Chaco Canyon and Beyond," pp. 87-92.Sebastian, Lynne"Understanding Chaco an Society," pp. 93-99.Renfrew, Colin"Chaco Canyon, A View from the Outside," pp. 101-106.Lipe, William D."The Mesa Verde Region. Chaco's Northern Neighbor," pp. 107-115.Lister, Florence C."A Century of Archaeology in Chaco Canyon," pp. 117-122.Mills, Barbara J."Key Debates in Chacoan Archaeology," pp. 123-130.

ReferencesAbel, Leland J.1974 Be 288: A Late Pueblo Site in Chaco CanyonNational Monument, New Mexico. Archive 2149,Chaco CultureNHPMuseum Archive, University ofNew Mexico, Albuquerque.Adams, E. Charles1979 Cold Air Drainage and Length of Growing Seasonon the Hopi Mesas Area. The Kiva 44:285-296.1991 The Origin and Development of the Pueblo KatsinaCult. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Adams, Rex1980 Salmon Ruin: Site Chronology and FormationProcesses. In Investigations at Salmon Ruin: TheStructure of Chacoan Society in the NorthernSouthwest, edited by Cynthia Irwin-Williams andPhilip H. Shelley, Vol. 1, Pt. 4, pp. 199-294.Eastern New Mexico University, Portales.Adams, Richard N.1949 Half House: A Pit House in Chaco Canyon, NewMexico. M.A. thesis, Yale University, New Haven.Published in 1951.1951 Half House: A Pithouse in Chaco Canyon, NewMexico. Papers of Michigan Academy of Science,Art and Letters No. 35:273-295. Ann Arbor, MI.Adler, Michael A.1989 Ritual Facilities and Social Integration in NonrankedSocieties. In The Architecture of Social Integrationin Prehistoric Pueblos, edited by William D. Lipeand Michelle Hegmon, pp. 35-52. OccasionalPapers of the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center,Cortez.1994 Population Aggregation and the Anasazi SocialLandscape: A View from the Four Corners. In TheAncient Southwestern Community. Models andMethods for the Study of Prehistoric SocialOrganization, edited by W. W. wills and Robert D.Leonard, pp. 85-101. University of New MexicoPress, Albuquerque.Adler, Michael A., and Richard H. Wilshusen1990 Large-scale Integrative Facilities in Tribal Societies:Cross-Cultural and Southwestern U.S. Examples.World Archaeology 22:133-146.Agogino, George A.1960 The San Jose Sites. A Cochise Like Manifestationin the Middle Rio Grande. Southwestern Lore26:43-48.Agogino,

382 Chaco Project SynthesisArcheology 18G, Chaco Canyon Studies. NationalPark Service, Santa Fe.2001 Chaco Canyon Mortuary Practices. ArcheologicalCorrelates of Complexity. In Ancient BurialPractices in the American Southwest: Archaeology,Physical Anthropology, and Native AmericanPerspectives, edited by Douglas R. Mitchell andJudy L. Brunson-Hadley, pp. 167-190. Universityof New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.2003 The Burials of Pueblo Bonito. In Pueblo Bonito:Center oj the Chacoan World, edited by Jill E.Neitzel, pp. 94-106. Smithsonian Institution Press,Washington, D.C.Akins, Nancy J., and Jack B. Bertram1988 The Kin Nahasbas Faunal Remains. In HistoricStructure Report, Kin Nahasbas, Chaco CultureNational Historical Park, by Frances Joan Mathienand Thomas C. Windes, pp. 275-288. Branch ofCultural Research, National Park Service, Santa Fe.Akins, Nancy J., and William B. Gillespie1979 Summary Report of Archaeological Investigations atUna Vida, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. Ms. onfile, Chaco Culture NHP Museum Archivc,University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.Akins, Nancy J., and John D. Schelberg1984 Evidence of Organizational Complexity as Seenfrom the Mortuary Practices in Chaco Canyon. InRecent Research on Chaco Prehistory, edited by W.James Judge and John D. Schelberg, pp. 89-102.Reports of the Chaco Center No.8. Division ofCultural Rcsearch, National Park Service,Albuquerque.Aldenderfer, Mark1993 Ritual, Hierarchy, and Change in ForagingSocieties. Journal oj Anthropological Archaeology12:1-40.Alexander, Hubert G., and Paul Reiter1935 Report on the Excavation oj Jemez Cave, NewMexico. School of American Research Monograph4. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque,and School of American Research, Santa Fe.Allan, William C., and Jobn B. Broster1978 An Archeological Application oj the ChristallerModel. Paper presented at the 54th Annual Meetingof the Southwcstern and Rocky Mountain Divisionof the American Association for thc Advancement ofScience. Ms. on file, Chaco Culture NHP MuseumArchive, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.Altschul, Jeffrey H.1978 The Development of the Chacoan InteractionSphere. Journal oj Anthropological Research34(1):109-146.Amsden, Monroe1925 Small Sites of the Chaco. Ms. on file, Archive No.4853(1), National Anthropological Archive,Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., andArchive No. 2097, Chaco Culture NHP MuseumArchive, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.Amsden, Monroe, and Frank H. H. Roberts, Jr.n.d. Untitled manuscript. Miscellaneous Collections No.4853(2), National Anthropological Archives,Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.Andrews, Anthony1970 The Chaco Canyon Project: The Tozzer-FarabeeExpedition, 1901. Archive 2128J, Chaco CultureNHP Museum Archive, University of New Mexico,Albuquerque.Antevs, E.1948 Climatic Changes and Pre-White Man. In The GreatBasin, with Emphasis on Glacial and PostglacialTimes. University oJUtah Bulletin 38(20):168-191.1955 Geologic-Climatic Dating in the West. AmericanAntiquity 20:317-335.Bailey, Garrick, and Roberta Glenn Bailey1986 A History oJthe Navajos. The Reservation Years.School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.Bain, James G.1974 Techniques and Procedures Jor Rock Art Recording.COAS Monograph No.3. Las Cruces.Baker, Larry L.2003 Anasazi Settlement Distribution and the Relationshipto Environment. In Prehistory oj the Middle RioPuerco Valley, Sandoval County, New Mexico,edited by Larry L. Bakcr and Stephen R. Durand,pp. 155-177. Archaeological Society of NewMexico Special Publication No.3. Albuquerque.Baker, Larry L., and Stephen R. Durand (editors)2003 Prehistory of the Middle Rio Puerco Valley,Sandoval County, New Mexico. ArchaeologicalSociety of New Mexico Special Publication No.3.Albuquerque.Bandy, Philip A.1980 Draft Report on Archaeological Remote SensingResearch with Refractive Seismology. Ms. on file,

References 383Chaco Culture NHP Museum Archive, University ofNew Mexico, Albuquerque.Bannister, Bryant1964 Tree-Ring Dating of the Archeological Sites in theChaco Canyon Region, New Mexico. SouthwesternMonuments Association Technical Series 6(2): 117-206, Globe, AZ.Begay, Richard N.2004 Tse Biyah 'Anii'lihi: Chaco Canyon and Its Place inNavajo History. In In Search of Chaco. NewApproaches to an Archaeological Enigma , edited byDavid Grant Noble, pp. 55-60. School of AmericanResearch Press, Santa Fe.Bennett, Connie, and John Weymouth1981 Analysis of Two Magnetic Surveys in ChacoCanyon National Monument: Pueblo Alto and29Sj633. Coniraci PS-6115-8-0197 to the NebraskaCenter for Archaeophysical Research, Departmentof Physics and Astronomy, University of Nebraska,Lincoln through the Midwest Archeological Center,National Park Service, Lincoln. Ms. on file, ChacoCulture NHP Museum Archive, University of NewMexico, Albuquerque.1987 Analysis of Two Magnetic Surveys in ChacoCanyon National Monument: Pueblo Alto and 29SJ633. In Investigations at the Pueblo Ano Complex,Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, 1975-1979. VolumeIV. Microfiche, edited by Thomas C. Windes andFrances Joan Mathien, pp. MF-21-MF-27.Publications in Archeology 18F, Chaco CanyonStudies. National Park Service, Santa Fe.Benson, Larry, Linda Cordell, Kirk Vincent, HowardTaylor, John Stein, G. Lang Farmer, and Kiyoto Futa2003 Ancient Maize from Chaco an Great Houses: WhereWas It Grown? Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Science 100(22):13111-13115.Bernardini, Wesley1999 Reassessing the Scale of Social Action at PuebloBonito, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. Kiva 64(4):447-470.Berry, Michael S.1982 Time, Space and Transition of Anasazi Prehistory.University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Betancourt, Julio L.1984 Fossil Packrat Middens from Sheep Camp Shelter(29SJ 178). In Archaic Prehistory and Paleoenvironmentsin the San Juan Basin of New Mexico:The Chaco Shelters Project, edited by Alan H.Simmons, pp. 167-185. Museum of AnthropologyProject Report Series No. 53. University of Kansas.1990 Late Quaternary Biogeography of the ColoradoPlateau. In Packrat Middens: The Last 40,{)()()Years of Biotic Changes, edited by Julio L.Betancourt, Thomas R. Van Devender, and Paul S.Martin, pp. 259-292. University of Arizona,Tucson.Betancourt, Julio L., Jeffrey S. Dean, and Herbert M.Hull1986 Prehistoric Long-Distance Transport 0 f ConstructionBeams, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. AmericanAntiquity 51(2):370-375.Betancourt, Julio L., Paul S. Martin, and Thomas R.Van Devender1983 Fossil Packrat Middens from Chaco Canyon, NewMexico: Cultural and Ecological Significance. InChaco Canyon Country. ,A Field Guide to the Geomorphology,Quarternary Geology, Paleoecology,and Environmental Geology of Northwestern NewMexico, edited by Stephen G. Wells, David W.Love, and Thomas W. Gardner, pp. 207-217.American Geomorphological Field Group, 1983Field Trip Guidebook. Adobe Press, Albuquerque.Betancourt, Julio L., and Thomas R. Van Devender1980 Holocene Environments in Chaco Canyon, NewMexico: The Packrat Midden Record. Contract PX7486-9-0098 to the Department of Geosciences,University of Arizona, and the Arizona-SonoraDesert Museum, Tucson. Ms. on file, ChacoCulture NHP Museum Archive, University of NewMexico, Albuquerque.1981 Holocene Vegetation in Chaco Canyon, NewMexico. Science 214(4521):656-658.Betancourt, Julio L., Thomas R. Van Devender, andPaul S. Martin (editors)1990 Packrat Middens. The Last 40,{)()() Years of BioticChange. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Bice, Richard A.1983 The Sterling Site: An Initial Report. In CollectedPapers in Honor of Charlie R. Steen, Jr. edited byNancy L. Fox, pp. 49-86. Papers of theArchaeological Society of New Mexico Papers: 8.Albuquerque Archaeological Society Press,Albuquerque.Bickford, F. T.1890 Prehistoric Cave Dwellings. Century Magazine40:896-911.

384 Chaco Project SynthesisBinford, Lewis R.1962 Archaeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity28(2):217-225.2001 Constructing Frames of Reference. An AnalyticalMethod for Archaeological Theory Building UsingHunter-Gatherer and Environmental Data Sets.University of California Press, Berkeley.Bishop, Ronald L.1979 Neutron Activation Analysis ofChacoan Turquoises:An Informal Report to the Division of ChacoResearch. Report from the Department ofChemistry, Brookhaven National Laboratory,Upton, NY. Ms. on file, Chaco Culture NHPMuseum Archive, University of New Mexico,Albuquerque.BIinman, Eric1988 The Interpretation of Ceramic Variability: A CaseStudy from the Dolores Anasazi. Unpublished Ph. D.dissertation, Department of Anthropology,Washington State University, Pullman.Bloom, Lansing B.1921 The Emergcnce of Chaco Canyon in History. Artand Archaeology 11(1-2):29-35.Bradfield, Maitland1971 The Changing Pattern of Hopi Agriculture. RoyalAnthropological Institute, Occasional Paper No. 30.London.Bradley, Bruce1980 Gcneral Observations on Chaco an Lithic Technology.Ms. on file, Chaco Culture NHP MuseumArchive, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.1997 General Observations on Flaked Stone Technology.In Ceramics, Lithics, and Ornaments of ChacoCanyon, New Mexico. Analyses of Artifactsfrom theChaco Project, 1971-1978, edited by Frances JoanMathien, pp. 698-99. Publications in Archeology18G, Chaco Canyon Studies. National ParkService, Santa Fe.Bradley, 1..rro A.1971 Site Bc 236, Chaco Canyon National Monument,New Mexico. Division of Archeology, Office ofArcheological and Historic Preservation, NationalPark Service, Washington, D.C.Brand, Donald D.1937a Introduction. In Tseh So, A Small House Ruin,Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. Preliminary Report,by Donald D. Brand, Florence M. Hawley, andFrank C. Hibben, et a!., pp. 17-37. University ofNew Mexico Bulletin No. 308, AnthropologicalSeries 2(2). University of New Mexico,Albuquerque.1937b Subsistence. In Tseh So, A Small House Ruin,Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. Preliminary Report,by Donald D. Brand, Florence M. Hawley, andFrank C. Hibben, et a!., pp. 112-114. University ofNew Mexico Bulletin No. 308, AnthropologicalSeries 2(2). University of New Mexico,Albuquerque.1937c The Report, Part I. The Natural Landscape. InTseh So, A Small House Ruin, Chaco Canyon, NewMexico. Preliminary Report, by Donald D. Brand,Florence M. Hawley, and Frank C. Hibben, et aI.,pp.39-65. University of New Mexico Bulletin No.308, Anthropological Series 2(2). University ofNew Mexico, Albuquerque.Brand, Donald D., Florence M. Hawley, and Frank C.Hibben, et aI.1937 Tseh So, A Small House Ruin, Chaco Canyon, NewMexico. Preliminary Report. University of NewMexico Bulletin No. 308, Anthropological Series2(2). University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.Braun, David P., and Stephen Plog1982 Evolution of "Tribal" Social Networks. AmericanAntiquity 47:504-525.Breternitz, Cory Dale1997 An Analysis of Axes and Mauls from ChacoCanyon, New Mexico. In Ceramics, Lithics, andOrnaments of Chaco Canyon. Analyses of Artifactsfrom the Chaco Project, 1971-1978, edited byFrances Joan Mathicn, pp. 977-996. Publications inArcheology 18G, Chaco Canyon Scries. NationalPark Service, Santa Fe.Breternitz, Cory Dale, David E. Doyel, and Michael P.Marshall (editors)1982 Bis sa'ani: A Late Bonito Phase Community onEscavada Wash, Northwest New Mexico. NavajoNation Papers in Anthropology No. 14. (3 vol.).Window Rock, AZ.Brody, J. J.1991 Anasazi and Pueblo Painting. University of NewMexico Press, Albuquerque.Bromberg, William1961 Site Bc 364, Chaco Canyon, A Prehistoric FarmSystem. Ms. on file, Chaco Culture NHP MuseumArchive, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

References 385Brugge, David M.1976 The Horse in Navajo Rock Art at Chaco Canyon.AWANYU 4(4):34-46. Archaeological Society ofNew Mexico, Las Cruces.1977 The Ye'i or Holy People in Navajo Rock Art.AWANYU5(3):8-16. Archaeological Society of NewMexico, Las Cruces.1978a Motivation and Function in Navajo Rock Art. InAmerican Indian Rock Art, edited by Ernest Snyder,A. J. Bock, and Frank Bock, pp. 141-147. VolumeIV of the papers presented at the Fourth AnnualARARASymposium. American Rock Art ResearchAssociation, EI Toro, CA.i978b Stnall Navajo Sites. A Prelinlinary Report onHistoric Archaeology in the Chaco Region. In SmallSites Conference: Limited Activity and OccupationSites, edited by Albert H. Ward, pp. 41-49.Contributions to Anthropological Studies No. 1.Center for Anthropological Studies, Albuquerque.1980 A History of the Chaco Navajos. Reports of theChaco Center No.4. Division of Chaco Research,National Park Service, Albuquerque.1981a Horses and Horsemen in Early Native AmericanArt. In Collected Papers in Honor of ErikKellerman Reed, edited by Albert H. Schroeder, pp.236-250. Papers of the Archaeological Society ofNew Mexico: 6. Albuquerque.1981b The Historical Archeology of Chaco Canyon. InArcheological Surveys of Chaco Canyon, NewMexico, by Alden C. Hayes, David M. Brugge, andW. James Judge, pp. 69-106. Publications inArcheology 18A, Chaco Canyon Studies. NationalPark Service, Washington, D.C.1984 The Chaco Navajos. In New Light on ChacoCanyon, edited by David Grant Noble, pp. 73-90.School of American Research, Santa Fe.1986 Tsegai: An Archeological Ethnohistory of the ChacoRegion. National Park Service, Washington, D.C.2004 The Chaco Navajos. In In Search of Chaco. NewApproaches to an Archaeological Enigma, edited byDavid Grant Noble, pp. 61-69. School of AmericanResearch Press, Santa Fe.Bryan, Kirk1941 Pre-Columbian Agriculture in the Southwest asConditioned by Periods of Alluviation. Annals ofthe Association of American Geographers 31(4):219-242.1954 The Geology of Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, inRelation to the Life and Remains of the PrehistoricPeople of Pueblo Bonito. Smithsonian MiscellaneousCollections, Vol. 122(7):1-65. SmithsonianInstitution Publication 4140, Washington, D.C.Bryan, Kirk, and Joseph H. Toulouse1943 The San Jose Non-Ceramic Culture and Its Relationto Puebloan Culture in New Mexico. AmericanAntiquity 8(3):269-280.Bryson, R. S., and W. M. Baerreis1968 Climatic Change and the Mill Creek Culture ofIowa. Journal of the Iowa Archaeological Society15-26: 1-358.Bryson, Reid A., and R. Bryson1995 An Archaeoclimatology Workbook: High-ResolutionSite-Specific Climate Modeling for Field Scientists.Center for Climatic Research, Madison.Bullard, William R., Jr.1962 The Cerro Colorado Site and Pithouse Architecturein the Southwestern United States Prior to A.D. 900.Papers of the Peabody Museum of AmericanArchaeology and Ethnology 44(2). HarvardUniversity, Cambridge, MA.Bullen, Ripley P.1941 Preliminary Report. Bc 54, Chaco Canyon, NewMexico. Archives 2086, Chaco Culture NHPMuseum Archive, University of New Mexico,Albuquerque.Burns, Barney Tillman1983 Simulated Anasazi Storage Behavior Using CropYields Reconstructed from Tree Rings, A.D. 652-1978. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona,Tucson. University Microfilms International, AnnArbor, 1986.Bustard, Wendy1996 Space as Place: Small and Great House SpatialOrganization in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, A.D.1000-1150. Ph.D. dissertation, Department ofAnthropology, University of New Mexico,Albuquerque.2000 Chaco at the New Millenium: Nasty and Brutish.Paper presented at the 65 th Annual Meeting of theSociety for American Archaeology, Philadelphia.Callen, Eric O.1977 Coprolites from Be 288. Archive 2149, ChacoCulture NHP Museum Archive, University of NewMexico, Albuquerque.Cameron, Catherine M.1987 Chipped Stone from Pueblo Alto. In Investigationsat the Pueblo Alto Complex, Chaco Canyon, New

386 Chaco Project SynthesisMexico, 1975-1979. Volume 1I1: Artifactual andBiological Analyses, edited by Franccs Joan Mathienand Thomas C. Windes, pp. 231-278. Publicationsin Archeology 18F, Chaco Canyon Studies.National Park Service, Santa Fe.1991 Chipped Stone from Site 29SJ633. In Excavationsat 29SJ633: The Eleventh Hour Site, ChacoCanyon, New Mexico, edited by Frances JoanMathien, pp. 207-219. Reports ofthe Chaco CenterNo. 10. Branch of Cultural Research, National ParkService, Santa Fe.1992 A Brief Summary of Chipped Stone Use at Site29SJ627. In Excavations at 29SJ627, Chaco Canyon,New Mexico. Volume II: The Artifact Analyses,edited by Frances Joan Mathien, pp. 249-264.Reports of the Chaco Center No. 11. Branch ofCultural Research, National Park Service, Santa Fe.1993 Chipped Stone from 29SJ629. In The SpadefootToad Site. Investigations at 29SJ629, ChacoCanyon, New Mexico: Artifactual and BiologicalAnalyses. Volume II, edited by Thomas C. Windes,pp. 135-184. Reports of the Chaco Center No. 12.Branch of Cultural Research, National Park Service,Santa Fe.1995 Migration and the Movement of SouthwesternPeoples. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology14(2):104-124.1997a An Analysis of Manos from Chaco Canyon, NewMexico. In Ceramics, Lithics, and Ornaments ofChaco Canyon. Analyses of Artifacts from theChaco Project, 1971-1978, edited by Frances JoanMathien, pp. 997-1012. Publications in Archeology18G, Chaco Canyon Studies. National ParkService, Santa Fe.1997b The Chipped Stone of Chaco Canyon, New Mexico.In Ceramics, Lithics, and Ornaments of ChacoCanyon. Analyses of Artifacts from the ChacoProject, 1971-1978, edited by Frances JoanMathien, pp, 531-609. Publications in Archeology18G, Chaco Canyon Studies. National ParkService, Santa Fe.1997c Cores. In Ceramics, Lithics, and Ornaments ofChaco Canyon. Analyses of Artifacts from theChaco Project, 1971-1978, edited by Frances JoanMathien, pp, 643-658. Publications in Archeology18G, Chaco Canyon Studies. National ParkService, Santa Fe.Cameron, Catherine M., and Robert Lee Sappington1984 Obsidian Procurement at Chaco Canyon, A.D. 500-1200. In Recent Research on Chaco Prehistory,edited by W. James Judge and John D. Schelberg,pp. 153-171. Reports of the Chaco Center No.8.Division of Cultural Research, National ParkService, Albuquerque.Cameron, Catherine M., and H. Wolcott Toll2001 Deciphering the Organization of Production InChaco Canyon. American Antiquity 66(1):5-13.Cameron, Catherine M., and Lisa C. Young1986 Lithie Procurement and Technology in the ChacoCanyon Area. Submitted in fulfillment of ContractPX7029-5-C031. Ms. on file, Chaco Culture NHPMuseum Archive, University of New Mexico,Albuquerque.Camilli, Eileen1983 An Ecological Cover-Type Map of the San JuanBasin, Northwestern New Mexico. In RemoteSensing in Cultural Resource Management: The SanJuan Basin Project, edited by Dwight L. Drager andThomas R. Lyons, pp. 39-56. Cultural ResourcesManagement Division, National Park Service,Washington, D.C.Camilli, Eileen L., and Linda S. Cordell1983 Remote Sensing: Applications to Cultural Resourcesin Southwestern North America. Supplement No.8to Remote Sensing: A Handbookfor Archeologistsand Cultural Resource Managers, by Thomas R.Lyons and Thomas Eugene Avery. CulturalResources Management Division, National ParkService, Washington, D.C.Campbell, Jack M., and Florence H. Ellis1952 The Atrisco Site: Cochise Manifestations in theMiddle Rio Grande Valley. American Antiquity17:211-221.Carlson, John B.1987 Romancing the Stone, or Moonshine on the SunDagger. In Astronomy and Ceremony in the PrehistoricSouthwest, edited by John B. Carlson andW. James Judge, pp. 71-88. Papers of the MaxwellMuseum of Anthropology No.2. University ofNew Mexico, Albuquerque.Carpenter, John, and Guadalupe Sanchez (editors)1996 Prehistory of the Borderlands: Recent Research inthe Archaeology of Northern Mexico and theSouthern Southwest. University of Arizona Press,Tucson.Cattanach, George S., Jr.1980 Long House, Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado.

References 387Publications in Archeology 7H, Wetherill MesaStudies. National Park Service, Washington, D.C.Chapin, Gretchen1940 A Navajo Myth from Chaco Canyon. New MexicoAnthropologist 4(4):63-67.Chauvenet, William1935 Erosion Control in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico,forthe Preservation of Archaeological Sites. M. A.thesis, Department of Anthropology, University ofNew Mexico, Albuquerque.Clary, Karen Husum1981 Pollen Analysis of Coprolites from Chaco Canyon,New Mexico. Cas tetter Laboratory for EthnobotanicalStudies, Technical Series Report No. 52.University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.1983a Prehistoric Coprolite Remains from Chaco Canyon,New Mexico: Inferences for Anasazi Diet andSubsistence. Submitted in fulfillment of ContractsPX 7486-7-0125 and PX 7029-1-1106. Ms. on file,Chaco Culture NHP Museum Archive, University ofNew Mexico, Albuquerque.1983b Prehistoric Co pro lite Remainsfrom Chaco Canyon,New Mexico: Inferencesfor Anasazi Diet and Subsistence.Unpublished M.S. thesis, Department ofAnthropology, University of New Mexico,Albuquerque.1984 Anasazi Diet and Subsistence as Revealed byCoprolites from Chaco Canyon. In Recent Researchon Chaco Prehistory, edited by W. James Judge andJohn D. Schelberg, pp. 265-279. Reports of theChaco Center No.8. Division of Cultural Research,National Park Service, Albuquerque.Conley, Gary J.1977 Preliminary Report on the Analysis of Coprolitesfrom Kin Kletso. Ms. on file, Chaco Culture NHPMuseum Archive, University of New Mexico,Albuquerque.Cooper, Laurel Martine1995 Space Syntax Analysis of Chacoan Great Houses.Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,University of Arizona, Tucson. University Microfilms,Ann Arbor.1997 Comparative Analysis of Chacoan Great Houses. InProceedings of the First International Space SyntaxSymposium 2:22.1-22.11. University College,London.Cope, E. D.1875 Report on the Remains of Population Observed onand near the Eocene Plateau of Northwestern NewMexico. In Appendix J. Ethnology, Philology, andRuins, pp. 1086-1093. In Annual Report of the Chiefof Engineers of the Secretary of War for the Year1895. Part II. 44th Congress, 1" Session, Ex. Doc.1, Pt. 2, Vol. II. Government Printing Office,Washington, D.C.Corbett, John Maxwell1940 Navajo House Types. EI Palacio 47(5):97-107.Cordell, Linda S.1982a An Overview of Prehistory in the McKinley MineArea. In Archaeology, edited by Christina G. Allenand Ben A. Nelson, pp. 75-120. Anasazi andNavajo Land Use in the McKinley Mine Area nearGallup, New Mexico, Volume 1. Office of ContractArcheology, University of New Mexico,Albuquerque.1982b The Pueblo Period in the San Juan Basin: AnOverview and Some Research Probiems. In TheSan Juan Basin Tomorrow: Planning for theConservation of Cultural Resources in the SanjuanBasin, edited by Fred Plog and Walter Wait, pp. 59-83. National Park Service and School of AmericanResearch, Santa Fe.Cordell, Linda S., W. James Judge, and June-el Piper(editors)2001 Chaco Society and Polity: Papers from the 1999Conference. New Mexico Archeological CouncilSpecial Publication No.4. Albuquerque.Crotty, Helen K.1995 Anasazi Mural Art of the Pueblo IV Period, A.D.1300-1600: Influences, Selective Adaptation, andCultural Diversity in the Prehistoric Southwest.Ph.D. dissertation, Art History, University ofCalifornia at Los Angeles. University Microfilms,Ann Arbor.2000 The Rock Art Recording Field School of theArchaeological Society of New Mexico. In TheFirst 100 Years: Papers in Honor of the State andLocal Archaeological Societies of New Mexico,edited by Frances Joan Mathien, David T.Kirkpatrick, and Meliha S. Duran, pp. 107-132.Archaeological Society of New Mexico: 26.Albuquerque.Crown, Patricia L., and W. H. Wills2003 Modifying Pottery and Kivas at Chaco: Pentimento,Restoration or Renewal? American Antiquity 68(3):511-532.Cully, Anne C.1985a Checklist of Plants, Chaco Canyon National

388 Chaco Project SynthesisMonument Appendix A in Environment and Subsistenceof Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, edited byFrances Joan Mathien, pp. 447-457. Publications inArcheology 18E, Chaco Canyon Studies. NationalPark Service, Albuquerque.1985b Pollen Evidence of Past Subsistence andEnvironment at Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. InEnvironment and Subsistence of Chaco Canyon,New Mexico, edited by Frances Joan Mathien, pp.135-245. Publications in Archeology 18E, ChacoCanyon Studies. National Park Service,Albuquerque.Cully, Anne C., and Jack F. Cully, Jr.1985 Vegetative Cover Diversity and Annual PlantProductivity, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. InEnvironment and Subsistence of Chaco Canyon,New Mexico, edited by Frances Joan Mathien, pp.47-78. Publications in Archeology 18E, ChacoCanyon Studics. National Park Service,Albuquerque.Cully, Anne C., Marcia L. Donaldson, Mollie S. Toll,and Klara B. Kelley1982 Agriculture in the Bis sa'ani Community. In Bissa 'ani: A Late Bonito Phase Community onEscavada Wash, Northwest New Mexico, edited byCory D. Breternitz, David E. Doyel, and Michael P.Marshall, pp. 115-166. Navajo Nation Papers inAnthropology No. 14. Navajo Nation CulturalResources Management Program, Window Rock,AZ.Cully, Anne C., and Loren D. Potter1976 Relation of Pollen and Flotation Analyses toArcheological Excavations, Chaco Canyon. FinalReport (Pollcn Componcnt). Submitted Infulfillment of Contract PX 7000-5-0802. Ms. onfile, Department of Biology, University of NewMexico, Albuquerque.Cully, Anne C., and Mollie S. Toll1986 Evaluation of Agricultural Potential on Four ParkAdditions to Chaco Culture National HistoricalPark. Southwest Ecological Associates,Albuqucrque.Cully, Jack F.1984a A Multivariate Analysis of Niche Relationshipswithin a Nocturnal Rodent Community inNorthwestern New Mexico. Unpublished Ph.D.dissertation, Department of Biology, Univcrsity ofNew Mexico, Albuquerque.1984b Diversity, Stability, and the Deermouse:Implications for the Vegetative Diversity Model. InRecent Research on Chaco Prehistory, edited by W.James Judge and John D. Schelberg, pp. 213-224.Reports of the Chaco Center No.8. Division ofCultural Research, National Park Service,Albuquerque.1985a An Annotated List of the Birds of Chaco CanyonNational Monument. In Environment andSubsistence of Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, editedby Frances Joan Mathien, pp. 459-475. Publicationsin Archeology 18E, Chaco Canyon Studies.National Park Service, Albuquerque.1985b Baseline Biology of Birds and Mammals at ChacoCanyon National Monument, New Mexico. InEnvironment and Subsistence of Chaco Canyon,New Mexico, edited by Frances Joan Mathien, pp.279-304. Publications in Archeology 18E, ChacoCanyon Studies. National Park Service,Albuquerque.Dam, William L.1995 Geochemistry of Ground Water in the Gallup,Dakota, and Morrison Aquifers, San Juan Basin,New Mexico. u.s.a.s. Water Resources InvestigationsReport 94-4253. Denver.Damp, Jonathan E., Stephen A. lIall, and Susan J.Smith2002 Early Irrigation on the Colorado Plateau near ZuniPueblo, New Mexico. American Antiquity 67(4):665-676.Dean, Jeffrey S.1984 Environmental Aspects of Modeling HumanActivity-Locating Behavior. In Theory and ModelBuilding: Refining Survey Strategies for LocatingPrehistoric Heritage Resources: Trial Formulationsfor Southwestern Forests, edited by Linda S. Cordelland Dee F. Green, pp. 8-20. Cultural RcsourcesManagement Report No.5. U.S.D.A. ForestService, Southwestern Region, Albuquerque.1988 Dendrochronology and PaleoenvironmentalReconstruction on the Colorado Platcaus. In TheAnasazi in a Changing Environment, edited byGeorge J. Gumerman, pp. 119-167. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.1992 Environmental Factors in the Evolution of theChacoan Political System. In Anasazi RegionalOrganization and the Chaco System, edited byDavid E. Doyel, pp. 35-43. AnthropologicalPapersNo.5. Maxwell Museum of Anthropology,Univcrsity of New Mexico, Albuquerque.1996 Dcmography, Environment and Subsistence Stress.In Evolving Complexity and Environmental Risk inthe Prehistoric Southwest, edited by Joseph A.Tainter and Bonnie Bagley Tainter, pp. 25-56.

References 389Santa Fe Institute Studies in the Sciences ofComplexity, Proceedings 21. Addison-Wesley,Reading.1999 Paleoenvironmental Reconstructions. Summary.Presented at the Economy and Ecology Conference,Tucson.Dean, Jeffrey S., William H. Doelle, and Janet D. Orcutt.1994 Adaptive Stress. Environment, and Demography. InThemes in Southwest Prehistory, edited by GeorgeJ. Gumcrman. pp. 53-86. School of AmericanResearch, Santa Fe.Dean, jeffrey S., Rober-1 E. Euler, George J.Gumerman, Fred Plog, Richard H. Hevly, and Thor N.V. Karlstrom1985 Human Behavior, Demography, and Paleoenvironmenton the Colorado Plateaus. AmericanAntiquity 50(3):537-554.Dean, Jeffrey S., and John C. Ravesloot1993 The Chronology of Cultural Interaction in the GranChichimeca. In Culture and Contact. CharlesDiPeso's Gran Chichimec, edited. by Anne I.Woosley and John C. Ravesloot. pp. 83-1-3. TheAmerind Foundation, Dragoon, and University ofNew Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Dean, Jeffrey S., and William J. Robinson1977 Dendroclimatic Variability in the AmericanSouthwest, A.D. 680 to 1970. Laboratory of TreeRing Research, University of Arizona, Tucson.Submitted in fulfillment of Contract CX 1595-5-0241on Southwest Paleoclimate. Ms. on file, ChacoCulture NHP Museum Archive, University of NewMexico, Albuquerque.Dean, Jeffrey S., and Richard L. Warren1983 Dendrochronology. Chapter V in The Architectureand Dendrochronology of Chetro Ketl, ChacoCanyon, New Mexico, edited by Stephen H. Lekson,pp. 105-240. Reports of the Chaco Center No.6.Division of Cultural Research, National ParkService, Albuquerque.DeAngelis, James M.1971 A Summary of Referenced Materials Concerning thePhysical Geography of the Chaco Canyon Area.Ms. on file, Chaco Culture NHP Museum Archive,University of New Mexico Albuquerque.1972 Physical Geography ofthe Chaco Canyon Country.Ms. on file, Chaco Culture NHP Museum Archive,University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.DiPeso, Charles C.1968a Casas Grandes and the Gran Chichimeca. ElPalacio 75:47-61.1968b Casas Grandes. a Fallen Trading Center 0 f the GranChichimeca. The Masterkey 42:20-37.1974 Casas Grandes: A Fallen Trading Center of theGran Chichimeca. 8 volumes. The AmerindFoundation and Northland Press, Dragoon andFlagstaff.Dittert, Alfred E., Jr., Jim J. Hester, and Frank W.Eddy1961 An Archaeological Survey of the Navajo ReservoirDistrict, l'lorth"W'estern l"lelv l.~fexico. School ofAmerican Research Monograph No. 23, NavajoProject Studies No.2. School of AmericanResearch and Museum of New Mexico, Santa Fe.Dodge, R. E.1920 Report of Fieid Studies. In Pueblo Boniio byGeorge Pepper, pp. 23-25. American Museum ofNatural History Anthropological Papers. Vol. 27.Douglass, Andrew E.1935 Dating Pueblo Bonito and Other Ruins of theSouthwest. National Geographic Society, ContributedTechnical Papers, Pueblo Bonito Series, No.1. pp. 45-47. Washington, D.C.Doxtater, Dennis1991 Reflections of the Anasazi Cosmos. In SocialSpace. Human Spatial Behavior in Dwellings andSettlements. Proceedings of an InterdisciplinaryConference, edited by Ole Gmn, Erika Engelstadand Inge Lindblom, pp. 155-184. OdenseUniversity Press, Odense.Doyel, David E. (editor)1981 The Evolution of Regional Diversity in thePrehistoric Southwest: Anasazi Pueblo and theHohokam. Paper presented at the AnasaziConference, Mesa Verde National Park.Doyel, David E., Cory D. Breternitz, and Michael P.Marshall1984 Chacoan Community Structure: Bis sa'ani Puebloand the Chaco Halo. In Recent Research on ChacoPrehistory, edited by W. James Judge and John D.Schelberg, pp. 37-54. Reports of the Chaco CenterNo.8. Division of Cultural Research, National ParkService, Albuquerque.

390 Chaco Project SynthesisDoyel, David E., and Stephen II. Lekson1992 Regional Organization in the American Southwest.In Anasazj Regional Organization and the ChacoSystem, edited by David E. Doyel, pp. 15-21.Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, AnthropologicalPapers No.5. University of New Mexico,Albuquerque.Dozier, Edward P.1954 The Hopi-Tewa of Arizona. University of CaliforniaPublications in American Archaeology andEthnology 44(3):259-376. Berkeley.1970 The Pueblo Indians of North America. Holt,Reinhart and Winston, New York.Drager, Dwight L.1976a An Analysis of a Possible Communication System inthe San Juan Basin of New Mexico. Paper forAnthropology 511, University of New Mexico. Ms.on file, Chaco Culture NHP Museum Archive,University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.1976b Anasazi Population Estimates with the Aid of DataDerived from Photogrammetric Maps. In RemoteSensing Experiments in Cu/Jural Resource Studies.Non-destructive Methods of ArchaeologicalExploration, Survey, and Analysis, assembled byThomas R. Lyons, pp. 157-171. Reports of theChaco Center No. 1. National Park Service andUniversity of New Mexico, Albuquerque.1983a Introduction. In Remote Sensing in Cu/JuralResource Management: The San Juan Basin Project,edited by Dwight L. Drager and Thomas R.Lyons, pp. 1-3. Cultural Resources ManagementDivision, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.1983b Projecting Archeological Site Concentrations in theSan Juan Basin, New Mexico. In Remote Sensing inCultural Resource Management: The San JuanBasin Project, edited by Dwight L. Drager andThomas R. Lyons, pp. 123-127. Cultural ResourcesManagement Division, National Park Service,Washington, D.C.Drager, Dwight L., and Jerry L. Livingston1983 Large-Area Base Maps for Cultural ResourceStudies. In Remote Sensing in Cultural ResourcesManagement: The San Juan Basin Project, editedby Dwight L. Drager and Thomas R. Lyons, pp. 27-31. Cultural Resources Management Division,National Park Service, Washington, D.C.Drager, Dwight L., and Thomas R. Lyons1983a A Field Test of Remote Sensing in Archeology. Ms.in site files, Accession 57, Chaco Culture NHPMuseum Archive, University of New Mexico,Albuquerque.1983b (eds.) Remote Sensing in Cultural ResourceManagement: The San Juan Basin Project.Cultural Resources Management Division, NationalPark Service, Washington, D.C.1985 Remote Sensing: Photogrammetry in Archeology:The Chaco Mapping Project. Supplement No. 10 toRemote Sensing: A Handbookfor Archeologists andCu/Jural Resource Managers by Thomas R. Lyonsand Thomas Eugene Avery. Division of CulturalResource Management, National Park Service,Washington, D.C.Durand, Kathy Roler2003 Function of Chaco-Era Great Houses. Kiva69(2): 141-169.Durand, Stephen R.1992 Architectural Change and Chaco Prehistory.UnpUblished Ph.D. dissertation, Department ofAnthropology, University of Washington, Seattle.Durand, Stephen R., and Kathy Roler Durand2000 Notes from the Edge: Settlement Pattern Changes atthe Guadalupe Great House Community. In GreatHouse Communities Across the Chacoan Landscape,edited by John Kantner and Nancy M. Mahoney,pp. 101-109. University of Arizona AnthropologicalPapers No. 64. University of Arizona Press,Tucson.Durand, Stephen H., Phillip H. Shelley, Ronald C.AntweiIer, and Howard E. Taylor1999 Trees, Chemistry, and Prehistory in the AmericanSouthwest. Journal of Archaeological Science 26:185-203.Dutton, Bertha P.1938 Leyit Kin, a Small House Ruin, Chaco Canyon, NewMexico. Monographs of the University of NewMexico and School of American Research No.7.University of New Mexico Bulletin No. 333,Monograph Series 1(5). University of New Mexico,Albuquerque.Earle, Timothy2001 Economic Support of Chaco Canyon Society.American Antiquity 66(1):26-35.Ebert, James I., and Robert K. Hitchcock1973 Spatial Inference and the Archeology of ComplexSocieties. Paper presented at the Mathematics inSocial Sciences Board Conference on FormalMethods for the Analysis of Regional SocialStructure, Santa Fe.1980 Locational Modeling in the Analysis of the

References 391Prehistoric Roadway System at and around ChacoCanyon, New Mexico. In Cultural ResourcesRemote Sensing, edited by Thomas R. Lyons andFrances Joan Mathien, pp. 169-207. CulturalResources Management Division, National ParkService, Washington, D.C.Ebert, James I., and Thomas R. Lyons1976 The Role of Remote Sensing in a RegionalArcheological Research Design: A Case Study. InRemote Sensing Experiments in Cultural ResourcesStudies: Non-destructive Methods of ArcheologicalExploration, Survey, and Analysis, assembled byThomas R. Lyons, pp. 5-9. Reports of the ChacoCenter No.1. National Park Service and Universityof New Mexico, Albuquerque.1983 Archaeology, Anthropology and Cultural ResourcesManagement. In Manual of Remote Sensing, secondedition, edited by Robert N. Cowell. Vol. 11:1233-1304. American Society of Photogrammetry, FallsChurch, VA.Eddy, Frank W.1977 Archaeological Investigations at Chimney RockMesa: 1970-1972. Memoirs of the ColoradoArchaeological Society, No. 1. Boulder.Elliott, Michael Lee1986 Atlatl Cave and the Late Archaic Period in ChacoCanyon, New Mexico. Unpublished M.A. Thesis,Department of Anthropology, University of NewMexico, Albuquerque.Ellis, Florence H.1975 A Thousand Years of the Pueblo Sun-Moon-StarCalendar. In Archaeoastronomy in Pre-ColumbianAmerica, edited by Anthony F. Aveni, pp. 59-87.University of Texas, Austin.Elmore, Francis H.1943 Ethnobotany of the Navajo. University of NewMexico Bulletin Monograph Series 1(7),Albuquerque, and Monograph No.8, School ofAmerican Research, Santa Fe. University of NewMexico Press, Albuquerque.Emslie, Stephen1978 Dog Burials from Mancos Canyon, Colorado. TheKiva 43(3-4):167-182.English, Nathan B., Julio L. Betancourt, Jeffrey S.Dean, and Jay Quade2001 Strontium Isotopes Reveal Distant Sources ofArchitectural Timber in Chaco Canyon, NewMexico. Proceedings of the National Academy ofScience 98(21):11891-11896.Euler, Robert C., George J. Gumerman, T. N. V.KarIstrom, Jeffrey S. Dean, and Richard H. Hevly1979 The Colorado Plateaus: Cultural Dynamics andPaleoenvironment. Science 205:1089-1101.Fagan, Brian2005 Chaco Canyon. Archaeologists Explore the Lives ofan Ancient Society. Oxford University Press, NewYork.Fanaie, Rosaiie1982 Navajo Land and Land Management: A Century ofChange. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,Department of Anthropology, The CatholicUniversity of America, Washington, D.C.Farabee, William C.1901 Peabody Museum Exploration to Chaco Canyon,New Mexico, August-September 1901. FieldNotes.Accession file 01-32, Peabody Museum CollectionsDepartment, Harvard University, Cambridge.Farmer, Malcolm F.1942 Navaho Archaeology of Upper Blanco and LargoCanyons, Northern New Mexico. AmericanAntiquity 8:65-79.Feinman, Gary M.2000 Dual-processual Theory and Social Formations inthe Southwest. In Alternative Leadership Strategiesin the Prehispanic Southwest edited by Barbara J.Mills, pp. 207-224. University of Arizona Press,Tucson.Feinman, Gary M., Kent G. Lightfoot, and SteadmanUpham2000 Political Hierarchies and Organizational Strategies inthe Puebloan Southwest. American Antiquity 65(3):449-470.Ferdon, Edwin N.1955 A Trial Survey of Mexican-Southwestern ArchitecturalParallels. Monograph No. 21. School ofAmerican Research, Santa Fe.Ferguson, T. J., and E. Richard Hart1985 A Zuni Atlas. University of Oklahoma Press,Norman.Fisher, Reginald G.1934 Some Geographic Factors that Influenced theAncient Population of Chaco Canyon, New Mexico.

392 Chaco Project SynthesisUniversity of New Mexico Bulletin 244,Archaeology Series 3(1). University of NewMcxico, Albuquerque.Floyd-Hanna, Lisa, and David Hanna1995 Vegetation Studies at Chaco Culture NationalHistorical Park. Ms. Final report to SPMA andEnvironmental Studies Program, Prescott College.Floyd-Hanna, Lisa, David D. Hanna, Frank lIays, andKen Heil1993 Vegetation Inventory of Chaco Culture NationalHistoric Park. Final Report. Ms. on file, ChacoCulture NHP Museum Archive, University of NewMexico, Albuquerque.Force, Eric R., R. Gwinn Vivian, Thomas C. Windes,and Jeffrey S. Dean2002 Relation of "Bonito" Paleo-channels and Base-levelVariations to Anasazi Occupation, Chaco Canyon,New Mexico. Arizona State Museum ArchaeologicalSeries No. 194. The University of Arizona,Tucson.Ford, Richard I., Albert H. Schroeder, and Stewart L.Peckham1972 Three Perspectives on Puebloan Prehistory. In NewPerspectives on the Pueblos, edited by AlfonsoOrtiz, pp. 19-39. School of American ResearchAdvanced Seminar Series. University of NewMexico Press, Albuquerque.Fowler, Andrew P., and John R. Stein1992 The Anasazi Great House in Space, Time, andParadigm. In Anasazi Regional Organization andthe Chaco System, edited by David E. Doyel, pp.102-122. Maxwell Museum of Anthropology,Anthropological Papers No.5. University of NewMexico, Albuquerque.Fowler, Andrew P., John R. Stein, and Roger Anyon1987 An Archaeological Reconnaissance of West-CentralNew Mexico: The Anasazi Monuments Program.Ms. presented to the Office of Contract Archeology,University of New Mexico, and the HistoricPreservation Department, Santa Fe.Fox, J. Robin1967 The Keresan Bridge: A Problem in PuebloEthnology. London School of Economics, Monographson Social Anthropology No. 35. AthlonePress, London.1972 Some Unresolved Problems of Pueblo SocialOrganization. In New Perspectives on the Pueblos,edited by Alfonso Ortiz, pp. 71-85. School ofAmerican Research, Advanced Seminar Series.University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Franklin, Hayward H.1980 Salmon Ruin Ceramics Laboratory Report. InInvestigations at the Sabnon Site: The Structure ofChacoan Society in the Northern Southwest. Finalreport to funding agencies, edited by Cynthia IrwinWilliams and Philip H. Shelley. Eastern NewMexico University, Portales.Fransted, Dennis1979 An Introduction to the Navajo Oral History ofAnasazi Sites in the San Juan Basin. Submitted infulfillment of Contract PX 7486-8-0224. Ms. onfile, Chaco Culture NHP Museum Archive,University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.Fransted, Dennis, and Oscar Werner1974 The Ethnogeography of the Chaco Canyon AreaNavajo. Ms. on file, Department of Anthropology,Northwestern University, and Archive No. 1986C,Chaco Culture NHP Museum, University of NewMexico, Albuquerque.Frazier, Kendrick1986 People of Chaco: A Canyon and Its Culture. W.W. Norton, New York.1999 People of Chaco: A Canyon and Its Culture, 2ndedition. W. W. Norton, New York.2005 People of Chaco: A Canyonand Its Culture, 3 rdedition. W W. Norton, New York.Fredlund, Glen1984 Palynological Analysis of Sediments from SheepCamp and Ashislepah Shelters. In Archaic Prehistoryand Paleoenvironments in the San JuanBasin, New Mexico: The Chaco Shelters Project,edited by Alan H. Simmons, pp. 186-209.University of Kansas Museum of Anthropology,Project Report Series No. 53. Lawrence.Frisbie, Theodore R.1972 The Chacoan Interaction Sphere: A Verification ofthe Pochteca Concept within the SouthwesternUnited States. Paper presented at the 37'h AnnualMeeting of the Society for American Archaeology,Miami Beach.1978 High Status Burials in the Greater Southwest: AnInterpretive Synthesis. In Across the ChichimecSea. Papers in Honor of J. Charles Kelley, editedby Carroll L. Riley and Basil C. Hedrick, pp. 202-227. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.1980 Social Ranking in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico: AMesoamerican Reconstruction. Transactions of the

References 393Illinois Stale Academy of Science 72(4) :60-69.1983 Anasazi-Mesoamerican Relationships: From theBowels of the Earth and Beyond. In Proceedings ofthe Anasazi Symposium 1981, edited by Jack E.Smith, pp. 215-227. Mesa Verde MuseumAssociation, Mesa Verde, CO.1985 The Chaco Phenomenon and Spanish ColonialMissions: Commonality through Paucity. In Prehistoryand History in the Southwest. CollectedPapers in Honor of Alden C. Hayes, edited byNancy L. Fox, pp. 73-90. Papers of the ArchaeologicalSociety of New Mexico: 11. Ancient CityPress, Santa Fe.1998 New Light on Pochteca Concept and the ChacoPhenomenon. In Dine Btktfyak: Papers in Honor ofDavid M. Brugge, edited by Meliha S. Duran andDavid T. Kirkpatrick, pp. 87-97. Papers of theArchaeological Society of New Mexico: 24.Albuquerque.Fritz, John M.1978 Paleopsychology Today: Ideational Systems andHuman Adaptation in Prehistory. In SocialArchaeology,Beyond Subsistence and Dating, edited byCharles L. Redman, Mary Jane Berman, Edward V.Curtain, William T. Langhom, Nina M. Versaggi,and Jeffrey C. Wanser, pp. 37-59. Academic Press,New York.1987 Chaco Canyon and Vijayanagra: Proposing SpatialMeaning in Two Societies. In Mirror andMetaphor: Material and Social Constructions ofReality, edited by D. W. Ingersoll and G. Bronitsky,pp. 313-348. University Press of America, Lanham.Gabriel, Kathryn1991 Roads to Center Place: A Cultural Atlas of ChacoCanyon and the Anasazi. Johnson Books, Boulder.Giardino, Marco J., and Michael R. Thomas2002 NASA Remote Sensing Research as Applied toArchaeology. The SM Archaeological Record2(3):15-19. Society for American Archaeology,Washington, D.C.Gill, George W.1985 CulturalImplications of Artificially Modified HumanRemains from Northwestern Mexico. In TheArchaeology of West and Northwest Mesoamerica,edited by Michael S. Foster and P. C. Weigand, pp.193-215. Westview Press, Boulder.Gillespie, WiUiam B.1976 Cultural Change at the Ute Canyon Site: A Study inPithouse-Kiva Transition in the Mesa Verde Region.Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthro-pology, University of Colorado at Boulder.1980a Architectural Development at Una Vida, ChacoCanyon, N .M. Ms. on file, Chaco Culture NHPMuseum Archive, University of New Mexico,Albuquerque.1980b Architectural Development at Una Vida: A LexonianAccount. Paper presented at the 1980 PecosConference, Mesa Verde. Ms. on file, ChacoCulture NHP Museum Archive, University of NewMexico, Albuquerque.1981 Summary of Osteological Remains from ChacoCoprolites. Ms. on file, Chaco Culture NHPMuseum Archive, University of New Mexico,Albuquerque.1982 Vertebrate Remains from Atlatl Cave, ChacoCanyon, New Mexico. Preliminary Draft. Ms. onfile, Chaco Culture NHP Museum Archive,University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.1983 Precipitation Trends: 900-1300. In The OutlierSurvey, A Regional Viel·V of Settlement in the SanJuan Basin, by Robert P. Powers, William B.Gillespie and Stephen H. Lekson, pp. 279-283.Reports of the Chaco Center No.3. National ParkService, Albuquerque.1984a Excavations at Sheep Camp Shelter (29S1178). InArchaic Prehistory and Paleoenvironments in theSan Juan Basin, New Mexico: The Chaco SheltersProject, edited by A. H. Simmons, pp. 39-94.Museum of Anthropology Project Report Series No.53. University of Kansas, Lawrence.1984b The Environment of the Chaco Anasazis. In NewLight on Chaco Canyon, edited by David GrantNoble, pp. 37-44. School of American Research,Santa Fe.1984c Una Vida. In Great Pueblo Architecture of ChacoCanyon, New Mexico, edited by Stephen H. Lekson,pp.79-94. Publications in Archeology 19B, ChacoCanyon Studies. National Park Service,Washington, D.C.1985 Holocene Climate and Environment of ChacoCanyon. In Environment and Subsistence of ChacoCanyon, New Mexico, edited by Frances JoanMathien, pp. 13-45. Publications in Archeology18E, Chaco Canyon Studies. National Park Service,Albuquerque.1991 Faunal Remains from 29SJ633. In Excavations at29SJ633: The Eleventh Hour Site, Chaco Canyon,New Mexico, edited by Frances Joan Mathien, pp.243-315. Reports of the Chaco Center No. 10.Branch of Cultural Research, National Park Service,Santa Fe.Gillespie, William B., and Robert P. Powers1983 Regional Settlement Changes and Past Environmentin the San Juan Basin, Northwestern New Mexico.

-~ -- - -- ------394 Chaco Project SynthesisPaper presented at the Second Anasazi Symposium,Salmon Ruin, Bloomfield, NM.Gilpin, Dennis2003 Chaco-Era Site Clustering and the Concept ofCommunities. Kiva 69(2): 171-205.Gilpin, Dennis, Douglas D. Dykeman, and Paul F. Reed1996 Anasazi Community Architecture in the ChuskaValley. New Mexico Archeological Council,Albuquerque.Gladwin, Harold Sterling1945 The Chaco Branch: Excavations at White Moundand in the Red Mesa Valley. Medallion Papers No.33. Gila Pueblo, Globc, AZ.Gleickman, Carol Legard1987 Navajo and Historic Sites and Settlement of theChaco Additions Inventory Survey. Prepared byNative Culture Resources Services, Boulder, CO,for NPS Contract PX7029-5-C045. Ms. on filc,Chaco Culture NHP Museum Archive, Univcrsity ofNew Mexico, Albuquerque.Glenn, Nan1939 Bc 50 Substructures. In Preliminary Report on theExcavations, Bc 50-Bc 51, Chaco Canyon, NewMexico, edited by Clyde Kluckhohn and Paul Reiter,pp. 166-174. University of New Mexico Press,Albuqucrque.Grebinger, Paul1973 Prehistoric Social Organization in Chaco Canyon,New Mexico: An Alternative Reconstruction. TheKiva 39(1):3-23. Tucson.1978 Prehistoric Social Organization in Chaco Canyon,New Mexico: An Evolutionary Perspective. InDiscovering Past Behavior, Experiments in theArchaeology of the American Southwest Xl, cditedby Paul Grebinger, pp. 73-100. Gordon and BreachScience Publishers, New York and London.Hack, J. T.1942 The Changing Physical Environment of the HopiIndians of Arizona. Papers ofthe Peabody Museum,Harvard University, Vol. 25(1). Cambridgc.Hagstrum, Melissa2001 Household Production in Chaco Canyon Society.American Antiquity 66(1):47-55.Hall, Stephen A.1975 Stratigraphy and Palynology of QuarternaryAlluvium at Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. Ph.D.dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.1977 Late Quarternary Sedimentation and PaleoecologicHistory of Chaco Canyon, Ncw Mexico.Geological Society of Amlrica Bulletin 88(11): 1593-1618. Washington.1980 Snails from Quaternary Valley Fill at ChacoCanyon, New Mexico. The Nautilus 94(2):60-63.1981 Holocene Vegetation at Chaco Canyon: PollenEvidence from Alluviation and Packral Middens.Paper presented at the 46th Annual Meeting of theSociety for American Archaeology, San Diego.1982 Reconstruction of Local and Regional HoloceneVegetation in the Arid Southwestern United StatesBased on Combined Pollen Analytical Results fromNeotome Middens and Allivium. (Abstract) INQUAAbstracts l(XI INQUA Congress).1983 Holocene Stratigraphy and Paleoecology of ChacoCanyon. In Chaco Canyon Country. A Field Guideto the Geomorphology, Quaternary Geology,Paleoecology, and Environmental Geology ofNorthwestern New Mexico, edited by Stephen G.Wclls, David W. Love and Thomas W. Gardner, pp.219-226. American Geomorphological Field Guide1983 Field Trip Guidebook. Adobe Press,Albuquerque ..1988 Prehistoric Vegetation and Environment at ChacoCanyon. American Antiquity 53(3):582-592.1990 Holocene Landscapes of the San Juan Basin, NewMcxico: Geomorphic, Climatic, and CulturalDynamics. In Archaeological Geology of NorthAmerica, Centennial Special Volume No.4. editedby N. P. Lasca and J. Donahue, pp. 323-334.Geological Society of America, Boulder.Harbottle, Garman, and Phil C. Weigand1987 Reports on Neutron Activation Analysis ofTurquoise Artifacts and Numerical Taxonomy Basedon the Chemical Analytical Profiles. In TheArchaeology of the San Xavier Bridge Site (ZBB:13:14), Tucson Basin, Southern Arizona, editedby John C. Ravesloot, pp. 437-442. CulturalResources Management Division, ArchaeologicalSeries No. 171. University of Arizona, Tucson.1992 Turquoise in Pre-Columbian America. ScientificAmerican 266(2):78-85.Hargrave, Lyndon L.1970 Mexican Macaws, Comparative Osteology andSurvey of Remains from the Southwest.Anthropological Papers of the University of ArizonaNo. 20. University of Arizona Press Tucson.

References 395Hassen, Fekri A.1981 Demographic Archaeowgy. Academic Press, NewYork.Haury, Emil W.1976 The Hohokam: Desert Farmers and Craftsmen.Excavations at Snaketown, 1964-65. University ofArizona Press, Tucson.Hawley, Florence M.1934 The Significance of the Dated Prehistory ofChetroKett. University of New Mexico Bulletin 246,Monograph Series 1(1). University of New Mexicoand School of Anlcrican Reseaich, Santa Fe.University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.1936 Field Manual of Prehistoric Southwestern PotteryTypes. University of New Mexico Bulletin No. 291,Anthropological Series 1(4). University of NewMexico, Albuquerque.1937a Succession of Chaco Canyon Masonry Styles. InTseh So, a Small House Ruin, Chaco Canyon, NewMexico. Preliminary Report, by Donald Brand,Florence M. Hawley, and Frank C. Hibben et aI.,pp.88-89. University of New Mexico Bulletin No.308, Anthropological Series 2(2). University ofNew Mexico, Albuquerque.1937b Thc Place of Tseh So in Chaco Culture Pattern. InTseh So, a Small House Ruin in Chaco Canyon, NewMexico. Preliminary Report, by Donald D. Brand,Florence M. Hawley, and Frank C. Hibben et aI.,pp. 115-119. University of New Mexico BulletinNo. 308, Anthropological Series 2(2). University ofNew Mexico, Albuquerque.1938 The Family Tree of Chaco Canyon Masonry.American Antiquity 3(3):247-255.1939 Additions to Descriptions of Chaco Pottery Types.In Preliminary Report on the 1937 Excavations, Bc50--51, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, edited by ClydeKluckhohn and Paul Reiter, pp. 49-53. Universityof New Mexico Bulletin No. 345, AnthropologicalSeries 3(2). University of New Mexico,Albuquerque.Hayes, Alden C.1975b Pithouse Y at Shabikeschee (29 S11659). Ms. onfile, Chaco Culture NHP Museum Archive,University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.1981 A Survey of Chaco Canyon Archeology. InArcheological Surveys of Chaco Canyon, by AldenC. Hayes, David M. Brugge, and W. James Judge,pp. 1-68. Publications in Archeology 18A, ChacoCanyon Studies. National Park Service,Washington, D.C.Hayes, Alden C., and Thomas C. Windes1975 An Anasazi Shrine in Chaco Canyon. In CollectedPapers in Honor ofFwrence Hawley Ellis, edited byTheodore R. Frisbie, pp. 143-156. Papers of theArchaeological Society of New Mexico: 2. HooperPress, Norman, OK.Herr, Sarah A.2001 Beyond Chaco: Great Kiva Communities on theMogolwn Rim Frontier. Anthropological Papers ofthe University of Arizona, No. 66. University ofArizona Press, Tucson.Hewett, Edgar L.1905 Prehistoric Irrigation in the Navajo Desert. Recordsof the Past 4:323-329.1921 The Chaco Canyon and Its Monuments. Art andArchaeowgy 11(91-2):3-28.1922 The Chaco Canyon in 1921. Art and Archaeowgy14(3): 115-131.1936 The Chaco Canyon and Its Monuments. Handbooksof Archaeological History. University of NewMexico and School of American Research,Albuquerque.Hibben, Frank C.1937 The Site and Excavations. In Tseh So, a SmallHouse Ruin, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico.Preliminary Report, by Donald D. Brand, FlorenceM. Hawley, and Frank C. Hibben et aI., pp. 67-84.University of New Mexico Bulletin No. 308,Anthropological Series 2(2). University of NewMexico, Albuquerque.Hill, J. Brett, Jeffrey J. Clark, William H. Doelle, andPatrick D. Lyons2004 Prehistoric Demography in the Southwest:Migration, Coalescence, and Hohokam PopulationDecline. American Antiquity 69(4):689-716.Hodges, William K.1974 Arroyo and Wash Development in the ChacoCanyon Country and Contiguous Areas ofNorthwestern New Mexico and NortheasternArizona. Project Report to the National ParkService for Contract CX-7000-3-0101. Ms. on file,Chaco Culture NHP Museum Archive, University ofNew Mexico, Albuquerque.Hogan, Patrick1994 Foragers to Farmers II: A Second Look at theAdoption of Agriculture in the Northern Southwest.In Archaic Hunter Gatherer Archeowgy in the

396 Chaco Project SynthesisAmerican Southwest, edited by Bradley J. Vierra,pp. 155-174. Eastern New Mexico UniversityContributions in Anthropology 13(1). Portales.Holien, Thomas1975 Pseudo-Cloisonne in the Southwest andMesoamerica. In Collected Papers in Honor ofFwrence Hawley Ellis, edited by Theodore R.Frisbie, pp. 157-177. Papcrs of the ArchaeologicalSociety of New Mexico: 2. Hooper Publishing Co.,Norman, OK.Holsinger, S. J.1901 Report on Prehistoric Ruins of Chaco Canyon, NewMexico. Ordered by General Land Office Letter"P," Deccmber 18, 1900. General Land Office.Ms. on file, National Anthropological Archive,Washington, D.C.Hrdlicka, Ale§1908 Physiowgical and Medical Observations among theIndians of Southwestern United States and NorthernMexico. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 30.Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.Ireland, Arthur K.1980 Cost-Effective Mapping. In Cultural ResourcesRemote Sensing, edited by Thomas R. Lyons andFrances Joan Mathien, pp. 371-387. CulturalResources Management Division, National ParkService, Washington, D.C.1983 The Surface Geology and Precipitation Contours ofthe San Juan Basin. In Remote Sensing in CulturalResource Management: The San Juan BasinProject, editcd by Dwight L. Drager and Thomas R.Lyons, pp. 33-37. Cultural Rcsources ManagementDivision, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.Ireland, Arthur K., and Dwight L. Drager1983 Remote Scnsing Assessment of the EnvironmentalSetting of the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project. InRemote Sensing in Cultural Resource Management:The San Juan Basin Project, edited by Dwight L.Drager and Thomas R. Lyons, pp, 77-101. CulturalResources Management Division, National ParkService, Washington, D.C.Irwin-Williams, Cynthia1967 Picosa: The Elementary Southwestern Culture.American Antiquity 32(4):441-457.1968a Archaic Culture History in the Southwestern UnitedStates. In Early Man in Western North America.Eastern New Mexico University Contributions inAnthropology 1(4):48-54. Portales.1968b Configurations of Preceramic Devewpment in theSouthwestern United States. VIlINQUA Congress.Eastern New Mexico University Contributions inAnthropology 1(1): 1-23.1968c The Reconstruction of Archaic Culture History inthe Southwestern United States. In ArchaicPrehistory in the Western United States. EasternNew Mexico Contributions in Anthropolo gy 1 (3): 19-23. Portales.1972 (editor). The Structure of Chacoan Society in theNorthern Southwest: Investigations at the SabnonSite-1972. Eastern New Mexico UniversityContributions in Anthropology 4(3). Portales.1973 The Oshara Tradition: Origins of Anasazi Culture.Eastern New Mexico University Contributions inAnthropology 5(1). Portales1979 Post-Pleistocene Archaeology, 7000-2000 B.C. InSouthwest, edited by Alfonso A. Ortiz, pp. 31-47.Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 9.Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.1980a The San Juan Valley Archaeological ProgramInvestigations at Salmon Ruin. In Investigations atSalmon Ruin: The Structure of Chacoan Society inthe Northern Southwest. Volumc I, Part 1, edited byCynthia Irwin-Williams and Phillip H. Shelley, pp.3-104. Eastern New Mexico University PrintingServices, Portales.1980b San Juan Valley Archaeological Project: Synthesis1980. In Investigations at Sabnon Ruin: TheStructure of Chacoan Society in the NorthernSouthwest. Volume IV, Part 12, pp. 134-208.Eastern Ncw Mexico University Printing Services,Portales.1994 The Archaic of the Southwestern United States:Changing Goals and Research Strategies in the LastTwenty-Five Years, 1964-1989. In Archaic HunterGatherer Archaeology in the American Southwest,edited by Bradley J. Vierra, pp. 566-670. EasternNew Mexico University Contributions inAnthropology, 13(1). Portales.Irwin-Williams, Cynthia, and Larry L. Baker (editors)1991 Anasazi Puebloan Adaptation in Rcsponse toClimatic Stress: Prehistory of the Middle RioPucrco Valley. Ms. on file, Bureau of LandManagement, Albuquerque.Irwin-Williams, Cynthia, and C. Vance Haynes1970 Climatic Change and Early PopUlation Dynamics inthe Southwestern United Statcs. QuaternaryResearch 1(1):59-71.Irwin-Williams, Cynthia, and Phillip H. Shelley (editors)1980 Investigations at Salmon Ruin: The Structure of

References 397Chacoan Society in the Northern Southwest.Volumes I-IV. Eastern New Mexico UniversityPrinting Services, Portales.Irwin-Williams, Cynthia C., and S. Tompkins1968 Excavations at En Medio Rock Shelter, New Mexico.Ea~tern New Mexico University Contributions inAnthropology 1(2). Portales.Jackson, William H.1878 Report on the Ancient Ruins Examined in 1875 and1877. In Tenth Annual Report of the United StatesGeological and Geographical Survey of theTerritories Embracing Colorado ar.d Parts ofAdjacent Territories, Being a Report on theProgress of the Explorationfor the Year 1876, by F.V. Hayden, Part III, pp. 411-450. U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, Washington, D.C.Jacobson, LouAnn1979 A Remote Sensing Evaluation of 29SJ633. Ms. onfile, Chaco Culture NHP Museum Archive,University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.1984 Chipped Stone in the San Juan Basin: ADistributional Analysis. Unpublished M.A. thesis,Department of Anthropology, University of NewMexico, Albuquerque.Jacobson, LouAnn, and John Roney1985 Chacra Mesa Site Inventory: National RegisterNomination by BLM. Ms. on file, Bureau of LandManagement, Albuquerque, and Chaco CultureNHP Museum Archive, University of New Mexico,Albuquerque.Jean~on, Jean A., and Frank H. H. Roberts, Jr.1924 Further Archaeological Research in the NortheasternSan Juan Basin of Colorado, During the Summer of1922. The Colorado Magazine 1(5-6):213-224,260-276.Johnson, Amber Lynn1997 Explaining Variability in the Pace and Pattern ofCu/Jural Evolution in the North American Southwest:An Exercise in Theory Building. Unpublished Ph.D.dissertation, Department of Anthropology, SouthernMethodist University, Dallas.Johnson, Gregory A.1978 Information Levels and the Development ofDecision-Making Organization. In Social Archaeology:Beyond Subsistence and Dating, edited byCharles L. Redman and Mary Jane Berman, pp. 87-112. Academic Press, New York.1982 Organizational Structure and Scalar Stress. InTheory and Explanation in Archaeology. TheSouthampton Conference, edited by Colin Renfrewet al., pp. 389-421. Academic Press, New York.Jojola, Theodore S.1987 The Sun Personified: Some Preliminary ObservationsRegarding Celestial Cosmology and theOrdering of Pueblo Indian Society. In Astronomyand Ceremony in the Prehistoric Southwest, editedby John B. Carlson and W. James Judge, pp. 89-97.Papers of the Maxwell Museum of AnthropologyNo.2. University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.Jones; Kirtland1970 An Ecological Survey of the Reptiles andAmphibians of Chaco Canyon National Monument,San Juan County, New Mexico. Unpublished M.S.thesis, Department of Biology, University of NewMexico, Albuquerque.1972 The Ecology of Chaco Canyon. PreliminarySurvey. Submitted in fulfillment of Contract 14-10-7:931-47. Ms. on file, Chaco Culture NHPMuseum Archive, University of New Mexico,Albuquerque.Jorde, Lynn B.1973 A Quantitative Evaluation of Prehistoric PuebloMaize Agriculture. Ms. on file, Department ofAnthropology, University of New Mexico,Albuquerque.Judd, Neil Merton1921 A New National Geographic Society Expedition,Ruins of Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, Nature-MadeTreasure-Chest of Aboriginal American History tobe Excavated and Studied; Work Begins this Month.National Geographic Magazine 39(6):637-643.1922 Archeological Investigations at Pueblo Bonito, NewMexico. In Explorations and Fieldwork of theSmithsonian Institution in 1921. Smithsonian MiscellaneousCollections 72(15):106-117. Washington,D.C.1923 ArchaeologicalInvestigations at Pueblo Bonito, NewMexico. In Explorations and Field Work of theSmithsonian Institution in 1922. SmithsonianMiscellaneous Collections 74(5): 134-143.Washington, D.C.1924 Two Chaco Canyon Pithouses. InAnnualReportfor1922, Smithsonian Institution, pp. 399-413.Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.1925 Everyday Life in Pueblo Bonito. NationalGeographic Magazine 48(3):227-262.1927a Archeological Investigations in Chaco Canyon, NewMexico. In Explorations and Fieldwork of theSmithsonian Institution in 1926. Smithsonian

398 Chaco Project SynthesisMiscellaneous Collections 78(7): 158-168.Washington, D.C.1927b The Architectural Evolution of Pueblo Bonito. InProceedings of the National Academy of Science13(7):561-563.1928 Prehistoric Pueblo Bonito, New Mexico. InExplorations and Fieldwork of the SmithsonianInstitution in 1927, pp. 141-148. SmithsonianInstitution Publication 2957. Washington, D.C.1930 Pueblo Bonito and Its Architectural Development.Proceedings of the 23rd International Congress ofAmericanists, September 1928, pp. 70-73. NewYork.1954 The Material Culture of Pueblo Bonito. SmithsonianMiscellaneous Collections 124. Washington, D.C.1959a Pueblo del Arroyo, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico.Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 138(1).Washington, D.C.1964 The Architecture of Pueblo Bonito. SmithsonianMiscellaneous Collections 147(1). Washington,D.C.Judge, W. James1971 An Interpretive Framework for Understanding SiteLocations. In The Distribution of PrehistoricPopulation Aggregates, edited by George J.Gumerman, pp. 38-44. Anthropological Report No.1. Prescott College Press, Prescott.1972 An Archaeological Survey of the Chaco CanyonArea, San Juan County, New Mexico. Final reportto the National Park Service for Contract No. 14-10-7:931-51. Ms. on file, Chaco Culture NHPMuseum Archive, University of New Mexico,Albuquerque.1973 Paleoindian Occupation of the Central Rio GrandeValley in New Mexico. University of New MexicoPress, Albuquerque.1975 Chaco Center; Research Design, Working Draft,January 1975. Ms. on file, Chaco Culture NHPMuseum Archive, University of New Mcxico,Albuquerque.1976a Chaco an Outlier Study: Research Prospectus. Ms.on file, Chaco Culture NHP Museum Archive,University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.1976b The Development of a Complex Cultural Ecosystemin the Chaco Basin, New Mexico. Paper prescntedat the First Conference on Scientific Research in theNational Parks, New Orleans, Nov. 9-13. Publishedin 1979.1977a The Emergence of Complexity in Chaco Canyon,New Mexico. Paper presented at the 76th AnnualMeeting of the American AnthropologicalAssociation, Houston.1977b The Research Program of the Chaco Project: ABrief Summary. Paper presented at the 50th PecosConference, Pecos.1979 The Development of a Complex Cultural Ecosystemin the Chaco Basin, New Mexico. In Proceedingsof the First Conference on Scientific Research in theNational Parks, Volume II, edited by Robcrt M.Linn, pp. 901-906. National Park Service Transactionsand Proceedings Series No.5. Washington,D.C.1981a Chacoan Prehistory: Implications of a RegionalPerspective. Summary and Final Comments. Paperpresented at the 46th Annual Meeting of the Societyfor American Archaeology, San Diego.1981b Transect Sampling in Chaco Canyon-Evaluation ofa Survey Technique. Part Three in ArcheologicalSurveys of Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, by AldenC.Hayes, David M. Bruggc, and W. James Judge,pp. 107-137. Publications in Archeology 18A,Chaco Canyon Studies. National Park Scrvice,Washington, D.C.1982 The Paleo-Indian and Basketmaker Periods: AnOverview and Some Research Problems. In TheSan Juan Tomorrow, edited by Fred Plog andWalter Wait, pp. 5-57. National Park ServiceSouthwest Regional Office in cooperation with theSchool of American Research, Santa Fe.1983a Chaco Canyon-San Juan Basin. Paper presented atthe School of American Research Seminar entitled"Dynamics of Southwestern Prehistory." School ofAmerican Rcsearch, Santa Fe. Published in 1989.1983b PARKMAN: A Computer Graphics Program forCultural Resource Management. CRM Bulletin7(1): 14-16.1987 Archaeology and Astronomy: A View from theSouthwest. In Astronomy and Ceremony in thePrehistoric Southwest, edited by John B. Carlsonand W. James Judgc, pp. 1-8. Papers of theMaxwell Museum of Anthropology No.2.University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.1989 Chaco Canyon-San Juan Basin. In Dynamics ofSouthwest Prehistory, editcd by Linda S. Cordelland Gcorge J. Gumerman, pp. 209-261.Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.1991 Chaco: Current Views of Prehistory and theRegional System. In Chaco and Hohokam: PrehistoricRegional Systems in the American Southwest,edited by Patricia L. Crown and W. JamesJudge, pp. 11-30. School of American ResearchPress, Santa Fe.1993 Resource Distribution and the Chaco Phenomenon.In The Chimney Rock Archaeological Symposium,October 20-21, 1990, Durango, Colorado, cdited byJ. McKim Malville and Gary Matlock, pp. 35-36.U.S.D.A. Forest Service General Technical ReportRM-227. Rocky Mountain Forest and RangeExperimcntal Station, Fort Collins.

References 399Judge, W. James, William B. Gillespie, Stephen H.Lekson, and H. Wolcott Toll1981 Tenth Century Developments in Chaco Canyon. InCollected Papers in Honor of Erik Kellerman Reed,edited by Albert H. Schroeder, pp. 65-98. Papers ofthe Archaeological Society of New Mexico: 6.Albuquerque Archaeological Society Press.Judge, W. James, and Daniel W. Martin1988 An Appraisal. In QuantifYing the Present andPredicting the Past: Theory, Method, andApplications of Archaeological Predictive Modeling,edited by W. James Judge and Lynne Sebastian, pp.571-580. Bureau of Land Management, Denver.Judge, W. James, and Lynne Sebastian1988 QuantifYing the Present and Predicting the Past:Theory, Method, and Applications of ArchaeologicalPredictive Modeling. Bureau of Land Management,Denver.Julian, Hurst R.1933 Annual Report on the Investigations of the CliffCavities of the Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, 1933.Archive No. 2192, Chaco Culture NHP MuseumArchive, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.Kantner, John1996 Political Competition among the Chaco Anasazi ofthe American Southwest. Journal of AnthropologicalArchaeology 15 :41-105.2003a Preface. The Chaco World. The Kiva 69(2):83-92.2003b Rethinking Chaco as a System. The Kiva 69(2):207-227.2005 The Chaco World. In The Archaeology of ChacoCanyon: An Eleventh Century Pueblo RegionalCenter, edited by Stephen H. Lekson. School ofAmerican Research Press, Santa Fe.Kantner, John, and Keith Kintigh2005 Chaco World. In The Archaeology of ChacoCanyon: An Eleventh Century Pueblo RegionalCenter, edited by Stephen H. Lekson. School ofAmerican Research Press, Santa Fe.Kantner, John, and Nancy M. Mahoney (editors)2000 Great House Communities Across the ChacoanLandscape. University of Arizona AnthropologicalPaper No. 64. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Karlstrom, Thor N. V.1983 Holocene Chronostratigraphy andChronology of the Black MesaHolocene Hydroclimate History.U.S.G.S., Flagstaff.the AlluvialRegion, andMs. on file,Keetch, C. Wesley1980 Soil Survey of San Juan County, New Mexico:Eastern Part. U.S. Department of Agriculture, SoilConservation Service, Washington, D.C.Kelley, Edmund, and Loren D. Potter1974 Preliminary Vegetation Type Map of ChacoCanyon. Ms. on file, Chaco Culture NHP MuseumArchive, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.Kelley, J. Charles1980 Discussion of Papers by Plog, Doyel, and Riley. InCurrent Issues on Hohokam Prehistory, edited byDavid E. Doyel and Fred Plog. Arizona StateUniversity Research Papers No. 23. Tempe.Kelley, J. Charles, and Ellen Abbott Kelley1975 An Alternative Hypothesis for the Explanation ofAnasazi Culture History. In Collected Papers inHonor of Florence Hal-vley Ellis, edited by The.odoreR. Frisbie, pp. 178-223. Papers of theArchaeological Society of New Mexico: 2. HooperPublishing Co., Norman, OK.Kelley, Klara B.1982 The Chaco CanyonEthnoarchaeology .Anthropology No.8.Ranch: Ethnohistory andNavajo Nation Papers inWindow Rock, AZ.Kernodle, John Michael1996 Hydrology and Steady-State Simulation of GroundWater Flow in the San Juan Basin, New Mexico,Colorado, Arizona, and Utah. U.S.G.S. WaterResources Investigation Report 95-4187,Albuquerque.Kidder, Alfred V.1924 Ruin, Pottery, and Culture of Chaco Canyon] In AnIntroduction to the Study of SouthwesternArchaeology, pp. 49-57. Papers of the SouthwestExpedition No.1, Phillips Academy, Department ofArchaeology. Yale University Press, New Haven.1927 Southwestern Archaeological Conference. Science66(1716):489-491.1930 Colonel and Mrs. Lindbergh Aid Archaeologists.The Masterkey 3(6):January, pp. 5-17.Kincaid, Chris (editor)1983 Chaco Roads Project Phase 1. A Reappraisal ofPrehistoric Roads in the San Juan Basin. Bureau ofLand Management, New Mexico State Office,Albuquerque District Office, Albuquerque and SantaFe.

400 Chaco Project SynthesisKlausner, Stephanie1980 Bipod Photography: Procedures for PhotographicMapping of Archeological Sites. In CulturalResources Remote Sensing, edited by Thomas R.Lyons and Frances Joan Mathien, pp. 293-325.Cultural Resources Management Division, NationalPark Service, Washington, D.C.Kluckhohn, Clyde1939a Discussion. In Preliminary Report on the 1937Excavations, Bc 50-51, Chaco Canyon, NewMexico, edited by Clyde Kluckhohn and Paul Reiter,pp. 151-162. University of New Mexico BulletinNo. 345, Anthropological Series 3(2). University ofNew Mexico, Albuquerque.1939b The Excavation of Bc 51 Rooms and Kivas. InPreliminary Report on the 1937 Excavations, Bc 50-51, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, edited by ClydeKluckhohn and Paul Reiter, pp. 30-53. Universityof New Mexico Bulletin 345, AnthropologicalSerics3(2). University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.Kluckhohn, Clyde, and Paul Reiter (editors)1939 Preliminary Report on the 1937 Excavations, Bc 50-51, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. University ofNew Mexico Bulletin 345, Anthropological Series3(2). University of New Mexico, Albuquerquc.Kolber, Jane2003 A Quarter Century Later in Chaco Canyon: AReassessment Recording Project. In Climbing theRocks. Papers in Honor of Helen and Jay Crotty,edited by Regge N. Wiseman, Thomas C.O'Laughlin, and Cordelia T. Snow, pp. 99-109.Papers of the Archaeological Society of NewMexico: 29. Albuquerque.Kvamme, Kenneth L.2003 Geophysical Surveys as Landscapc Archaeology.American Antiquity 68(3):435-457.Lagasse, Peter F., William B. Gillespie, and Kenneth G.Eggert1984 Hydraulic Engineering Analysis of Prehistoric WaterControlled Systems at Chaco Canyon, New Mexico.In Recent Research on Chaco Prehistory, cdited byW. James Judge and John D. Schelbcrg, pp. 187-211. Reports of the Chaco Centcr No.8. Divisionof Cultural Research, National Park Service,Albuqucrque.Lamphere, Louise1983 Southwestern Ceremonialism. In Southwest, editedby Alfonson A. Ortiz, pp. 743-763. Volume 10 ofthe Handbook of North American Indians, WilliamC. Sturtevant, gcneral editor.Institution, Washington, D.C.SmithsonianLeBlanc, Steven A.1999 Prehistoric Warfare in the American Southwest.University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.2000 Regional Interaction and Warfare in the LatePrehistoric Southwest. In The Archaeology ofRegional Interaction: Religion, Warfare, andExchange Across the American Southwest, edited byMichelle Hegmon, pp. 41-70. University Press ofColorado, Boulder.Leinau, Alice1934 Sanctuaries in the Ancient Pueblo of Chetro Ketl.Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department ofArcheology, University of New Mexico,Albuquerque.Lekson, Stephen H.1983a Chaco Architecture in a Continental Context. InProceedings of the Anasazi Symposium 1981,compiled and edited by Jack E. Smith, pp. 183-194.Mesa Verde Museum Association, Inc., Mesa VerdeNational Park.1983b (editor) The Architecture and Dendrochronology ofChetro Ketl, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. Reportsof the Chaco Center No.6. Division of CulturalResearch, National Park Service, Albuquerque.1984a Great Pueblo Architecture of Chaco Canyon.Publications in Archcology 18B, Chaco CanyonStudies. National Park Service, Albuquerque.1984b Standing Architecture at Chaco Canyon and theIntcrpretation of Local and Regional Organization.In Recent Research on Chaco Prehistory, edited byW. James Judge and John D. Schelbcrg, pp. 55-73.Reports of the Chaco Centcr No.8. Division ofCultural Research, National Park Service,Albuquerque.1985a The Architecture of Talus Unit, Chaco Canyon,New Mexico. In Prehistory and History in theSouthwest. Collected Papers in Honor of Alden C.Hayes, edited by Nancy Fox. pp. 43-59. Papers ofthe Archaeological Society of New Mexico: 11.Ancient City Press, Inc., Santa Fe.1985b The Dating of Casas Grandes. The Kiva 50(1):55-60.1988a SOciopolitical Complexity at Chaco Canyon, NewMexico. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Departmentof Anthropology, University of New Mexico,Albuquerque.1988b The Idea of the Kiva in Anasazi Archaeology. TheKiva 53(3):213-234.1989 Kivas? In The Architecture of Social Integration inPrehistoric Pueblos, edited by William D. Lipe and

References 401Michelle Hegemon, pp. 161-167. Crow CanyonArchaeological Center, Cortez.1991 Settlement Pattern and the Chaco Region. In Chacoand Hohokam: Prehistoric Regional Systems in theAmerican Southwest, edited by Patricia L. Crownand W. James Judge, pp. 31-55. School ofAmerican Research, Santa Fe.1996 The Pueblo Southwest After 1150. In InterpretingSouthwestern Diversity: Underlying Principles andOverarching Patterns, edited by Paul R. Fish and 1.Jefferson Reid, pp. 41-44. Arizona State UniversityAnthropological Research Papers No. 48. ArizonaState University, Tempe.1997 Points; Knives and Drills of Chaco Canyon. InCeramics, Lithics, and Ornaments of ChacoCanyon. Analyses of Artifacts from the ChacoProject, 1971-1978, edited by Frances JoanMathien, pp. 659-697. Publications in Archeology18G, Chaco Canyon Studies. National ParkService) Santa Fe.1999 The Chaco Meridian. Centers of Political Power inthe Ancient Southwest. Altamira Press, WalnutCreek, CA.2005 (editor) The Archaeology of Chaco Canyon: AnEleventh Century Pueblo Regional Center. Schoolof American Research Press, Santa Fe.2006 (editor) The Architecture of Chaco Canyon, NewMexico. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.(In press).Lekson, Stephen H., and Catherine M. Cameron1995 The Abandonment of Chaco Canyon, The MesaVerde Migrations, and the Reorganization of thePueblo World. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology14:184-202.Lekson, Stephen H., and W. James Judge1978 Architecture of the Bonito Phase of Chaco Canyon,New Mexico. Paper presented at the 77th AnnualMeeting of the American Anthropological Association,Los Angeles.Lekson, Stephen H., Thomas C. Windes, and PatriciaFournier2006 The Changing Faces of Chetro Ketl. In The Architectureof Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. Universityof Utah Press, Salt Lake City. (In press).Lekson, Stephen H., Thomas C. Windes, and Peter J.McKenna2006 Architecture. In The Architecture of Chaco Canyon,New Mexico. University of Utah Press, Salt LakeCity. (In press).Lekson, Stephen H., Thomas C. Windes, John R. Stein,and W. James Judge1988 The Chaco Canyon Community. ScientificAmerican 256(7): 100-109.Leopold, Luna B., and John P. Miller1956 Ephemeral Streams: Hydraulic Factors and TheirRelation to the Drainage Net. U.S.G.S. ProfessionalPaper 282-A. U.S. Government PrintingOffice, Washington, D.C.Levine, Richard, and Oswald Werner1976 An Ethnoscience Ethnography of Navajo Land Usein the Chaco Canyon Area. Ms. on file, ChacoCulture NHP Museum Archive, University of NewMexico, Albuquerque.Lewis, Candace K.2002 Knowledge is Power: Pigments, Painted Artifacts,and Chacoan Ritual Leaders. Unpublished M.A.thesis, Department of Anthropology, NorthernArizona University, Flagstaff.Lewis, David, and Thomas Shipman1972 Summary of Preliminary Seismic Work at ChacoCanyon. Ms. on file, Chaco Culture NHP MuseumArchive, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.Lightfoot, Kent G., and Gary M. Feinman1982 Social Differentiation and Leadership in EarlyPithouse Villages in the Mogollon Region of theAmerican Southwest. American Antiquity 47:64-86.Lister, Robert H.1978 Mesoamerican Influence on Chaco Canyon, NewMexico. In Across the Chichimec Sea. Papers inHonor of J. Charles Kelley, edited by Carroll L.Riley and Basil C. Hedrick, pp. 233-241. SouthernIllinois University Press, Carbondale.Lister, Robert H., and Florence C. Lister1981 Chaco Canyon: Archaeology and Archaeologists.University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Loew, Oscar von1875 12. Report on the Ruins of New Mexico. InAppendix 1. Ethnology, Philology, and Ruins, pp.1094-1098. In Annual Report of the Chief ofEngineers to the Secretary of War for the Year 1875.Part II. 44th Congress, 1" Session, Ex. Doc. 1, Part2, Vol. II. Government Printing Office,Washington, D.C.

402 Chaco Project SynthesisLoose, Richard W.1976a Air-Borne TV as an Archeological Remote SensingTool. In Remote Sensing Experiments in CulturalResource Studies. Non-destructive Methods ofArcheological Exploration, Survey, and Analysis,assembled by Thomas R. Lyons, pp. 77-80.Reports of the Chaco Center No.1. National ParkService and University of New Mexico,Albuquerque.1976b Patterns of Chacoan Site Distribution: AnEnvironmental View. Ms. on file, National ParkService, Santa Fe.1979a Research Design. In Anasazi Communities of theSan Juan Basin, by Michael Marshall, John R.Stein, Richard W. Loose, and Judith E. Novotny,pp. 355-363. Historic Preservation Bureau, SantaFe.1979b Site 29SJ299. Ms. on file, Chaco Culture NHPMuseum Archive, University of New Mexico,Albuquerque.Loose, Richard W., and Thomas R. Lyons1976a The Chetro Ketl Field: A Planned Water ControlSystem in Chaco Canyon. In Remote SensingExperiments in Cultural Resources Studies. NondestructiveMethods of Archeological Exploration,Survey, and Analysis, assembled by Thomas R.Lyons, pp. 133-156. Reports of the Chaco CenterNo.1. National Park Service and University ofNew Mexico, Albuquerque.1976b Use of Aerial Photos in Archeological Survey alongthe Lower Chaco River Drainage. In RemoteSensing Experiments in Cultural Resources Studies.Non-destructive Methods of ArcheologicalExploration, Survey, and Analysis, assembled byThomas R. Lyons, pp. 69-71. Reports ofthc ChacoCentcr No.1. National Park Service and Universityof New Mexico, Albuquerque.Love, David W.1974 Final Report to the Student Allocations Committee:A 3700-Year Old Radiocarbon Date on a Bum inChaco Canyon, Ncw Mexico. Ms. on file, ChacoCulture NHP Museum Archive, University of NewMexico, Albuquerque.1977a Dynamics of Sedimentation and Geomorphic Historyof Chaco Canyon National Monument, NewMexico. Guidebook of the San Juan Basin III,Northwestern New Mexico, edited by 1. E. Fassett,pp. 291-300. New Mexico Geologic SocietyGuidebook, 28th Field Conference.1977b Geology of Quaternary Deposits of Chaco Canyon,New Mexico. Ms. on file, Chaco Culture NHP .Museum Archive, University of New Mexico,Albuquerque. Revised 1980.1979 Quaternary Fluvial Geomorphic Adjustments inChaco Canyon, New Mexico. In Adjustments of theFluvial System, edited by Dallas D. Rhodes andGarnett P. Williams, pp. 277-308. Kendall andHunt, Dubuque, IL.1980 Quaternary Geology of Chaco Canyon,Northwestern New Mexico. Unpublished Ph.D.dissertation, Geology Department, University ofNew Mexico, Albuquerque.1983a Quaternary Facies in Chaco Canyon and TheirImplications for Geomorphic-SedimentologicalModels. In Chaco Canyon Country. A Field Guideto the Geomorphology, Quaternary Geology,Paleoecology, and Environmental Geology ofNorthwestern New Mexico, edited by S. G. Wells,D. W. Love, and T. W. Gardner, pp. 195-206.American Geomorphological Field Group, FieldTrip Guidebook 1983 Conference. Adobe Press,Albuquerque.1983b Summary of the Late Cenozoic Geomorphic andDepositional History of Chaco Canyon. In ChacoCanyon Country. A Field Guide to theGeomorphology, Quaternary Geology,Paleoecology, and Environmental Geology ofNorthwestern New Mexico, edited by S. G. Wells,D. W. Love, and T. W. Gardner, pp. 187-194.American Geomorphological Field Group, FieldTrip Guidebook 1983 Conference. Adobe Press,Albuquerque.1997a Description of Chaco Project's Lithic TypesCollected by A. Helene Warren. In Ceramics,Lithics, and Ornaments of Chaco Canyon. Analysesof Artifacts from the Chaco Project, 1971-1978,edited by Frances Joan Mathien, pp. 634-642.Publications in Archeology 18G, Chaco CanyonStudies. National Park Service, Santa Fe.1997b Petrographic Description and Sources of ChippedStone Artifacts in Chaco Canyon. In Ceramics,Lithics, and Ornaments of Chaco Canyon. Analysesof Artifacts from the Chaco Project 1971-1978,edited by Frances Joan Mathien, pp. 610-633.Publications in Archeology 18G, Chaco CanyonStudies. National Park Service, Santa Fe.Love, Marion F.1975 A Survey of the Distribution ofT-shaped Doorwaysin the Greater Southwest. In Collected Papers inHonor of Florence Hawley Ellis, edited by TheodoreR. Frisbie, pp. 296-311. Papers of theArchaeological Society of New Mexico: 2. HooperPublishing Co., Norman, OK.Luhrs, Dorothy L.1935 The Excavation of Kin Nahazbas, Chaco Canyon,New Mexico, Summer Session 1935. Archive

References 4031010, Chaco Culture NHP Museum Archive,University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.Lyford, Forest P.1979 Ground Water in the San Juan Basin, New Mexicoand Colorado. Water-Resources Investigations 79-73. U.S.G.S., Albuquerque.Lyons, Thomas R.1969 A Study of the Paleo-Indian and Desert CulJureComplexes of the Estancia Valley Area, NewMexico. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Departmentof Anthropology, University of New Mexico,Albuquerque.1973 Archaeological Research Strategies: The ChacoCanyon Road Survey. Summer 1973. Ms. on file,National Park Service, Santa Fe.Lyons, Thomas R., and Thomas Eugene Avery1977 Remote Sensing: A Handbook Jor ArcheologicalCultural Resource Managers. National ParkService, Washington, D.C.Lyons, Thomas R., James I. Ebert, and Robert K.Hitchcock1976 Archaeological Analysis of Imagery of ChacoCanyon Region, New Mexico. In ERTS-I: A NewWindow on our Planet, edited by Richard S.William, Jr. and William D. Carter, pp. 304-306.U.S. Geological Survey Professional Papers 929.Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.Lyons, Thomas R., and Robert K. Hitchcock1977a (editors). Aerial Remote Sensing Techniques inArcheology. Reports of the Chaco Center No.2.National Park Service and University of NewMexico, Albuquerque1977b Remote Sensing Interpretation in an Anasazi LandRoute System. In AerialRemote Sensing Techniquesin Archeology, edited by Thomas R. Lyons andRobert K. Hitchcock, pp. 111-134. Reports of theChaco Center No.2. National Park Service andUniversity of New Mexico, Albuquerque.Lyons, Thomas R., Robert K. Hitchcock, and Basil G.Pouls1976 The Kin Bineola Irrigation Study. An Experiment inthe Use of Aerial Remote Sensing Techniques inArcheology. In Remote Sensing Experiments inCulJuralResource Studies. Non-destructive Methodsof Archeological Exploration, Survey, and Analysis,assembled by Thomas R. Lyons, pp. 115-131.Reports of the Chaco Center No. 1. National ParkService and University of New Mexico,Albuquerque.Lyons, Thomas R., Michael Inglis, and Robert K.Hitchcock1972 The Application of Space Imagery to Anthropology.Proceedings: Third Annual Conference on RemoteSensing in Arid Lands, pp. 244-264. Office of AridLands Studies, College 0 f Earth Sciences, Universityof Arizona, Tucson.Maher, Robert F.1947 A Report on Excavations in Search of a BurialGround at Bc 48. Archive 393, Chaco Culture NHPMuseum Archive, University of New Mexico,Albuquerque.Mahoney, Nancy2000a Chaco World. Archaeology Southwest 14(1):15-17.2000b Redefining the Scale of Chaco an Communities. InGreat House Communities Across the ChacoanLandscape, edited by John Kantner and Nancy M.rvfahoney, pp. 19-27. Anthropological Papers of theUniversity of Arizona No. 64. University ofArizona Press, Tucson.Maker, H. J., H. E. Bullock, Jr., and J. U. Anderson1974 Soil Associations and Land Classification forIrrigation, McKinley County. Las Cruces AgriculturalExperimental Station, Research Report 267.Las Cruces, NM.Malcolm, Roy L.1939 Archeological Remains, Supposedly Navaho, fromChaco Canyon, New Mexico. American Antiquity5(1):4-20.Malde, Harold E.2001 Repeat Photography at Chaco Canyon Based onPhotographs Made During the 1896-1899 HydeExpedition and in the 1970s. Report to the WrightPaleohydrological Institute.Malville, J. McKim1999 The Calendars of Chimney Rock and the Origins ofChacoan Astronomy. Southwestern Lore 65:4-18.Malville, J. McKim, Frank W. Eddy, and CarolArmbruster1991 Moonrise at Chimney Rock. Archaeoastronomy(Supplement to the Journal for the History ofAstronomy) 1:34-50.Marshall, Michael P.1992 The Chacoan Roads-A Cosmological Interpretation.In Proceedings: The Mesa Verde Symposium onAnasazi Architecture and American Design, editedand coordinated by Baker H. Morrow and V. B.

404 Chaco Project SynthesisPrice, pp. 123-137. Morrow and Co. Ltd.,Albuquerque.1997 The Chacoan Roads-A Cosmolo gical Interpretation.In Anasazi Architecture and American Design,edited by Baker H. Morrow and V. B. Price, pp. 62-74. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Marshall, Michael P., and David E. Doyel1981 An Interim Report on Bis sa'ani Pueblo with Noteson the Chacoan Regional System. Ms. on file,Chaco Culture NHP Museum Archive, University ofNew Mexico, Albuquerque.Marshall, Michael P., and Anna Soraer1986 Solstice Project Investigations in the Chaco District1984 and 1985-The Technical Report. Ms. on filewith authors.1988 Solstice Project Archaeological Investigations in theChacoan Province, New Mexico. Ms. on file,Museum of New Mexico, Laboratory of Anthropology,Santa Fe.Marshall, Michael P., John R. Stein, Richard W. Loose,and Judith E. Novotny1979 Anasazi Communities of the San Juan Basin. PublicService Company, Albuquerque, and New MexicoState Historic Preservation Bureau, Santa Fe.Printed by Albuquerque Photo Lab. Inc.Martin, Paul Schultz1963 The Last 10,000 Years: A Fossil Pollen Record ofthe American Southwest. University of ArizonaPress, Tucson.Martin, Paul Sidney1936 Lowry Ruin in Southwestern Colorado. FieldMuseum of Natural History, Anthropological Series23(1). Chicago.Maruca, Mary1982 An Administrative History of the Chaco Project.Anthropology Division, National Park Service,Washington, D.C.Mathews, Tom W.1947 Extraction from Student Notes ofBc 59 Excavations.Chaco Archive 2060, Chaco Culture NHP MuseumArchive, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.1979 Atlatl Cave: Archaic-Basketmaker II Investigationsin Chaco Canyon National Monument (Introductionand Site Background). Ms. on file, Chaco CultureNHP Museum Archive, University of New Mexico,Albuquerque.Mathews, Thomas W., and Earl Neller1979 Atlatl Cave: Archaic-Basketmaker II Investigationsin Chaco Canyon National Monument. In Proceedingsof the First Conference on ScientificResearch in the National Parks. Volume II, editedby R. M. Linn, p. 873. National Park ServiceTransactions and Proceedings Series No.5.Washington, D.C.Mathien, Frances Joan1981a Economic Exchange Systems in the San Juan Basin.UnpUblished Ph.D. dissertation, Department ofAnthropology, University of New Mexico,Albuquerque.1981b Neutron Activation of Turquoisc Artifacts fromChaco Canyon, New Mexico. CA ResearchConclusions. Current Anthropology 22(3):293-294.1983 The Mobile Trader and the Chaco Anasazi. InProceedings of the Anasazi Symposium 1981,compiled and edited by J. E. Smith, pp. 197-206.Mesa Verde Museum Association, Inc., Mesa VerdeNational Park.1984 Social and Economic Implications of Jewelry Itemsof the Chaco Anasazi. In Recent Research onChaco Prehistory, edited by W. James Judge andJohn D. Schelberg, pp. 173-186. Reports of theChaco Center No.8. Division of Cultural Research,National Park Service, Albuquerque.1985 Ornaments and Minerals from Chaco Canyon,National Park Service Project, 1971-1978. Ms. onfile, Chaco Culture NHP Museum Archive,University of Ncw Mexico, Albuquerque.1986 External Contacts and the Chaco Anasazi. InRipples in the Chichimec Sea. New Considerationsof Southwestern-Mesoamerican Interaction, editedby Frances Joan Mathien and Randall H. McGuire,pp. 220-240. Southern Illinois University,Carbondale.1987 Ornaments and Minerals from Pueblo Alto. InInvestigations at the Pueblo Alto Complex, ChacoCanyon, New Mexico, 1975-1979. Volume Ill.Artifactual and Biological Analyses, edited byFrances Joan Mathien and Thomas C. Windes, pp.381-428. Publications in Archeology 18F, ChacoCanyon Studies. National Park Service, Santa Fe.1991a (editor) Excavations at 29SJ633: The EleventhHour Site, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. Reports ofthe Chaco Center, No. 10. Branch of CulturalResearch, National Park Service, Santa Fe.1991b Ornaments and Minerals from 29SJ633. InExcavations at 29SJ633: The Eleventh Hour Site,Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, edited by Frances JoanMathien, pp. 221-241. Reports of the Chaco Center

References 405No. 10. BranchofCulturalResearch,NationalParkService, Santa Fe.1992 Ornaments and Minerals from Site 29SJ627. InExcavations at 29SJ 627, Chaco Carryon, NewMexico. Volume II. The Artifact Analyses, editedby Frances Joan Mathien, pp. 265-318. Reports ofthe Chaco Center No. 11. Branch of CulturalResearch, National Park Service, Santa Fe.1993a Exchange Systems and Social Stratification amongthe Chaco Anasazi. In The American Southwest andMesoamerica: Systems of Prehistoric Exchange,edited by Jonathon E. Ericson and Timothy G.Baugh, pp. 27-63. Plenum Press, New York andLondon.1993b Ornaments and Minerals from 29SJ629. In TheSpadefoot Toad Site: Investigations al 29SJ629,Chaco Canyon, New Mexico: Artifactual andBiological Analyses. Volume II, edited by ThomasC. Windes, pp. 269-316. Reports of the ChacoCenter l..Jo. 12. Branch of Cultural Research,National Park Service, Santa Fe.1997 Ornaments of the Chaco Anasazi. In Ceramics,Lithics, and Ornaments of Chaco Canyon. Analysesof Artifacts from the Chaco Project, 1971-1978,edited by Frances Joan Mathien, pp. 1119-1220.Publications in Archeology 18G, Chaco CanyonStudies. National Park Service, Santa Fe.2001a Anthropology and Archaeology in Chaco Canyon.The Hyde Exploring Expedition. In FollowingThrough: Papers in Honor of Phyllis S. Davis,edited by Regge N. Wiseman, Thomas C.o 'Laughlin, and Cordelia T. Snow, pp. 103-114.Papers of the Archaeological Society of NewMexico: 27. Albuquerque.2001b The Organization of Turquoise Production andConsumption by the Prehistoric Chacoans.American Antiquity 66:103-118.2002 Mesa Tierra and the Hyde Exploring Expedition. InForward Into The Past. Papers in Honor of TeddyLou and Francis Stickney, edited by Regge N.Wiseman, Thomas C. O'Loughlin, and Cordelia T.Snow, pp. 47-57. Archaeological Society of NewMexico: 28. Albuquerque.2oo3a Artifacts from Pueblo Bonito: 100 Years ofInterpretation. In Pueblo Bonito: Center of theChacoan World, edited by Jill E. Neitzel.Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.2003b Pueblo Wall Decorations: Examples from ChacoCanyon. In Climbing the Rocks. Papers in Honorof Helen and Jay Crotty, edited by Regge N.Wiseman, Thomas C. O'Laughlin, and Cordelia T.Snow, pp. 111-126. Papers ofthe ArchaeologicalSociety of New Mexico: 29. Albuquerque.Mathien, Frances Joan, and W. James Judge1983 A Data Base Management System for CulturalResource Managers. The George Wright FORUM3(3):2-17. Summer. Hancock, MI.Mathien, Frances Joan, W. James Judge, and AndrewDrager1982 Development of a Data Base Management Systemfor Archeological Resource Conservation. NewMexico Archeological Council Newsletter 4(5-6):29-33.Mathien, Frances Joan, and Thomas C. Windes1987 (editors) Investigations at the Pueblo Alto Complex,Chaco Carryon, New Mexico 1975-1979. Volumelll. Artifactual and Biological analyses. Publicationsin Archeology 18F, Chaco Canyon Studies.National Park Service, Santa Fe.1988 Historic Structure Report, Kin Nahasbas Ruin,Chaco Culture l ...f·ational Historical Park, J.~/eWMexico. Branch of Cultural Research, NationalPark Service, Santa Fe.1989 Greathouse Revisited: Kin Nahasbas, ChacoCulture National Historical Park. In From Chaco toChaco: Papers in Honor of Robert H. and FlorenceC. Lister, edited by Meliha S. Duran and David T.Kirkpatrick, pp. 11-34. Papers of the ArchaeologicalSociety of New Mexico: 15. Albuquerque.Matson, R. G., and Karen M. Dohm (editors)1994 Anasazi Origins: Recent Research on theBasketmaker II. Kiva 60(2): 159-343.Matthews, Washington1889 Naqoilpi, the Gambler: A Navajo Myth. Journal ofAmerican Folk Lore 2:89-94.Maxon, James C.1963 Lizard House, a Report of a Salvage Excavation atChaco Canyon National Monument, New Mexico in1960. Ms. on file, Chaco Culture NHP MuseumArchive, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.McGuire, Randall H.1980 The Mesomerican Connection In the Southwest.The Kiva 46(1-2):3-38.McKenna, Peter J.1983 A Case Study of an Early Bonito Phase Small Site,29SJ1360, in Chaco Canyon New Mexico. UnpublishedM.A. thesis, Eastern New MexicoUniversity, Portales.

406 Chaco Project Synthesis1984 The Architecture and Material Culture of29SJ 1360,Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. Reports of the ChacoCenter NO.7. Division of Cultural Research,National Park Service, Albuquerque.1986 A Summary of the Chaco Center's Small SiteExcavations: 1973-1978. Part I in Small SiteArchitecture of Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, byPeter J. McKenna and Marcia L. Truell, pp. 5-114.Publications in Archeology 18D, Chaco CanyonStudies. National Park Service, Santa Fe.1991 Chaco Canyon's Mesa Verde Phase. In Excavationsat 29SJ633: The Eleventh Hour Site, ChacoCanyon, New Mexico, edited by Frances JoanMathien, pp. 127-137. Reports of the Chaco CenterNo.10. Branch of Cultural Research, National ParkService, Santa Fe.McKenna, Peter J., and H. Wolcott Toll1991 Ceramics from 29S1633, The Eleventh Hour Site.In Excavations at 29SJ633: The Eleventh Hour Site,Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, edited by Frances JoanMathien, pp. 139-205. Reports of the Chaco CenterNo. 10. Branch of Cultural Research, National ParkService, Santa Fe.McKenna, Peter J., and L. Truell1986 Small Site Architeccture of Chaco Canyon, NewMexico. Publications in Archeology 18D, ChacoCanyon Studies. National Park Service, Santa Fe.McNitt, Frank1957 Richard Wetherill: Anasazi. Pioneer Explorer ofSouthwestern Ruins. University of New Mexico,Albuquerque.1966 Richard Wetherill: Anasazi. Pioneer Explorer ofSouthwestern Ruins, revised edition. University ofNew Mexico, Albuquerque.Merlin, Thomas W., And Frances Levine1986 A Homestead in Ruins: Richard Wetherill'sHomestead in Chaco Canyon. Ms. on file, ChacoCulture NHP Museum Archive, University of NewMexico, Albuquerque.Meyer, D.1999 Masonry and Social Variability in the Chaco System.Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Archaeology,University of Calgary, Calgary.Miles, Judith1989 Overview of Bone Artifacts Excavated from ChacoCulture National Historical Park Between 1973 and1978. Ms. on file, Chaco Culture NHP MuseumArchive, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.Miller, James Marshall1937 The G Kivas of Chetro Ketl. Unpublished M.A.thesis, University of Southern California, LosAngeles.Mills, Barbara J.1986 Regional Patterns of Ceramic Variability in the SanJuan Basin: Ceramics of the Chaco AdditionsInventory Survey. Final Report Contract PX 7029-5-C034. Branch of Cultural Research, NationalPark Service, Santa Fe.2002 Recent Research on Chaco: Changing Views onEconomy, Ritual, and Society. Journal ofArchaeological Research 10(1):65-117.Mindeleff, Victor1891 A Study of Pueblo Architecture: Tusayan andCibola. In Eighth Annual Report of the Bureau ofAmerican Ethnologyfor the Years 1886-1887, pp. 3-228. Government Printing Office, Washington,D.C.Mohr, A., and L. L. Sample1959 San Jose Sites in Southeastern Utah. El Palacio66:109-119.Moorehead, Warren K.1906 A Narrative of Explorations in New Mexico,Arizona, etc. Department of Archaeology, BulletinNo.3. Phillips Academy, Andover, MA.Morain, Stanley A., Thomas K. Budge, and AmeliaKomarek1981 An Airborne Spectral Analysis of Settlement Sites inChaco Canyon. In Remote Sensing: MultispectralAnalysis of Cultural Resources: Chaco Canyon andBandelier National Monument. Supplement No.5 toRemote Sensing: A Handbookfor Archeologists andCultural Resource Managers by Thomas R. Lyonsand Thomas Eugene Avery, pp. 1-37. Division ofCultural Resource Management, National ParkService, Washington, D.C.Morris, Earl H.1928 The Azlec Ruin. Anthropological Papers No. 26.American Museum of Natural History, New York.Mulloy, William1941 Casa Sombreada: Excavation at Be 52. PreliminaryReport. Chaco Archive 21011, ChacoCulture NHP Museum Archive, University of NewMexico, Albuquerque.

References 407NaroU, Raoul1962 Floor Area and Settlement Population. AmericanAntiquity 27(4):587-589.National Park Service1969 Prospectus. Chaco Canyon Studies. National ParkService, Washington, D.C.1997 Baseline Water Quality Data, Inventory andAnalysis, Chaco Culture National Historical Park.Technical Report Water Resources Division,National Park Service, Fort Collins, CO.Neitzel, Jill E.1989 The Chacoan Regional System: interpreting theEvidence for Sociopolitical Complexity. In TheSociopolitical Structure of Prehistoric SouthwesternSocieties, edited by Steadman Upham, KentLightfoot, and Roberta Jewett, pp. 509-556.Westview Press, Boulder.Neitzel, Jill E., and Ronald L. Bishop1990 Neutron Activation of Dogoszhi Style Ceramics:Production and Exchange in the Chacoan RegionalSystem. Kiva 56(1):67-85.Neller, Earl1975 Botanical Analysis in Atlatl Cave, PreliminaryReport. Ms. on file, Chaco Culture NHP MuseumArchive, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.1976a An Introduction to Archaeological Research atPueblo Alto. Ms. on file, Chaco Culture NHPMuseum Archive, University of New Mexico,Albuquerque.1976b Chipped Stone Analyses in Atlatl Cave, ChacoCanyon, New Mexico. Ms. on file, Chaco CultureNHP Museum Archive, University of New Mexico,Albuquerque.1976c Sleeping Dune. Ms. on file, Chaco Culture NHPMuseum Archive, University of New Mexico,Albuquerque.Nelson, Ben A.2005 Invoking Distant Ideals: Mesoamerican Content inChaco Canyon Contexts. In The Archaeology ofChaco Canyon: An Eleventh Century PuebloRegional Center, edited by Stephen H. Lekson.School of American Research Press, Santa Fe. (Inpress).Newman, Evelyn B., Robert K. Mark, and R. GwinnVivian1982 Anasazi Solar Marker: The Use of A Natural Rockfall.Science 217(4564):1036-1038.Nials, Fred L.1983 Physical Characteristics of Chacoan Roads. InChaco Roads Project, Phase l. A Reappraisal ofPrehistoric Roads in the San Juan Basin, 1983,edited by Chris Kincaid, pp. 6-1 to 6-51. Bureau ofLand Management, Albuquerque and Santa Fe.Nials, Fred, John Stein, and John Roney1987 Chacoan Roads in the Southern Periphery: Resullsof Phase I1 of the BLM Chaco Roads Project.Cultural Resources Series No. 1. Bureau of LandManagement, New Mexico State Officc, Santa Fe.Nichols, Ronaid Frankiin1975 Archaeomagnetic Study of Anasazi-RelatedSediments of Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. UnpublishedM.S. thesis, School of Geology andGeosciences, University of Norman, Oklahoma.Noble, David Grant (editor)1984 New Light on Chaco Canyon. School of AmericanResearch Press, Santa Fe.2004 (editor) In Search of Chaco: New Approaches to anEnduring Enigma. School of American ResearchPress, Santa Fe.Obenauf, Margaret Senter1980a A History of Research on the Chacoan RoadwaySystem. In Cultural Resources Remote Sensing,edited by Thomas R. Lyons and Frances JoanMathien, pp. 123-167. Cultural Resources ManagementDivision, National Park Service, Washington,D.C.1980b The Chacoan Roadway System. Unpublished M.A.thesis, Department of Anthropology, University ofNew Mexico, Albuquerque.1983a Evaluation of Aerial Photography. In Chaco RoadsProject, Phase I: A Reappraisal of PrehistoricRoads in the San Juan Basin, 1983, edited by ChrisKincaid, pp. 4-1 to 4-21. Bureau of Land Management,New Mexico State Office, Albuquerque andSanta Fe.1983b The Prehistoric Roadway Network in the San JuanBasin. In Remote Sensing in Cultural ResourceManagement. The San Juan Basin Project, editedby Dwight L. Drager and Thomas R. Lyons, pp.117-122. Cultural Resources Management Division,National Park Service, Washington, D.C.1991 Photo Interpretation of Chaeoan Roads. In AncientRoad Networks and Settlement Hierarchies in theNew World, edited by Charles D. Trombold, pp. 34-41. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

408 Chaco Project SynthesisOrtiz, Alfonso A.1965 Dual Organization as an Operational Concept in thePueblo Southwest. Ethnology 4(4):389-396.1969 The Tewa World: Space, Time, Being, andBecoming in a Pueblo Society. University ofChicago Press, Chicago.Palkovich, Ann M.1984 Disease and Mortality Patterns in the Burial Roomsof Pueblo Bonito: Preliminary Considerations. InRecent Research on Chaco Prehistory, edited by W.James Judge and John D. Schelberg, pp. 103-113.Reports of the Chaco Center No.8. Division ofCultural Research, National Park Service,Albuquerque.Parsons, Elsie Clews1936 Pueblo Indian Religions. Two volumes. Universityof Nebraska Press, Lincoln.Pepper, George II.1899 Ceremonial Deposits Found in an Ancient PuebloEstufa in Northern Ncw Mexico. MonumentalRecords 1(1):1-6.1900 The Navajo Indians. An Ethnological Study.Southern Workman, November.1902a The Making of a Navajo Blanket. Everybody'sMagazine, pp. 33-43. January.1902b The Navajo Indians. An Ethnological Study. ThePapoose 1 (1): 3-9. Hyde Exploring Expedition, NewYork.1903 Native Navajo Dyes. Reprint from The Papoose,February, pp. 3-12.1905a An Unusual Navajo Medicine Ceremony. TheHampton Institute Press, Hampton, VA. Reprintedfrom The Southern Workman.1905b Ceremonial Objects and Ornaments from PuebloBonito, New Mexico. American Anthropologist7(2):183-197.1906 Human Effigy Vases from Chaco Canyon, NewMexico. In Boas Anniversary Volume: AnthropologicalPapers Written in Honor of Franz Boas,pp.320-334. G. E. Stechert & Co., New York.1909 The Exploration ofa Burial Room in Pueblo Bonito,New Mexico. In Putnam Anniversary Volume:Anthropological Essays, presented to Frederic WardPutnam in Honor of his Seventieth Birthday, April16, 1909, by his Friends and Associates, pp. 196-252. G. E. Steckhert & Co., New York.1920 Pueblo Bonito, Anthropological Papers of theAmerican Museum of Natural History Vol. 27.New York.Peregrine, Peter N.2001 Matrilocality, Corporate Strategy, and theOrganization of Production in the Chacoan World.American Antiquity 66:36-46.Petersen, Kenneth L.1981 10,000 Years of Climatic Change Reconstructedfrom Fossil Pol/en, La Plata Mountains, SouthwesternColorado. UnpUblished Ph.D. dissertation,Washington State University, Pullman.Pierce, Sarah Louise1932 Report on Excavation of a Talus Ruin North ofChetro Ketl. Ms. on file, Archive 2125J, ChacoCulture NHP Museum Archive, University of NewMexico, Albuquerque.Pierson, Lloyd M.1949 The Prehistoric Population of Chaco Canyon, NewMexico: A Study in Methods and Techniques ofPrehistoric Population Estimation. UnpublishedM.A. thesis, University of New Mexico,Albuquerque.1956 A History of Chaco Canyon National Monument.Ms. on file, Chaco Archive No. 726, Chaco CultureNHP Museum Archive, University of New Mexico,Albuquerque.Pippin, Lonnie C.1979 The Prehistory and Paleoecology of GuadalupeRuin, Sandoval County, New Mexico. Ph.D.dissertation, Washington State University, Pullman.1987 Prehistory and Paleoecology of Guadalupe Ruin,New Mexico. University of Utah AnthropologicalPapers No. 112. University of Utah Press, SaltLake City.Plog, Stephen1990 Sociopolitical Implications of Stylistic Variation inthe American Southwest. In Uses of Style inArchaeology, edited by Margaret Wright Conkeyand Christine Ann Hasdorf, pp. 61-72. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.2003 Exploring the Ubiquitous through the Unusual:Color Symbolism in Pueblo Bonito on Black-onwhitePottery. American Antiquity 68(4):665-695.Postlethwaite, W. W.1931 Further Excavation of a Small Ruin Southeast ofPueblo del Arroyo, June 19-20, 1931. VivianArchive No. 1879, Reitcr Papers 3:220-221. ChacoCulture NHP Muscum Archive, University of NewMexico, Albuquerque.Potter, Loren D.1974 Ecological Survey of Chaco Canyon. Final ReportNPS Contract 14-10-3-390-222. Ms. on file,

References 409Department of Biology and Chaco Culture NHPMuseum Archive, University of New Mexico,Albuquerque.Potter, Loren D., and N. E. Kelley1980 Aerial Photo interpretation of Vegetation of ChacoCanyon National Monument. In Cullural ResourcesRemote Sensing, edited by Thomas R. Lyons andFrances Joan Mathien, pp. 87-104. CulturalResources Management Division, National ParkService, Washington, D.C.Potter, Loren D., and R. Young1983 Indicator Plants and Archeological Sites, ChacoCanyon National Monument, New Mexico.Archaeology and History 8:19-37. COAS, LasCruces.Pouls, Basil G., Thomas R. Lyons, and James I. Ebert1976 Photogrammetric Mapping and Digitization ofPrehistoric Architecture: Techniques and Appli'~ations in Chaco Canyon National Monument, NewMexico. In Remote Sensing Experiments in CulluralResource Studies. Non-destructive Methods ofArcheological Exploration, Survey, and Analysis,assembled by Thomas R. Lyons, pp. 103-114.Reports ofthe Chaco Center No. 1. National ParkService and University of New Mexico,Albuquerque.Powers, Robert P.1984 Regional Interaction in the San Juan Basin: TheChacoan Outlier System. In Recent Research onChaco Prehistory, edited by W. James Judge andJohn D. Schelberg, pp. 23-36. Reports of theChaco Center No.8. Division of CulturalResearch, National Park Service, Albuquerque.Powers, Robert P., William B. Gillespie, and Stephen H.Lekson1983 The Outlier Survey: A Regional View of Settlementin the San Juan Basin. Reports ofthe Chaco CenterNo.3. Division of Cultural Research, National ParkService, Albuquerque.Powers, Robert P., and Peter J. McKenna1985 Preliminary Report on Inventory Survey at ChacoCulture National Historical Park, Summer, 1984.Ms. on file, Chaco Culture NHP Museum Archive,University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.Powers, Willow Roberts1989 An Ethnohistoric Study of Chaco Navajo Sites. Ms.on file, Chaco Culture NHP Museum Archive,University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.Reed, Paul F. (editor)2000 Foundations of Anasazi Cullure: The BasketmakerPueblo Transition. University of Utah Press, SaltLake City.Reinhard, Karl J., and Karen H. Clary1986 Parasite Analysis of Prehistoric Coprolites fromChaco Canyon. In A Biocultural Approach toHuman Burialsfrom Chaco Canyon, New Mexico,by Nancy J. Akins, pp. 177-186. Reports of theChaco Center No.9. Branch of Cultural Research,National Park Service, Santa Fe.Reinhart, Theodore R.1967 The Rio Rancho Phase: A Preliminary Report onEarly Basketmaker Culture in the Middle RioGrande Valley, New Mexico. American Antiquity32:458-470.1968 Late Archaic ClIl1l1res of the Middle Rio GrandeVaUey, New Mexico: A Study of the Process ofCullure Change. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,Department of Anthropology, University of NewMexico, Albuquerque.Reiter, Paul D.1933 The Ancient Pueblo of Chetro Ketl. UnpublishedM.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology,University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.Renaud, E. B.1942 Reconnaissance Work in the Upper Rio GrandeValley, Colorado and New Mexico. University ofDenver, Department of Anthropology, ArchaeologicalSeries No.3. Denver.Renfrew, Colin2001 Production and Consumption in a Sacred Economy:The Material Correlates of High DevotionalExpression at Chaco Canyon. American Antiquity66(1):14-25.Reyman, Jonathan E.1971 Mexican Influence on Southwestern Ceremonialism.Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.1975 Architecture and Adaptation. Two Possible SolstitialAlignments at Pueblo Bonito, Chaco Canyon, NewMexico. Ms. on file, NPS Chaco Culture NHPMuseum Archive, University of New Mexico,Albuquerque.1976 Astronomy, Architecture, and Adaptation at PuebloBonito. Science 193(4257):957-962.1978a Evidence for Annual and Circadian Rhythms inSouthwestern Pueblo Ceremonial Behavior. In

410 Chaco Project SynthesisPsychological Perspectives on Dances, edited byRuth E. Priddle. San Francisco Conference-BasedSeries II, Fall Congress on Research in Dance.New York.1978b Pochteca Burials at Anasazi Sites? In Across theChichimec Sea. Papers in Honor of J. CharlesKelley, edited by Carroll L. Riley and Basil C.Hedrick, pp. 242-259. Southern Illinois University,Carbondale and Edwardsville.1978c The Winter Solstice at Pueblo Bonito. Part 1.Griffith Observer 42(12):16-19. December.1979 The Winter Solstice at Pueblo Bonito. Part 2.Griffith Observer 43(10):2-9. January.1982 A Deposit from Pueblo Bonito Having AstronomicalSignificance. Archaeoastronomy (Supplement to theJournal of the History of Astronomy) 5:14-19.1987 Priests, Power and Politics: Some Implications ofSocioceremonial Control. In Astronomy andCeremony in the Prehistoric Southwest, edited byJohn B. Carlson and W. James Judge, pp. 121-147.Papers of the Maxwell Museum of AnthropologyNo.2. University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.1989 The History of Archaeology and the ArchaeologicalHistory of Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. In TracingArchaeology's Past, The Historiography ofArchaeology, edited by Andrew L. Christenson, pp.41-51. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale andEdwardsville.1995 Value in Mesoamerican-Southwestern Trade. In TheGran Chichimeca: Essays on the Archaeology andEthnohistory of Northern Mesoamerica, edited byJonathan E. Reyman, pp. 271-280. AveburyAshgate Worldwide Archaeology Series No. 12.Alldershat and Brookfield, VT.Roberts, Frank H. H., Jr.1927 The Ceramic Sequence in the Chaco Canyon, NewMexico, and Its Relation to the Cultures of the SanJuan Basin. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.1928 A Late Basketmaker Village of the Southwest. InSmithsonian Institution Explorations and Fieldworkfor 1927, pp. 165-172. Washington, D.C.1929 Shabik'eshchee Village, a Late Basket Maker Site inChaco Canyon, New Mexico. Bureau of AmericanEthnology Bulletin 92. Smithsonian Institution,Washington, D.C.1932 Village of the Great Kivas on the Zuni Reservation,New Mexico. Bureau of American EthnologyBulletin 111. Smithsonian Institution, Washington,D.C.1935 A Survey of Southwestern Archaeology. AmericanAnthropologist 37(2): 1-33.1939 Archeological Remains in the Whitewater District,Eastern Arizona, Part 1. House Types. Bureau ofAmerican Ethnology, Bulletin 121.D.C.Washington,Robinson, William J., Bruce G. Harrell, and Richard L.Warren1974 Tree-Ring Dates from New Mexico B: ChacoGobernador Area. The Laboratory of Tree-RingResearch, University of Arizona, Tucson.Robinson, William J., and Martin Rose1979 Preliminary Annual and Seasonal DendroclimaticReconstruction for the Northwest Plateau, SouthwestColorado, Southwest Mountains and NorthernMountains, Climatic Regions, A.D. 900-1969. Ms.on file, Chaco Culture NHP Museum Archive,University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.Roler, Kathy L.1999 The Chaco Phenomenon: A Faunal Perspectivefromthe Peripheries. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,Department of Anthropology, Arizona StateUniversity, Tempe.Roney, John R.1992 Prehistoric Roads and Regional Interaction in theChaco an System. In Anasazi Regional Organizationand the Chaco System, edited by David E. Doyel,pp. 123-131. Anthropological Papers No.5.Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, University ofNew Mexico, Albuquerque.1995 Mesa Verdean Manifestations South of the San JuanRiver. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology14(2):170-183.1996 The Pueblo III Period in the Eastern San Juan Basinand Acoma-Laguna Areas. In The PrehistoricPueblo World, A.D. 1150-1350, edited by MichaelA. Adler, pp. 145-169. University of ArizonaPress, Tucson.Rose, Martin1979 Preliminary Annual and Seasonal DendroclimaticReconstructions for Four Climatic Regions Includingand Surrounding Chaco Canyon Canyon.Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, Univcrsity ofArizona, Tucson. Ms. on file, Chaco Culture NHPMuseum Archive, University of New Mexico,Albuquerque.Rose, Martin R., William J. Robinson, and Jeffrey S.Dean1982 Dendroclimatic Reconstruction for the SoutheasternColorado Plateau. Submitted in fulfillment ofContract PX 7486-7-0121 by the Laboratory ofTree-Ring Research, University of Arizona, Tucson.

References 411Ross, Joseph R.1978 A Three-Dimensional Facies Analysis of the CanyonAlluvial Fill Sequence, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico.Unpublished M.S. thesis, Geology Department,University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.Ruppert, Hans1982 Zur Verbreitung und Herkunft von Tiirkis undSodalith in Priikolumbischen Kulturen derKordilleren. Baessler-Archiv 30:69-124. Berlin.1983 Geochmische Untersuchungen an Tiirkis undSodalith aus Lagerstatten und priikolumbischenKulturn der Kordilleren. Berliner Beitrtlge zurArchtloinetrie 8:101-210. Berlin.Saitta, Dean J.1997 Power, Labor, and the Dynamics of Change inChacoan Political Economy. American Antiquity62(1):7-26.Samuels, Michael L., and Julio L. BetJlOcourt1982 Modeling the Long-Term Effects of FuelwoodDemands on Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands. EnvironmentalManagement 6(6):505-515.Schaafsma, Polly1980 Indian Rock Art of the Southwest. School ofAmerican Research Press Santa Fe.1984 Rock Art in Chaco Canyon. In New Light on ChacoCanyon, edited by David Grant Noble, pp. 59-64.School of American Research, Santa Fe.1999 Tlalocs, Katchinas, Sacred Bundles, and RelatedSymbolism in the Southwest and Mesoamerica. InThe Casas Grandes World, edited by Curtis F.Schaafsma and Carroll L. Riley. University of UtahPress, Salt Lake City.2000 Emblems of Power: Social Identity and the Role ofVisual Symbols in the Cases of Casas Grande andChaco Canyon. Paper presented at the 65 th AnnualMeeting of the Society for American Archaeology,Philadelphia.Schaafsma, Polly, and Curtis F. Schaafsma1974 Evidence for the Origins of the Pueblo Kachina Cultas Suggested by Southwestern Rock Art. AmericanAntiquity 39:535-545.Schachner, Gregson2001 Ritual, Control and Transformation in Middle RangeSocieties: An Example from the AmericanSouthwest. Journal of AnthropologicalArchaeology20:164-194.Schalk, Randall F., and Thomas R. Lyons1976 Ecological Applications of Landsat Imagery inArcheology: An Example from the San Juan Basin,New Mexico. In Remote Sensing Experiments inCul1ural Resources Studies. Non-destructiveMethods in Archeological Exploration, Survey, andAnalysis, assembled by Thomas R. Lyons, pp. 173-186. Reports of the Chaco Center No. 1. NationalPark Service and University of New Mexico,Albuquerque.Schelberg, John D.1982a Economic and Social Development as an Adaptationto a Marginal Environment in Chaco Canyon, NewMexico. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,~.lorthwestern Univeisity, Evanston.1982b The Development of Social Complexity in ChacoCanyon. New Mexico Archeological CouncilNewsletter 4(5-6): 15-20.1984 Analogy, Complexity, and Regionally-BasedPerspectives. In Recent Research on Chaco Prehistory,edited by W. James Judge and John D.Schelberg, pp. 5-21. Reports of the Chaco CenterNo.8. Division of Cultural Research, National ParkService, Albuquerque.1997 The Metates of Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. InCeramics, Lithics, and Ornaments of Chaco Canyon.Analyses of Artifacts from the Chaco Project,1971-1978, edited by Frances Joan Mathien, pp.1013-1118. Publications in Archeology 18G, ChacoCanyon Studies. National Park Service, Santa Fe.Scheick, Cherie1983 Conclusions. In The Gamerco Project: Flexibility asan Adaptive Strategy, compiled by Cherie Scheickand Laura Ware, pp. 606-645. Archeological Division,Project Report No. 071. School of AmericanResearch, Santa Fe.Scheick, Cherie (compiler) and Laura Ware (editor)1983 The Gamerco Project: Flexibility as an AdaptiveStrategy. Archeological Division, Project ReportNo. 071. School of American Research, Santa Fe.Schillaci, Michael A.2003 Thc Development of Population Diversity at ChacoCanyon. Kiva 68(3):221-245.Schillaci, Michael A., E. G. Ozolins, and Thomas C.Windes2001 Multivariate Assessment of Biological Relationshipsamong Prehistoric Southwest Amerindian Populations.In Following Through: Papers in Honor ofPhyllis S. Davis, edited by Regge N. Wiseman,Thomas C. Q'Laughlin, and Cordelia T. Snow, pp.133-149. Papers of the Archaeological Society ofNew Mexico: 27. Albuquerque.

412 Chaco Project SynthesisSchoenwetter, James, and Alfred E. Dittert1968 An Ecological Interpretation of Anasazi SettlementPatterns. In Anthropological Archaeology in theAmericas, edited by Betty J. Meggars, pp. 41-66.Anthropological Society of Washington,Washington, D.C.Schoenwetter, James, and Frank W. Eddy1964 Alluvial and Palynological Reconstruction of Environments,Navajo Reservoir District. Museum ofNew Mexico Papers in Anthropology No. 13. SantaFe.Scott, Norman J.1980 The Ecology of Seeds and their Predators on ThreeArid Sites in Arizona and New Mexico. Ms. onfile, Chaco Culture NHP Museum Archive,University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.Scurlock, Dan1969 A Checklist of the Birds of Chaco Canyon NationalMonument. Ms. on file, Natural Resources Office,National Park Service, Denver.Sebastian, Lynne1988 Leadership, Power, and Productive Potential: APolitical Model of the Chaco System. UnpublishedPh.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.1991 Sociopolitical Complexity and the Chaco System. InChaco and Hohokam. Prehistoric Regional Systemsin the American Southwest, edited by Patricia L.Crown, and W. James Judge, pp. 109-134. Schoolof American Research, Santa Fe.1992 The Chaco Anasazi. Sociopolitical Evolution in thePrehistoric Southwest. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.2005 The Chaco Synthesis. In The Archaeology of ChacoCanyon: An Eleventh Century Pueblo RegionalCenter, edited by Stephcn H. Lekson. School ofAmerican Research Press, Santa Fe.Sebastian, Lynne, and Jeffrey H. Altschul1986 Settlement Pattcrn, Site Typology, and the DemographicAnalysis: The Anasazi, Archaic andUnknown Sites. Contract PX 7029-5-C041. Ms. onfile, Chaco Culture NHP Museum Archive,University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.Senter, Donovan1937 Floor Deposition and Erosion in Chaco Canyon. InTseh So, A Small House Ruin, Chaco Canyon, NewMexico, edited by Donald D. Brand, Florence M.Hawley, and Frank C. Hibben, et a1., pp. 134-139.University of New Mexico Bulletin 308,Anthropological Series 2(2). University of NewMexico, Albuquerque.1939 Excavation Report, Chaco Canyon, Bc 50, Season1939. Vivian Archive No. 020, Chaco CultureNHP Museum Archive, University of New Mexico,Albuquerque.Shelley, Phillip H.1980 Salmon Ruin Lithics Laboratory Report. InInvestigations at the Sabnon Site: The Structure ofChacoan Society in the Northern Southwest, editedby Cynthia Irwin-Williams and Phillip H. Shelley,Vol. 3. Pt. 6:1-159. Eastern New MexicoUniversity, Portales.Shiner, Joel L.1959 The Stabilization of Talus Unit, Chaco CanyonNational Monument, 1959. Report on file, ChacoCulture NHP Museum Archive, University of NewMexico, Albuquerque, and Chaco Culture NationalHistorical Park.1961 Excavation of a Chaco-type Kiva, Chaco Canyon,New Mexico. Chaco Archive No. 2769, ChacoArchives, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.Siemers, Charles T., and Norman R. King1974 Macroinvertebrate Paleoecology of a TransgressiveMarine Sandstone, Cliff House Sandstone (UpperCretaceous), Chaco Canyon, Northwestern NewMexico. New Mexico Geological Society Guidebook,25th Field Conference, Ghost Ranch (CentralNorthern New Mexico) 1974, edited by Charles T.Siemers, pp. 267-279. New Mexico GeologicalSociety, Albuquerque.Sigleo, Anne C.1970 Trace-Element Geochemistry of SouthwesternTurquoise. Unpublished M.S. thesis, GeologyDepartment, University of New Mexico,Albuquerque.Simmons, Alan H.1982 (assembler) Prehistoric Adaptive Strategies in theChaco Canyon Region, Northwestern New Mexico.Navajo Nation Papers in Anthropology No.9.Window Rock, AZ.1984a (editor) Archaic Prehistory and Paleoenvironmentsin the San Juan Basin, New Mexico: The ChacoShelters Project. Muscum of Anthropology ProjectRcport Series No. 53. University of Kansas,Lawrence.1984b Chronological Implications. In Archaic Prehistoryand Paleoenvironments in the San Juan Basin, NewMexico: The Chaco Shelters Project, edited by AlanH. Simmons, pp. 210-216. Museum of Anthro-

References 413pology Project Report Series No. 53. University ofKansas, Lawrence.1984c Test Excavations at Ashishlepah Shelter (CRP PBAH 15). In Archaic Prehistory and Paleoenvironmentsin the San Juan Basin, New Mexico:The Chaco Shelters Project, edited by Alan H.Simmons, pp. 95-115. Museum of AnthropologyProject Report Series No. 53. University of Kansas ,Lawrence.1984d The San Juan Basin Archaic-Archaeological andEnvironmental Context. In Archaic Prehistory andPaleoenvironments in the San Juan Basin, NewMexico: The Chaco Shelters Project, edited by AlanH. Simmons, pp. 5-23" Museum of AnthropologyProject Report Series No. 53. University of Kansas ,Lawrence.Simons, Li & Associates, Inc.1982 Erosion Study at Chaco Culture National HistoricalPark, i~ew tvlexico. tvfs. on file, Chaco CultureNHP Museum Archive, University of New Mexico,Albuquerque.Simpson, James Hervey1850 Journal of a Military Reconnaissance from Santa Fe,New Mexico, to the Navajo Country. In Report ofthe Secretary of War to the 31st Congress, 1stSession, Senate Executive Document, No. 65 , pp.55-168. Union Office, Washington, D.C.Smith, Watson1952 Kiva Mural Decorations at Awatovi and Kawaika-a,with a Survey of Other Wall Mural Paintings in thePueblo Southwest. Papers of the Peabody Museumof American Archaeology and Ethnology, HarvardUniversity, Volume 37. Cambridge.Sofaer, Anna1994 Chacoan Architecture: A Solar-Lunar Geometry.In Time and Astronomy at the Meeting of TwoWorlds, edited by Stanislaw Iwaniszewski, pp. 265-278. Warsaw U.1997 The Primary Architecture of the Chacoan Culture.A Cosmological Expression. In Anasazi Architectureand American Design, edited by Baker H.Morrow and V. B. Price, pp. 88-130. University ofNew Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Sofaer, Anna, Michael Marshall, and Rolf Sinclair1989 The Great North Road: A CosmographicExpression of Chaco Culture of New Mexico. InWorld Archaeoastronomy. Selected Papers from the2nd Oxford International Conference on Archaeoastronomy,edited by A. I. Aveni, pp. 365-376.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Soraer, Anna, and Rolf Sinclair1987 Astronomical Markings at Three Sites on FajadaButte. In Astronomy and Ceremony in the PrehistoricSouthwest, edited by John B. Carlson andW. James Judge, pp. 43-70. Papers of the MaxwellMuseum of Anthropology No.2. University ofNew Mexico, Albuquerque.1992 Cosmographic Expressions in the Constructions ofthe Chaco Culture of New Mexico: A Synthesis ofthe Research of the Solstice Project (1977-1991).Summary of paper presented. In Proceedings: TheMesa Verde Symposium on Anasazi Architecture andAmerican Design, edited and coordinated by BakerH. Morrow and V. B. Price, pp. 153-154. Morrowand Co. Ltd., Albuquerque.Soraer, A., K. M. Sinclair, and L. E. Doggett1982 Lunar Markings on Fajada Butte, Chaco Canyon,New Mexico. In Archaeoastronomy in the NewWorld, Proceedings of an International ConferenceHeld at Oxford University, September 1981, editedby Anthony F. Aveni, pp. 169-18l. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.Soraer, Anna, Rolf M. Sinclair, and Joey B. Donehue1991a An Astronomical Regional Pattern Among the MajorBuildings of the Chaco Culture of New Mexico. InProceedings of the Third International Conferenceon Archaeoastronomy (1990). University of St.Andrews, Scotland.1991b Solar and Lunar Orientations of the MajorArchitecture of the Chaco Culture of New Mexico.In Colloquio Internazionale Archeologia eAstronomia, edited by Giorgio Bretschneider,Rome.Sofaer, A., V. Zinser, and R. M. Sinclair1978 A Unique Solar Marking Construct of the AncientPueblo Indians. American Indian Rock Art Volume5, edited by F. G. Bock, K. Hedges, G. Lee, and H.Michaelis, pp. 115-125. American Rock ArtResearch Association, EI Toro, CA.1979 A Unique Solar Marking Construct. Science206(4416):283-291.Solomon, Allen M., T. J. Blasing, and J. A. Solomon1982 Interpretation of Floodplain Pollen in AlluvialSediments from an Arid Region. QuaternaryResearch 18:52-71.Sprague, Roderick1964 Inventory of Prehistoric Southwestern Bells:Additions and Corrections I. The Kiva 30(1): 18-24.

414 Chaco Project SynthesisSprague, Roderick, and Aldo Signori1963 Inventory of Prehistoric Southwestern Bells. TheKiva 28(4):1-20.Steed, Paul P., Jr.1980 Rock Art in Chaco Canyon. The Artifact 18(3):1-146. EI Paso Archaeological Society, Inc.Stein, John R.1987 Architecture and Landscape. In ArchaeologicalReconnaissance of West-Central New Mexico. TheAnasazi Monuments Project, by Andrew P. Fowler,lohn R. Stein, and Roger Anyon, pp. 71-103.Submitted to the Historic Preservation Division,Office of Cultural Affairs, State of New Mexico,Santa Fe.Stein, John R., Dabney Ford, and Richard Friedman2003 Reconstructing Pueblo Bonito. In Pueblo Bonito:Center of the Chacoan World, edited by Jill E.Neitzel, pp. 33-60. Smithsonian Institution Press,Washington, D.C.Stein, John R., and Andrew P. Fowler1996 Looking Beyond Chaco in the San Juan Basin and ItsPeripheries. In The Prehistoric Pueblo World, A.D.1150-1350, edited by Michael A. Adler, pp. 114-130. University of Arizona, Tucson.Stein, John R., and Stephen H. Lekson1992 Anasazi Ritual Landscapes. In Anasazi RegionalOrganization and the Chaco System, edited byDavid E. Doyel, pp. 87-100. AnthropologicalPapers No.5. Maxwell Museum of Anthropology,University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.1994 Anasazi Ritual Landscapes. In Chaco Canyon. ACenter and Its World, photography by Mary Peck,essays by Stephen H. Lekson, John R. Stein andSimon, J. Ortiz, pp. 45-64. Museum of NewMexico, Santa Fe.Stein, John R., and Peter J. McKenna1988 An Archeological Reconnaissance of a Late BonitoPhase Occupation near Aztec Ruins NationalMonument, New Mexico. Division of Anthropology,Southwest Cultural Resources Center National ParkService, Santa Fe.Stein, John R., Judith E. Suiter, and Dabney Ford1997 High Noon at Pueblo Bonito. Sun, Shadow and theGeometry of the Chaco Complex. In AnasaziArchitecture and American Design, edited andcoordinated by Baker H. Morrow and V. B. Price,pp.205-231. Morrow and Co., Ltd., Albuquerque.Stephen, Alexander M.1930 Hopi Journal of Alexander M. Stephen, edited byElsie Clews Parson. Columbia University Contributionsto Anthropology, Vol. 23. New York.Stevenson, Matilda Coxe1904 The Zuni Indians: Their Mythology, EsotericFraternities, and Ceremonies. Bureau of AmericanEthnology Annual Report 23: 3-634. SmithsonianInstitution, Washington D.C.Steward, Julian H.1937 Ecological Aspects of Southwestern Society.Anthropos 32:87-104.Stone, William G., Forest P. Lyford, Peter F. Frenzel,Nancy H. Mizell, and Elizabeth T. Padgett1983 Hydrogeology and Water Resources of San JuanBasin, New Mexico. Hydrologic Report No.6.New Mexico Bureau of Mines and MineralResources, Socorro.Struever, Mollie1977a Relation of Pollen and Flotation Analysis toArcheological Sites, Chaeo Canyon, New Mexico.Final Report (Flotation Component). Ms. on file,Chaco Culture NHP Museum Archive, University ofNew Mexico, Albuquerque.1977b Relation of Pollen and Flotation Analyses toArcheological Excavations, Chaco Canyon, NewMexico (Flotation Component). Unpublished M.A.thesis, Department of Biology, University of NewMexico, Albuquerque.Stuart, David E.2000 Anasazi America: Seventeen Centuries on the RoadFrom Center Place. University of New MexicoPress, Albuquerque.Stuart, David E., and Rory P. Gauthier1980 Prehistoric New Mexico. Backgroundjor Survey.Office of Contract Archeology, University of NewMexico, Albuquerque, and New Mexico StateHistoric Preservation Office, Santa Fe.Tainter, Joseph A., and David "A" Gillio1980 Cultural Resources Overview. Mt. Taylor Area,New Mexico. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, SouthwesternRegion, Albuquerque, and Bureau of LandManagement, New Mexico State Office, Santa Fe.Tietjens, Janet1929 Chaco Canyon Place Names. Archive 1858, 1892,1921, Chaco Culture NHP Museum Archive,University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

References 415Toll, H. Wolcott, III1984 Trends in Ceramic Import and Distribution in ChacoCanyon. In Recent Research on Chaco Prehistory,edited by W. James Judge and John D. Schelberg,pp. 115-135. Reports of the Chaco Center No.8.Division of Cultural Research, National ParkService, Albuquerque.1985 Pottery, Production, Public Architecture, and theChaco Anasazi System. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,Department of Anthropology, Universityof Colorado, Boulder. University Microfllms, AnnArbor.1990 A Reappraisal of Chaco Cylinder Jars. In Clues tothe Past. Papers in Honor of William M. Sundt,edited by Meliha S. Duran and David T.Kirkpatrick, pp. 273-306. Papers of theArchaeological Society of New Mexico: 16.1991 Material Distributions and Exchange in the ChacoSystem. In Chaco and Hohokam PrehistoricRegional Systems in the American Southwest, editedby Patricia L. Crown and W. James Judge, pp. 77-107. School of American Research, Santa Fe.Toll, H. Wolcott, and Peter J. McKenna1987 The Ceramography of Pueblo Alto. In Investigationsat the Pueblo Alto Complex, Chaco Canyon,New Mexico, 1975-1979. Volume III. Artifactualand Biological Analyses, edited by Frances JoanMathien and Thomas C. Windes, pp. 19-230.Publications in Archeology 18F, Chaco CanyonStudies. National Park Service, Santa Fe.1991 Material Distributions and Exchange in the ChacoSystem. In Chaco and Hohokam. PrehistoricRegional Systems in the American Southwest, editedby Patricia L. Crown and W. James Judge, pp. 77-107. School of American Research, Santa Fe.1992 The Rhetoric and the Ceramics: Discussion ofTypes, Function, Distribution, and Sources of theCeramics of 29SJ627. In Excavations at 29SJ627,Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. Volume II. The ArtifactAnalyses, edited by Frances Joan Mathien, pp.37-248. Reports of the Chaco Center No. II.Branch of Cultural Research, National Park Service,Santa Fe.1993 The Testimony of the Spadefoot Toad Ceramics. InThe Spadefoot Toad Site: Investigations at 29SJ629, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico: Artifactual andBiological Analyses, Volume II, edited by ThomasC. Windes, pp. 15-134. Reports of the ChacoCenter No. 12. Branch of Cultural Research,National Park Service, Santa Fe.1997 Chaco Ceramics. In Ceramics, Lithics, andOrnaments of Chaco Canyon. Analyses of Artifactsfrom the Chaco Project, 1971-1978, edited byFrances Joan Mathien, pp. 17-530. Publications inArcheology 18G, Chaco Canyon Studies. NationalPark Service, Santa Fe.Toll. H. Wolcott III, Mollie S. Toll, Marcia L. Newren,and William B. Gillespie1985 Experimental Corn Plots in Chaco Canyon. TheLife and Hard Times of Zea Mays L. In Environmentand Subsistence of Chaco Canyon, NewMexico, edited by Frances Joan Mathien, pp. 79-133. Publications in Archeology 18E, ChacoCanyon Studies. National Park Service,Albuquerque.Toll, H. Wolcott, Thomas C. Windes, and Peter J.McKenna1980 Late Ceramic Patterns in Chaco Canyon: ThePragmatics of Modeling Ceramic Exchange. InModels and Methods in Regional Exchange, editedby Robert S. Fry, pp. 95-117. SAA Papers No. I.Society for American Archaeology, Washington,D.C.Toll, Mollie S.1981 Macro-botanical Remains Recovered from ChacoCanyon Coprolites. Castetter Laboratory for EthnobotanicalStudies, Department of Biology TechnicalSeries No. 38. Ms. on flle, Chaco Culture NHPMuseum Archive, University of New Mexico,Albuquerque.1985 An Overview of Chaco Canyon MacrobotanicalMaterials and Analyses to Date. In Environmentand Subsistence of Chaco Canyon, New Mexico,edited by Frances Joan Mathien, pp. 247-277.Publications in Archeology 18E, Chaco CanyonStudies. National Park Service, Albuquerque.1987 Plant Utilization at Pueblo Alto: Flotation andMacrobotanical Analyses. In Investigations at thePueblo Alto Complex, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico,1975-1979. Volume III. Artifactual and BiologicalAnalyses, edited by Frances Joan Mathien andThomas C. Windes, pp. 691-784. Publications inArcheology 18F, Chaco Canyon Studies. NationalPark Service, Santa Fe.1993a Botanical Indicators of Early Life in Chaco Canyon:Flotation Samples and Other Plant Materials fromBasketmaker and Early Pueblo Occupations. FinalReport. Ms. on file, Chaco Culture NHP MuseumArchive, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.1993b Flotation and Macrobotanical Analyses at 29SJ629.In The Spadefoot Toad Site: Investigations at29SJ629, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico: Artifactualand Biological Analyses, Volume II, edited byThomas C. Windes, pp. 413-497. Reports of theChaco Center No. 12. Branch of Cultural Research,National Park Service, Santa Fe.

416 Chaco Project Synthesis2000 Macrobotanical Remains: Summary and Directionsfor Discussion. Ms. from Economy and EcologyConfcrence, Tucson.Toll, Mollie S., and Anne C. Cully1983 Archaic Subsistence and Seasonal Round. InEconomy and Interaction along the Lower ChacoRiver, edited by Patrick F. Hogan and Joseph C.Winter, pp. 385-392. Office of Contract Archeology,University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.1994 Archaic Subsistence and Seasonal PopUlation Flowin Northwest New Mexico. In Archaic HunterGatherer Archeology in the American Southwest,edited by Bradley J. Vierra, pp. 103-120. EasternNew Mexico University Contributions inAnthropology 13. Portalcs.Toulouse, Joseph Harrison III1937 An Analysis of the Meteorological Stations of NewMexico by the Thornthwaite System and theConstruction from This of a Climatic Map of theChaco Basin, Ncw Mexico. School of AmericanResearch and Museum of New Mexico Fellowship.Ms. on file, Chaco Culture NHP Museum Archive,University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.Tozzer, Alfred M.1902 A Navajo Sand Picture of the Rain Gods and ItsAttendant Cercmony. International Congress ofAmericanists XIII. New York.1908 A Note on Star-Lore among the Navajos. Journalof American Folklore 21(70). Boston and NewYork.1909 Notes on Religious Ceremonials of the Navaho. InPutnam Anniversary Volume. AnthropologicalEssays Presented to Frederic Ward Putnam inHonor of his Seventieth Birthday, April 16, 1909, byHis Friends and Associates, pp. 299-343. G. E.Stechert & Co., Publishers, New York.Truell, Marcia L.1976 Site 628 Summary. Ms. on file, Chaco CultureNHP Museum Archive, University of New Mexico,Albuqucrque.1979 Excavations at 29SJ633, the 11th Hour Site, ChacoCanyon, New Mexico. Ms. on file, Chaco CultureNHP Museum Archive, University of New Mexico,Albuquerque.1981 An Examination of Small Site Diversity in ChacoCanyon in the Late A.D. 1000s and Early to MiddleA.D. 1100s. Paper presented at the 46th AnnualMeeting of the Society for American Archaeology,San Diego.1986 A Summary of Small Site Architecture in ChacoCanyon, New Mexico. Part II in Small SiteArchitecture of Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, byPeter J. McKenna and Marcia L. Truell, pp. 115-502. Publications in Archeology 18D, ChacoCanyon Studies. National Park Service, Santa Fe.1992 Excavations at 29SJ 627, Chaco Canyon, NewMexico. Volume l. The Architecture and Stratigraphy.Reports of the Chaco Center No. 11.Branch 0 f Cultural Rcsearch, National Park Service,Santa Fe.Turner, Christy G., II1993 Cannibalism in Chaco Canyon: The Charnel PitExcavated in 1926 at Small House Ruin by Frank H.H. Roberts, Jr. American Journal of PhysicalAnthropology 91:421-439.Turner, Christy G. II, and Jacqueline A. Turner1995 Cannibalism in the Prehistoric American Southwest:Occurrence Taphonomy, Explanation, and Suggestionsfor Standardized World Definition.Anthropological Science 103(1):1-22.1999 Man Corn: Cannibalism and Violence in thePrehistoric American Southwest. University of UtahPress, Salt Lake City.Tyler, H. A.1964 Pueblo Gods and Myths. University of OklahomaPress, Norman.Upham, Steadman1982 Polities and Power; An Economic and PoliticalHistory of the Western Pueblos. Academic Press,New York.Van Dyke, Ruth M.1999 The Chaco Connection: Evaluating Bonito StyleArchitecture in Outlier Communities. Journal ofAnthropological Archaeology 18:471-506.2003 Memory and the Construction of Chacoan Society.In Archaeologies of Memory , edited by Ruth M. VanDyke and Susan E. Alcock. Blackwell, Maldcn,MA.2006a (editor) An Archaeological Survey of the Additionsto Chaco Culture National Historical Park. Reportsof the Chaco Center No. 14. National Park Service,Santa Fe. (In press.)2006b Great Kivas in Space, Time, and Socicty. In TheArchitecture of Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, editedby Stephen H. Lekson. University of Utah Press,Salt Lake City. (In press).Van Dyke, Ruth M., and Robert P. Powers2006a The Chaco Additions Survey. InAnArchaeologicalSurvey of the Additions to Chaco Culture NationalHistorical Park, edited by Ruth M. Van Dyke.

References 417Reports of the Chaco Center No. 14. National ParkService, Santa Fe. (In press.)2006b Summary and Conclusions. In An ArchaeologicalSurvey of the Additions to Chaco Cuhure NationalHistorical Park, edited by Ruth M. Van Dyke.Reports of the Chaco Center No. 14. National ParkService, Santa Fe.Vann, Richard P.1930 A Cacique's Sanctum. Archive 1884, ChacoCulture NHP Museum Archive, University of NewMexico, Albuquerque.1931 Paleontology of the Upper Cretaceous of ChacoCanyon, New Mexico. M.S. thesis, Department ofGeology University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.1942 Paleontology of the Upper Cretaceous of ChacoCanyon, New Mexico. University of New MexicoPress, Albuquerque.Vargas, Victoria D.1995 Copper Bell Trade Patterns in the Prehispanic U.S.Southwest and Northwest Mexico. Arizona StateMuseum Archaeological Series, No. 187. TheUniversity of Arizona Press, Tucson.Vickers, R. S., and Lambert T. Dolphin1975 A Communication on an Archaeological RadarExperiment at Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. InMuseum of Applied Science Center for ArcheologyNewsletter 11(1). University of Pennsylvania,Philadelphia.Vickers, Roger, Lambert Dolphin, and David Johnson1976 ArcheologicalInvestigations at Chaco Canyon Usinga Subsurface Radar. In Remote Sensing Experimentsin Cuhural Resource Studies. Non-destructiveMethods of Archeological Exploration, Survey, andAnalysis, assembled by Thomas R. Lyons, pp. 81-101. Reports of the Chaco Center No. 1. NationalPark Service and University of New Mexico,Albuquerque.Vierra, Bradley J.1987a Archaic Hunter-Gatherer Mobility Strategies inNorthwestern New Mexico. In Archaic HunterGatherer Archaeology in the American Southwest,edited by Bradley J. Vierra, pp. 121-154. EasternNew Mexico University Contributions in AnthropologySeries, No. 13. Portales.1987b Regional Archaic Mobility Patterns. Paperpresented in Symposium on the Archaic of theNorthern Rio Grande. 60 th Pecos Conference,Pecos, NM.1994 Aceramic and Archaic Research. In Across theColorado Plateau: Anthropological Studies for theTranswestern Pipeline Expansion Project. VolumeXV. Excavation and Interpretation of Aceramic andArchaic Sites, complied by Tim W. Burchett,Bradley J. Vierra, and Kenneth L. Brown, pp. 375-424. Office of Contract Archeology and MaxwellMuseum of Anthropology, University of NewMexico, Albuquerque.1996 Late Archaic Settlement, Subsistence, andTechnology: An Evaluation of Continuity vs.Replacement Arguments for the Origins ofAgriculture in the Northern Southwest. Paperpresented at the Conference on Archaic Prehistoryof the North American Southwest, University ofNew Mexico, Albuquerque.2004 Early Agriculture on the Southeastern Periphery ofthe Colorado Plateau: A Case of Diversity inTactics. In Archaeology Without Borders: Contact,Commerce, and Changes in the U.S. Southwest andNorthwestern Mexico, edited by M. BcBrinn and L.Webster. University of Colorado Press; Boulder,(In preparation).Vivian, R. Gordon1959 The Hubbard Site and Other Tri-wall Structures inNew Mexico and Colorado. National Park ServiceArchaeological Research Series No.5. Washington,D.C.1965 The Three-C Site, an Early Pueblo II Ruin in ChacoCanyon, New Mexico. University of New MexicoPublications in Anthropology No. 13. University ofNew Mexico, Albuquerque.Vivian, R. Gordon, and Tom W. Mathews1965 Kin Kletso: A Pueblo III Community in ChacoCanyon, New Mexico. Technical Series 6(1):1-115.Southwest Parks and Monuments Association,Globe, AZ.Vivian, R. Gordon, and Paul Reiter1960 The Great Kivas of Chaco Canyon and TheirRelationships. School of American Research andthe Museum of New Mexico Monographs No. 22.Santa Fe.Vivian, R. Gwinn1960 The Navajo Archaeology of the Chacra Mesa, NewMexico. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department ofAnthropology, University of New Mexico,Albuquerque.1970a An Inquiry into Prehistoric Social Organization inChaco Canyon, New Mexico. In ReconstructingPrehistoric Pueblo Societies, edited by William A.Longacre, pp. 59-83. School of American ResearchAdvanced Seminar Series. University of NewMexico, Albuquerque.

418 Chaco Project Synthesis1970b Aspects of Prehistoric Society in Chaco Canyon,New Mexico. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona,Tucson.1972 Prehistoric Water Conservation in Chaco Canyon.Final Technical Report to the National ScienceFoundation, Grant No. GS-3100, Washington, D.C.1974a Chacra Mesa Site Index. Ms. on file, ChacoCulture NHP Museum Archive, University of NewMexico, Albuquerque.1974b Conservation and Diversion. Water-ControlSystems in the Anasazi Southwest. In Irrigation'sImpact on Society, edited by Theodore E. Downingand McGuire Gibson, pp. 95-112. AnthropologicalPapers No. 25. University of Arizona, Tucson.1983a Discovery and Description: Chacoan Road FieldStudies 1963-1980. In Chaco Roads Project PhaseI, edited by Chris Kincaid, pp. A-I to A-34. Bureauof Land Management, Albuquerque.1983b Identifying and Interpreting Chacoan Roads: AnHistorical Perspective. In Chaco Roads ProjectPhase I, edited by Chris Kincaid, pp. 3-1 to 3-32.Bureau of Land Management, Albuquerque.1984 Agricultural and Social Adjustments to ChangingEnvironment in the Chaco Basin. In PrehistoricAgricultural Strategies in the Southwest, edited bySuzanne K. Fish and Paul R. Fish, pp. 242-257.Anthropological Research Papers No. 33. ArizonaStatc University, Tempe.1989 Kluckhohn Reappraised: The Chaco an System as anEgalitarian Enterprise. Journal of AnthropologicalResearch 45(1):101-113.1990 The Chacoan Prehistory of the San Juan Basin.Academic Press, San Diego.1991 Chacoan Subsistence. In Chaco and Hohokam.Prehistoric Regional Systems in the AmericanSouthwest, edited by Patricia L. Crown and W.James Judge, pp. 57-75. School of AmericanResearch, Santa Fe.1992 Chacoan Water Use and Managerial DecisionMaking. In Anasazi Regional Organization and theChaco System, edited by David E. Doyel, pp. 45-57.Anthropological Papers No.5. Maxwell Museum ofAnthropology, University of New Mexico,Albuquerque.1996 "Chaco" As a Regional System. In InterpretingSouthwestern Diversity: Underlying Principles andOverarching Patterns, edited by Paul R. Fish and J.Jefferson Rid, pp. 45-53. Arizona State UniversityAnthropological Research Paper No. 48. Tempe.1997a Chaco Roads: Morphology. Kiva 63(1):7-34.1997b Chaco Roads: Function. Kiva 63(1):35-67.Vivian, R. Gwinn, and R. C. Buettner1973 Pre-Columbian Roadways in the Chaco CanyonRegion, New Mexico. Paper presented at the 38thAnnual Meeting of the Society for AmericanArchaeology, San Francisco.Vivian, R. Gwinn, Dulce N. Dodgen, and Gayle H.Hartmann1978 Wooden Ritual Artifactsfrom Chaco Canyon, NewMexico. The Chetro Ketl Collection. AnthropologicalPapers Series No. 32. University ofArizona, Tucson.Vivian, R. Gwinn, and Douglas Palmer2003 A Reevaluation of the Kin Bineola Water ControlSystems. Ms. on file, Chaco Culture NHP.Vou, Charles B.1964 Bc 362: A Small Late 11th and Early 12th CenturyFarming Village in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico.Archive 505, Chaco Culture NHP Museum Archive,University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.1978 The Excavation of Room 92, Chetro Ketl Ruin. InWooden Ritual Artifacts from Chaco Canyon, NewMexico. The Chetro Ketl Collection, by R. GwinnVivian, Dulce N. Dodgen, and Gayle H. Hartmann,pp. 137-148. Anthropological Papers No. 32.University of Arizona, Tucson.Wait, Walter K.1982 The Development and Application of a ComputerizedData Base for the San Juan Basin, NewMexico. In The San Juan Basin Tomorrow:Planningfor the Conservation of Cultural Resourcesin the San Juan Basin, edited by Fred Plog andWalter Wait, pp. 171-208. National Park Service,Southwest Region, and School of AmericanResearch, Santa Fe.1983 The Survey of Ceramic Sites. In The Star LakeArchaeological Project. Anthropology of a HeadwatersArea of Chaco Wash, New Mexico, edited byWalter Wait and Ben A. Nelson, pp. 181-184.Publications in Archaeology. Southern IllinoisUniversity, Carbondale.Walker, James W.1993 Low Altitude Large Scale Reconnaissance: A Methodof Obtaining High Resolution Vertical Photographsfor Small Areas. Interagency Archeological Services,Division of National Preservation Programs,Rocky Mountain Regional Office, National ParkService, Denver.Wallerstein, Imanuel1974 The Modern World System. Studies in PoliticalDiscontinuity. Academic Press, New York.

References 419Warburton, Miranda1988 Historic Artifacts of the Chaco Additions InventorySurvey. Ms. on file, Chaco Culture NHP MuseumArchive, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.Ware,JohnA.2001 Chaco Social Organization: A Peripheral View. InChaco Society and Polity: Papers from the 1999Conference, edited by Linda S. Cordell, W. JamesJudge, and June-el Piper, pp. 79-93. NMAC SpecialPublication No.4. New Mexico ArcheologicalCouncil, Albuquerque.Ware, John A., and Eric Blinman2000 Culture Collapse and Reorganization. The Originand Spread of Pueblo Ritual Sodalities. In TheArchaeology of Regional Interaction. Religion,Warfare, and Exchange across the AmericanSouthwest and Beyond, edited by Michele Hegmon,pp. 381-409. University Press of Colorado,Boulder.Ware, John A., and George J. Gumerman1977 Remote Sensing Methodology and the ChacoCanyon Prehistoric Road System. In Aerial RemoteSensing Techniques in Archeology, edited byThomas R. Lyons and Robert K. Hitchcock, pp.135-167. Reports of the Chaco Center No.2.National Park Service and University of NewMexico, Albuquerque.Warren, A. Helene1967 Lithic Code 2 Used in Chaco Project. Ms. on file,Chaco Culture NHP Museum Archive, University ofNew Mexico, Albuquerque.1976 Technological Studies of the Pottery of ChacoCanyon. Ms. on file, Chaco Culture NHP MuseumArchive, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.1977 Source Area Studies of Pueblo I-III Pottery of ChacoCanyon 1976-1977. Ms. on file, Chaco CultureNHP Museum Archive, University of New Mexico,Albuquerque.1979 Lithics Identification and Quarry Source Workshop.Presented at the New Mexico State University,Cultural Resources Management Division Workshop,Las Cruses. Ms. on file, Chaco Culture NHPMuseum Archive, University of New Mexico,Albuquerque.1980 Production and Distribution of Pottery in ChacoCanyon and Northwestern New Mexico. Ms. onfile, Chaco Culture NHP Museum Archive,University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.Warren, A. Helene, and Frances Joan Mathien1984 Prehistoric and Historic Turquoise Mining in theCerrillos District. In Collected Papers in Honor ofAlbert H. Schroeder, edited by Charles Lange, pp.93-127. Papers of the Archaeological Society ofNew Mexico: 10.Washburn, Dorothy K.1974 Nearest Neighbor Analysis of Pueblo I-III SettlementPatterns along the Rio Puerco of the East, NewMexico. American Antiquity 39(2):315-335.1978 A Reanalysis of Grave Goods from Pueblo Bonito.Sandals with Some Mexican Similarities. Paperpresented at the 43 rd Annual Meeting of the Societyfor American Archaeology, Tucson.1980 The Mexican Connection: Cylinder Jars from theValley of Oaxaca. In New Frontiers in the Archaeologyand Ethnohistory of the Greater Southwest,edited by Carroll L. Riley and Basil C. Hedrick.Transactions of the illinois Academy of Science72(4):70-85.Weigand, Phil C., and Garman Harbottle1993 The Role of Turquoise in the Ancient MesoamericanTrade Structure. In The American Southwest andMesoamerica. Systems of Prehistoric Exchange,edited by Jonathan E. Ericson and Timothy G.Baugh, pp. 159-177. Plenum Press, New York.Weigand, Phil C., Garman Harbottle, and Edward V.Sayre1977 Turquoise Sources and Source Analysis: Mesoamericaand the Southwestern U.S.A. In ExchangeSystems in Prehistory, edited by Timothy Earle andJonathan Ericson, pp. 15-34. Academic Press, NewYork.Wells, Stephen G., Thomas F. Bullard, L. N. Smith, andThomas W. Gardner1983 Chronology, Rates, and Magnitudes of LateQuaternary Landscape Changes in the SoutheasternColorado Plateau. In Chaco Canyon Country. AField Guide to the Geomorphology, QuaternaryGeology, Paleoecology, and Environmental Geologyof North western New Mexico, edited by S. G. Wells,D. W. Love and T. W. Gardner, pp. 177-185.American Geomorphological Field Group 1983Field Trip Guidebook. Adobe Press, Albuquerque.Weston, Timothy, and Alan H. Simmons1984 Archaeological Survey. In Archaic Prehistory andPaleoenvironments in the San Juan Basin, NewMexico: The Chaco Shelters Project, edited by AlanH. Simmons, pp. 116-130. Museum of AnthropologyProject Report Series No. 53. University ofKansas, Lawrence.

420 Chaco Project SynthesisWhaley, L., and J. Yingst1978 SJ.V.A.P. Survey and Testing Program: GeneralDescription. Ms. on file, Chaco Culture NHPMuseum Archive, University of New Mexico,Albuquerque.White, Leslie1962 The Pueblo of Sia, New Mexico. Bureau ofAmerican Ethnology Bulletin 194. SmithsonianInstitution, Washington, D.C.White, Timothy D.1992 Prehistoric Cannibalism at Mancos 5MTUMR-2346.Princeton University Press, Princeton.Whittlesey, Julian H.1966 Bipod Camera Support. Photogrammetric Engineering32(6):1005-1010.Wilcox, David R.1986 The Tepiman Connection. In Ripples in theChichimec Sea: New Considerations of Southwestern-MesoamericanInteractions, edited byFrances Joan Mathien and Randall H. McGuire, pp.135-154. Southern Illinois University Press,Carbondale.1993 The Evolution of the Chacoan Polity. In TheChimney Rock Archaeological Symposium, October20-21, Durango, Colorado, edited by J. McKimMalville and Gary Matlock, pp. 76-90. U.S.D.A.Forest Service General Technical Report RM-227.Rocky Mountain Forest and Range ExperimentStation, U .S.D.A. Fort Collins, CO.1996 Pueblo III People and Polity in a Relational Context.In The Prehistoric Pueblo World, A.D. 1150-1350,edited by Michael A. Adler, pp. 241-254.University of Arizona Press, Tucson.1999 A Peregrine View of Macroregional Systems in theNorth American Southwest, A.D. 750-1250. InGreat Towns and Regional Polities in the AmericanSouthwest and Southeast, edited by Jill E. Neitzel,pp. 115-141. University of New Mcxico Press,Albuquerque.Wilcox, David R., David A. Gregory, and J. Brett Hill2004 Zuni in the Puebloan and Southwestern Worlds. InZuni Origins, Anthropological Approaches onMultiple Americanist and Southwestern Scales,edited by David A. Gregory and David R. Wilcox.University of Arizona Press, Tucson. (In press).Wilcox, David R., Dennis Gilpin, David A. Gregory, andJ. Brett HilI2005 Chacoan Settlement Patterns through Time. Paperpresented at the 70 th Annual Meeting of the Societyfor American Archaeology, Salt Lake City.Wilcox, David R., David A. Gregory, J. Brett Hill, andGary Funkhouser2003 The Changing Contexts for Warfare in the NorthAmerican Southwest, A.D. 1200-1700. Paperpresented at the Annual Meeting of the AmericanAnthropological Association, Chicago.Willey, Gordon R., and Jeremy A. Sabloff1980 A History of American Archaeology. W. H.Freeman, San Francisco.Williamson, Ray A.1982 Casa Rinconada, a Twelfth Century Anasazi Kiva.In Archaeoastronomy in the New World, AmericanPrimitive Astronomy, Proceedings of an InternationalConference Held at Oxford University,September 1981, edited by Anthony F. Aveni, pp.205-219. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,England.1983a A Navajo Astronomical Site in Chaco CanyonNational Park, New Mexico. Paper presented at the161st Meeting of the American AstronomicalSociety, Boston.1983b Sky Symbolism in a Navajo Rock Art Site, ChacoCanyon. Archaeoastronomy VI(1-4):59-65.1987 Light and Shadow, Ritual, and Astronomy inAnasazi Structure. In Astronomy and Ceremony inthe Prehistoric Southwest, edited by John B. Carlsonand W. James Judge, pp. 99-119. Papers of theMaxwell Museum of Anthropology No.2.University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.Williamson, Ray A., Howard J. Fisher, and DonnelO'Flynn1977 Anasazi Solar Observatories. In Native AmericanAstronomy, edited by Anthony F. Aveni, pp. 203-217. University of Texas, Austin.Williamson, R. A., II. J. Fisher, A. F. Williamson, andC. Cochrane1975 The Astronomical Record in Chaco Canyon, NewMexico. In Archaeoastronomy in Pre-ColumbianAmerica, edited by Anthony F. Aveni, pp. 33-43.University of Texas Press, Austin.Wills, Wirt II.1977b An Alternative Perspective on Core-VeneerMasonry in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. Ms. onfile, Chaco Culture NHP Museum Archive,University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.1997 A Preliminary Analysis of Hammerstoncs from

References 421Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. In Ceramics, Lithics,and Ornaments of Chaco Canyon. Analyses ofArtifactsfrom the Chaco Project, 1971-1978, editedby Frances Joan Mathien, pp. 947-976. Publicationsin Archeology 18G, Chaco Canyon Studies.National Park Service, Santa Fe.2000 Political Leadership in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico,A.D. 1020-1140. In Alternative LeadershipStrategies in the Prehispanic Southwest, edited byBarbara J. Mills, pp. 19-44. University of ArizonaPress, Tucson.2001 Ritual and Mound Formation During the BonitoPhase in Chaco Canyon. American Antiquity66(3):433-451.Wills, Wirt H., and Thomas C. Windes1989 Evidence for Population Aggregation and Dispersalduring the Basketmaker III Period in Chaco Canyon,New Mexico. American Antiquity 54(2):347-369.Wilshusoen, Richard H., and W. Derek Hamilton2005 Revitalizing American Archaeology: The ChacoProject in Historical Context. In The Archaeologyof Chaco Canyon: An Eleventh Century PuebloRegional Center, edited by Stephen H. Lekson.School of American Research, Santa Fe.Wilshusen, Richard H., and Scott G. Ortman1999 Rethinking the Pueblo I Period in the San JuanDrainage: Aggregation, Migration, and CulturalDiversity. Kiva 64(3):369-399.Wilson, C. Dean, and Eric Blinman1995 Changing Specialization of White Ware Manufacturein the Northern San Juan Region. In CeramicProduction in the American Southwest, edited byBarbara J. Mills and Patricia L. Crown, pp. 63-87.University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Wilson, J. P.1979 Cultural Resources of the Alamito Coal Lease Area,Northwestern New Mexico. Alamito Coal Co.,Tucson.Windes, Thomas C.1975 Excavation of 29SJ423, an Early Basketmaker IIISite in Chaco Canyon. Preliminary Report on theArchitecture and Stratigraphy. Ms. on file, ChacoCulture NHP Museum Archive, University of NewMexico, Albuquerque.1976a Excavation of 29S1299 (P-I Component).Preliminary Report of the Architecture andStratigraphy. Ms. on file, Chaco Culture NHPMuseum Archive, University of New Mexico,Albuquerque.1976b Excavation of 29SJ721, an Early Pueblo I Site inChaco Canyon. Preliminary Report of the Architectureand Stratigraphy. Ms. on file, ChacoCulture NHP Museum Archive, University of NewMexico, Albuquerque.1976c Excavation of 29SJ724. Preliminary Report of theArchitecture and Stratigraphy. Ms. on file, ChacoCulture NHP Museum Archive, University of NewMexico, Albuquerque.1978 Stone Circles of Chaco Canyon, Northwestern NewMexico. Reports of the Chaco Center No.5.Division of Chaco Research, National Park Service,Albuquerque.1980 Aicheomagnetic Dating: Lessons jrom ChacoCanyon, New Mexico. Paper presented at the 45thAnnual Meeting of the Society for AmericanArchaeology, Philadelphia.1982a A Second Look at Population in Chaco Canyon.Paper presented at the 47th Annual Meeting of theSociety for American Archaeology, Minneapolis.1982b Lessons from the Chacoan Survey. The Patterns ofTrash Disposal. New Mexico Archeological CouncilNewsletter 4(5-6):5-141984 A New Look at Population in Chaco Canyon. InRecent Research on Chaco Prehistory, edited by W.James Judge and John D. Schelberg, pp. 75-87.Reports of the Chaco Center No.8. Division ofCultural Research, National Park Service,Albuquerque.1985 Chaco-McElmo Black-on-White from Chaco Canyonwith an Emphasis on the Pueblo del ArroyoCollection. In Prehistory and History in the Southwest.Collected Papers in Honor of Alden C.Hayes, edited by Nancy Fox, pp. 19-42. Papers ofthe Archaeological Society of New Mexico: 11.Ancient City Press, Inc., Santa Fe.1987 Investigations at the Pueblo Alto Complex, ChacoCanyon, New Mexico, 1975-1979. Volumes I andII. Publications in Archeology 18F, Chaco CanyonStudies. National Park Service, Santa Fe.1991 The Prehistoric Road Network at Pueblo Alto,Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. In Ancient RoadNetworks and Settlement Hierarchies in the NewWorld, edited by Charles D. Trombold, pp. 111-131. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.1993 The Spadefoot Toad Site: Investigations at 29SJ629,Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. Reports of the ChacoCenter No. 12. Branch of Cultural Research,National Park Service, Santa Fe.1999 A Chacoan Community at Pueblo Pintado. Paperpresented at the 72 00 Pecos Conference, Pinedale,AZ.2001 Pueblo II-III House Location Patterns in the ChacoCanyon Area: A Short Description. In ChacoSociety and Polity: Papers from the 1999

-----------------------422 Chaco Project SynthesisConference, edited by Linda S. Cordell, W. JamesJudge, and June-el Pipcr, pp. 31-45. NMACSpecial Publication No.4. New MexicoArcheological Council, Albuquerquc.2004 The Rise of Early Chacoan Great Houses. In InSearch of Chaco: New Approaches to anArchaeological Enigma, edited by David GrantNoble, pp. 14-21. School of American ResearchPress, Santa Fe.2006a Early Puebloan Occupations in the Chaco Region:Excavations and Survey of Basketmaker III andPueblo I Sites, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico.Reports of the Chaco Center No. 13. National ParkService, Santa Fe.2006b Gcaring Up and Piling On: Early Greathouses in theChaco Basin. In T11eArchitectureofChaco Canyon,New Mexico, edited by Stephen H. Lekson.University of Utah Press, Salt Lakc City. (In press).Windes, Thomas C., Rachel Anderson, Brian K.Johnson, and Cheryl A. Ford2000 Sunrise, Sunset: Sedentism and Mobility in theChaco East Community. In Great House CommunitiesAcross the Chacoan Landscape, edited byJohn Kantner and Nancy M. Mahoney, pp. 39-59.Anthropological Papers of the University of ArizonaNo. 64. Univcrsity of Arizona Press, Tucson.Windes, Thomas C., and William Doleman1985 Small House Population Dynamics during the BonitoPhase in Chaco Canyon. Paper presented at the50th Annual Meeting of the Society for AmericanArchaeology, Denver.Windes, Thomas C., and Cheryl A. Ford1996 The Dating Game at Pueblo Bonito: Chronology andWood Use at Chacoan Great House. Paper prcsentedat the 61st Annual Meeting of the Society forAmerican Archaeology, New Orleans.Windes, Thomas C., Cheryl A. Ford, and Dabney Ford1994 The Chaco Wood Project: Reanalysis of Pueblo delArroyo. Report submitted to Southwest Parks andMonuments Association, Tucson.Windes, Thomas C., and Dabney Ford1992 The Nat.ure of the Early Bonito Phase. In AnasaziRegional Organization and the Chaco System, editedby David E. Doyel, pp. 75-85. AnthropologicalPapers No.5. Maxwell Museum of Anthropology,University of Ncw Mexico, Albuquerque.1996 The Chaco Wood Project: The ChronometricReappraisal of Pueblo Bonito. American Antiquity61(2):295-310.Windes, Thomas C., and Peter J. McKenna1989 Cibola Whiteware and Cibola Grayware: TheChaco Series. Presented at the Northwest NewMexico Ceramics Workshop, of the New MexicoArcheological Council, Red Rock State Park,Gallup.2001 Going Against the Grain. Wood Production inChaco an Society. American Antiquity 66(1):119-140.Windham, Michael D.1976 A Preliminary Analysis of the Ceramics of Una VidaRuin, Chaco Canyon, Ncw Mexico. Ms. on file,Chaco Culture NHP Museum Archive, University ofNew Mexico, Albuquerque.Winterhalder, Bruce P.1990 Open Field, Common Pot: Harvest Variability andRisk Avoidance in Agricultural and ForagingSocieties. In Risk and Uncertainty in Tribal andPeasant Economies, edited by Elizabeth Cashdan,pp. 67-87. Westview Press, Boulder.Wiseman, Regge N.1971 The Neff Site, a Ceramic Period Lithic ManufacturingSite on the Rio Felix, Southeastern NewMexico. The Artifact 9(1):1-30. EI PasoArchaeological Socicty.1995 Reassessmcnt of the Dating of the Pajoaque GrantSite (LA 835), a Key Site of the Rio GrandeDevelopmental Period. In Of Pots and Rocks:Papers in Honor of A. Helene Warren, edited byMeliha S. Duran and David T. Kirkpatrick, pp. 237-248. Papers of the Archaeological Society of NewMexico: 21. Albuquerque.Wiseman, Regge N., and J. Andrew Darling1986 The Bronzc Trail Site Group: More Evidence for aCerriIlos-Chaco Turquoise Connection. In CollectedPapers in Honor of James G. Bain, edited by AnneV. Poorc, pp. 115-193. Papers of the ArchaeologicalSociety of New Mexico: 12. Albuquerque.Woods, Janet Me.1934 Excavation of the Court Kiva, Chetro Ketl.Archives 1919, 1941, and 2125, Chaco CultureNHP Muscum Archive, University ofNcw Mcxico,Albuquerque.Woods, MargaretS.1933 Report on Excavation Work at Talus Unit No.1 ofChetro Ketl Ruin, Chaco Canyon, San Juan County,New Mexico, in Summer of 1933. Archive 1828,Chaco Culture NHP Museum Archive, University ofNew Mexico, Albuquerque.

References 4231934a Burial No.4., Talus Unit No.1, Chetro Ket!.Southwestern Monuments, pp. 61-62. August.1934b Report on Excavations in 1934 of Talus Unit No. I,Chetro Ket!, Chaco Canyon. Ms. on file, School ofAmerican Research, Santa Fe, and Archive 1825,Chaco Culture NHP Museum Archive, University ofNew Mexico, Albuquerque.1935 Talus Unit No. I, Chetro Ketl. SouthwesternMonuments Monthly Report Supplement 1 :44-46.August supplement, pp. 321-323.1937 Talus Unit No.1 at Chaco. Southwestern MonumentsMonthly Reportfor October, pp. 321-323.1938 Preliminary Report of the 1937 Excavations of TalusUnit #1. Ms. on file, Chaco Culture NHP MuseumArchive, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.Yoffee, Norman2001 The Chaco "Rituality" Revisited. In Chaco Societyand Polity: Papers from the 1999 Conference, editedby Linda S. Cordell, W. James Judge, and June-elPiper, pp. 63-78. NMAC Special Publication No.4.New Mexico Archeological Council, Albuquerque.Young, Richard, and Loren Potter1975 Correlation of Indicator Plants and ArcheologicalSites, Chaco Canyon National Monument. Ms. onfile, Chaco Culture NHP Museum Archive,University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.Zeilik, Michael1984 Summer Solstice at Casa Rinconada: Calender,Hierophany, or Nothing? Archaeoastronomy 7(1-4):76-81.1985a A Reassessment of the Fajada Butte Solar Marker.Archaeoastronomy (Supplement to thelournal of theHistory of Astronomy) 9:69-85.1985b The Ethnoastronomy of the Historic Pueblos I.Calendrical Sun Watching. Archaeoastronomy(Supplement to the Journai for the History ofAstronomy) 8:1-26.1985c The Fajada Butte Solar Marker: A Reevaluation.Science 228:1311-1313.1987 Anticipation in Ceremony: The Readiness is All. InAstronomy and Ceremony in the PrehistoricSouthwest, edited by John B. Carlson and W. JamesJudge, pp. 25-41. Papers of the Maxwell Museumof Anthropology No.2. University of New Mexico,Albuquerque.

Indexabandonment, and dispersion, 296, 333; closureactivities, 143, 218-219, 291; Chaco collapse,231,241,262, and earlier, 242, and final, 263;Marcia's Rincon, 208; reasons for, 6, 24, 58,128Abel, Leland J., 226Acoma-Laguna area, 243; Rio San Jose subregion,262activities, specialized, community-wide ceramic, 218;labor pool for, 274; mealing/milling facilities,138, 141, 196-198, 215, 257, 26Q, as spaceintegration, 293; workshops for c~ramic -andlithic, 118, 134, 138, 141, 211-216, 270-271.See also kivasAdams, E. Charles, 296Adams, Richard N., 98agriculture: acres per person, 183, and land availablefor, 28, 37, 115, 120, 180-185, 188,252-253,257, 273; environmental parameters, 177; fields,115, 171, 173-174, and test plots, 36, 58-59,179; garden types, 122, 173, 181-182,263, andfallowing, 115, 182, 183; growing season,31-34, 127, 179,333, 334, 342; historic, 179,340-342; household size for, 333; microregionalshifts, 130, and other shifts, 243; options forincreasing, 123; surplus, 179, and surplusvariable, 277-279. See also horticulture;subsistence strategies; water, availability of;water control featuresAkins, Nancy J., on burial populations, 208, 214,216, 223, 235, 277, 290, and craniometricstudies, 134, 268, 281; on abraders, 118; onfauna, 114, 115, 119, 156, 175, 238, andattitude toward fauna, 122, and ritual, 218, 219,291-292; on popUlation estimates, 183-184, andhuman health, 192-195Akins, Nancy J., and William B. Gillespie, 157, 163Aldenderfer, Mark, 283-284Alemita Coal Lease, 68Allan, William c., and John B. Broster, 272alluviation, 24-31, and burial of sites, 46, 98, 99,100, in cross-section, 29; and channel cuttingevents, 6, 58, 128, 287; facies for, 25; rate forChaco Wash, 99; reconstructions of paleoenvironmentsbased on, 45-47, 51, and soilformation, 36-37, 182Altschul, Jeffrey H., 245, 272American Southwest, 264Anasazi, North and South, 98; Eastern, 264Al1asazi Origins Project, 61Anasazi period. See divisions separatelyAnasazi World, 123Anglo-American components, 303, 308, 309Anglo-American encounters, 322, 323, 329Animas River Valley, 241-242, 258, 274Ant Hill Dune, 70, 84-88, 358Antevs, E., 28, 47, 55Apache comparison, 343Archaeological Society of New Mexico Rock ArtField School, 14, 220archaeology, records for, 269, 329, 343; fieldschools, 14Archaic period: alluviation during, 24, 45, andenvironment, 56, 93; Oshara phases, 62-63, RioGrande phases, 63, and discussion, 64-88;shelters and sites, 90, 93, and use of com,95-96; burned bone, 70, 82; distinctpopulations, 280-281, 343; problems with theterm, 95, and Late Archaic, 91Archaic-Basketmaker II period, 67, 70, 88; LateArchaic-Basketmaker II period, 78, 94-95. Seealso Basketmaker II periodarchitecture: alignments, 221-222; Chaco style, 245;continuity, 106, 141; expedient, 241; functions,154, 201, 242-243, 275; great/small housecomparison, 196-205, 208, 293; orientation,191; interconnected rooms, 293; interiordecoration, 154, 198, 223, 292; McElmo style,6, 128, 157, 204, 205, 225-235, 273, 287;Navajo, 301-303, 308, 322, 324; public, 201,252, 257, 286, 287, 292, 293; reviewed,106-113; ritual, 156-157,219; ritual landscapeand, 270; room ratios, 199; room relationships,191,205,293; suites, 134, 143, 152, 198,199, 205; surface structures appear, 100; unitpatterns, 111, 196, 199; unusual features,204-208, 257, 270. See also construction;masonry; alld see features separately

426 Chaco Project SynthesisArizona, 25, 59, 62, 116, 118, 122, 285Arizona State University, 13Armijo phase Oshara, 62, 63, 90, 95, 96Armijo rockshelter, 62Arroyo Cuervo, 61-63, 93-94arroyo entrenchment (channel cutting), 6, 24-31, 47,58, 128, 287artifacts: archaic, 64, 66-68, 82, 91; basketmaker, 99,115-118; cached, 218-219; great/small housecompared, 209-218; historic, 308, 310, 311,322; imported and exotic, 121, 157,209,215,216,257,268-269,275,281,288,291; painted,290; paleoindian, 61, 64; puebloan or lateperiod, 129, 134, 160, 164, 235, 240, andreused, 141; stonecirc\e, 169; wealth, 281. Seealso ceramics; lithics; pottery; tools'Asdzaa Bilfflani, 324Ashislepah Shelter, 51, 88, 90astronomy, 219-220, 222Atencio, Charlie, 322Atlatl Cave, 47, 48, 51, 70, 78-84,358; comparison,84Aztec ruin and community: architecture, 208, 222,254,290; artifacts, 290; burial, 268; population,296, and new Chaco focus, 240, 276, 279;Aztec East, 241, 255; Aztec West, 205, 257,293Aztec Ruins National Monument, 242Bailey, Garrick, and Roberta Glenn Bailey, 310, 324Bain, James G., 14Bajada phase Oshara, 62, 69Baker, Larry L., 256Baker, Larry L., and Stephen R. Durand, 243baking pit, archaic, 66Bandy, Philip A., 12Bannister, Bryant, 127, 128,302Basketmaker II period: as En Medio Oshara, 63; inthe San Juan Basin, 90, with variants, 94;reassessed, 69, and evaluated, 78; jewelrymaking, 118; petroglyph, 82; projectile points,64; social organization, 208, and distinctpopUlations, 286, and mixed populations, 123;structures, 106. See also Archaic-BasketmakerIIBasketmaker III period: as Trujillo Oshara, 63, andevaluation, 91; artifacts, 218, and ceremony,220; outlier, 246-247; popUlations, 6, 115,261,as distinct, 286, and mixed, 123; structures, 98;sites, 99-101, and type site, 97Basketmaker III - Pueblo I period: as transitional,97-115, 274, and regional, 115-118, 121-122,with outliers, 255-256; social models, 120-124;structures, sites, and artifacts, 106, 111-114,121, 169. See also Basketmaker III period;Pueblo I periodBc 50 listed, 353, 356: as transitional, 112, 128;artifacts, 218, 219, 225; interior decoration,198, 204; vegetation, 37Bc 51 listed, 353, 356: as transitional, 112, 128;artifacts, 214, 215, 225; structure, 198Bc 57 listed, 354: architecture, 198Bc 59 (Pepper's Mound 1) listed, 346: architecture,198; workshop, 215; popUlation, 195Bc 192 (Lizard House) listed, 356: excavation, 6. Seealso Lizard HouseBc 236 listed, 356: excavation, 6; architecture, 197,198,226; burial, 238; dating, 112Bc 288 (Gallo Cliff Dwelling) listed, 357: architectureand artifacts, 226; fauna and flora, 113, 192,238Bc 362 (VoWs site) listed, 357: excavation, 6;farming, 181-182; structure, 231bears, 114,219,291-292Begay, Richard N., 299Benson, Larry, 282; et. al., 58Bernardini, Wesley, 190, 191Berry, Michael S., 94Betancourt, Julio L., 51, 159Betancourt, Julio L., and Thomas R. Van Devender,47,48,57,343Bice, Richard A., 258Big Bead Mesa, 302Binford, Lewis R., 331-339, 342, 343Bis sa'ani community: agriculture, 113, 183; history,255,257-258,261, and compared, 272blockhouse at Pueblo Alto, 154, 171Bloom, Lansing B., 301Bonito Factor, 292Bonito phase of Anasazi period (Early-Classic-Late):artifacts, 131, 157, 196, 209, 211, 215-216,290; burials, 194; ceremony, 220; environment,53, 128, 177-179, and fauna, 238, and flora,180, 193; outliers, 252, 257, 258, 262, 263;populations, 129; structures, 157, 196, 197,208, 252; visibility among sites, 169; perioddivisions, 6, 128, 225, and geographic areas,262-263. See also Classic Bonito phase; Classicperiodboundaries, 310, 323-324, 328

Index 427bow and arrow, 63, 99Bradfield, Maitland, 36, 179Bradley, Bruce, 213, 214Bradley, Zorro A., 6, 226Brand, Donald D., 22, 32, 35-37,43, 127,301Braun, David P., and Stephen Plog, 285Breternitz, Cory Dale, on axes, 115; with others, ongreat and small house relationships, 257Brigham Young University, 9Bromberg, William, 173Brugge, David M., on analysis of data, 303, 308-311,322-325, 328; on rock art, 14, 15Biyan, Kirk, on alluviation, 24, 26, 28, 30, 46, 55;on forests, 58; on soil accumulation, 182Bryson, R. S., and W. M. Baerreis, 33Bryson, Reid A., and R. Bryson, 343Buckingham, George, 311Bullard, William R., Jf., 97, 98, 122Bureau of Land Management, 11, 14, 15, 171burials: early period, 118, and later, 226, 231, 235,236; Mesoamerican, 268; population health,193-195; Pueblo Bonito, 214, 260, 289, 290,292; small house, 238, 281, compared withgreat house, 252, 264, 281; of animals nothuman, 218, 219, 226, 291; unusual deaths, 131Bums, Barney Tillman, 179,241Bustard, Wendy, 205, 292, 293calendar, 219-222, 285, 291Cameron, Catherine M., on lithics, 116, 121, 138,213-214,216,240, and with Lisa Young, 68; onsocial trajectory, 283camps, early, 66-67, 82,93; historic, 310, 322, 325Carlson, John B., 220, 222carrying capacity (populations in habitats), 289,336-339Casa Chiquita, 42, 205, 225Casa del Rio, 15, 258, 287Casa Rinconada, 98, 171, 182,220,221,351Casas Grandes (Mexico), 268, 270, 293Cattanach, George S., Jf., 193cattle companies, 301, 323-324ceramics: as indicators, 281, 293; at archaic sites, 70,90; at turquoise mine, 270; basketmaker era, 99,116-117, 122; carbon-painted, 6, 129,225,231,238-240, 276; Chaco series, 14, 17, 238;cylinder jars, 134, 138; defining outliers, 246,253,260; designs on, 288, and repainting, 291;early and late regional, 242-243; estimatingnumbers of, 156, 157; great/small housecompared, 215-217; imported, 6, 141, 209,211-212,239; Mesa Verde series, 239; Navajo,301; puebloan era, 100, 106, 128, 129, 152,177; purposeful destruction of, 143, 156, andritual, 219; sources, 17, and production, 141,209-212; surface treatment and social phases,339-342. See also pottery and see alsoseparately by type nameceremony, 216, 218, 271, 285, 296, 340, 342, andrituality, 275, 283; shrines, 101. 165,270Cerrillos (Hills) Mining District, 18, 267, 269, 270,274Cerrito Fajada, 323Chaco Basin, 22-25; Navajo use of, 35, 37, 51, 53Chaco Black-on-white pottery, 6, 17, 129,226,231,238-239; Chaco-McElmo variety, 6, 17, 238,239, 252Chaco Canyon: core or downtown, 122, 124, 154,156, 199, 208, 263; demography, 12-13, 61,101, 196,262, and duality or multiplicity, 98,288; outside influence, 225; physiography, 1,12,21-31,46,199; ranking of site sizes, 254Chaco Canyon National Monument, 14, 323, andChaco Culture National Historical Park, 14, 34,94Chaco East community: era for, 15; popUlations,191,236; relict pines, 37, 46; structures, 157,165, 169, 236, 287, 288Chaco Experience, 283Chaco Halo, 236, 258, 287-288Chaco Phenomenon, 15,245, 260Chaco Project, 1, 15,53-59, 272, 358-362Chaco Prospectus, 7-8, 61, 99, 302, 328-329Chaco River, I, 11,24,34,288Chaco Shelters Project, 88, 90Chaco Wash: aggradation, 99, 289, and alluviation,22, 24-31; archaic sites along, 69, and othersites, 6, 188; charcoal deposits, 66; dam across,24,31, 125, 181,289; flora, 41; location, 1Chaco Wood Project, 159Chaco World, 282Chacoan Collapse, 276. See also abandonmentChacra Face-Fajada Wash communities, 258Chacra Mesa: archaic, 61, 64, 67-69, 93; flora,37-38,41,46,47,50,51,160; location, 1,22,and climate, 32, and water, 35; popUlation,100-101; sites, 6, 14, 169,231,236,240, andhistoric use, 302, 309, 310, 322, 324-325Chauvenet, William, 31Chetro Ketllisted, 351,355: artifacts and ritual, 218,

428 Chaco Project Synthesis219, 291; fields, 27, 173, 360, and datable clay,46; great house, 16, 157-160, 275, andstructures, 127, 198, 199, and relation to smallsites, 128; road-related features, 152, 154,275;trash, 201; water control, 182Chimney Rock (Colorado), 222Christaller model, 272Christian comparison, 271chronology, 366-367; techniques for:archaeomagnetic, 16-17,27-28, 106, 143, 171,174, 182,226, ceramic, 17,24, 106, 143, 181,363-366, dendrochronologic (tree-ring dating),6, 16,52-53,55,97, 101, 119, 152, 157, 159,163, 181, 199, 273, 276, 301, 309,radiocarbon, 17,28,46,48, 82, 89, 90; PecosClassification, 4, 128, 246, 368; sequence foroutliers, 246. See aLso periods and phasesseparately by nameChuska-Chaco cultural comparison, 246Chuska Mountains: imports from, 157; ceramicsources, 239, 253, 288, and wood sources, 57,160; location, 1, 32, and visibility, 165;preceramic sites, 95Chuska Valley: as regional, 122-123, 261, 263;ceramics, 252; great house (Skunk Springs),247,253,287; soils, 37Cibola ceramic series (Cibola White Ware), 17,238-239,246,252, 260Clary, Karen Husum, 192, 193Classic Bonito phase, 128, 157, 193, 197, 208,215-216, 263Classic period: dates, 127-128, 174, and divisions,128, 129, 262-263; ceramics, 209-212; diet,192; models, 281; sites 226. See also Bonitophase of Anasaziclay, 22, 25, 26, 35, 46; refiring, 209Cliff House Sandstone (Formation), 22, 64, 129, 185climatological factors. See environmentClovis points, 93Cly's Canyon: preceramic, 64, 69, 70; roads, 152;water, 154, 173, 181, 185Cochise culture, 24, 62Cody complex, 61, 63, 93Colorado (comparisons), 62, 116, 123, 125,291,296Colorado Plateau: as a region, 342; climate, 32, 55,119-120, and com growing, 95-96; diet, 193;location, 1Comanche encounters, 309communication, 165-171, 257, 286. See also roadsegmentscommunity, defining Chacoan, 282-283; formation,130, and development, 246-252, 254, 338, 340,and renewal, 242; shift in location of larger,100. See also settlementconstruction: above-ground, 100, 138; adobe, 12,257; basketmaker, 112, 121; core-and-veneer,269; great house, 185, 198-205,208; labor for,16, 157, 185, 201, 204-205, 270, 274;linear/curvilinear, 122, 129, 199; Mesoamerican,269, 270; offerings, 138, 218-219;outlier, 245, 246, 254, 256, 257, 260;preplanned, 141, 156-157; puebloan, 112, 121,122, 129, and remodeled, 112; rain patternsand, 277-279; resources for, 22, 185; smallhouse, 196-198,208; variability of, 134; woodfor, 50-51, 57, 115, 116, 127, 157, 159, 160,215,253,288, and reuse of wood, 16, 159. Seealso architecture; masonryCoolidge Corrugated pottery, 129Cooper, Laurel Martine, 205, 221, 292-293coprolites, 192-193, 194Corbett, John Maxwell, 301, 303Cordell, Linda S., 123cosmology, 264. See also astronomy; ideologycostumbre, 218council house, 219craft specialization. See activities, specializedCrotty, Helen K., 292, 296Crotty, Jay, 220Crown, Patricia L., and W. H. Wills, 291Crownpoint, New Mexico, 113Cully, Anne C., plant list by, 41; on sampling, 16;and with others, on land availability, 257Cully, Anne C., and Jack F. Cully, Jr., 42, 59Cully, Anne C., and Mollie S. Toll, 130, 180-181,183,310Cully, Jack F., 44, 45cultural ecology, 272. See also settlement; socialorganizationcultural interaction. See populationscultural periods. See separatelycultural change. See subsistence strategiesDam, William L., 35Dean, Jeffrey S., on paleoclimate, 55-56; and withothers, on climate, 59, 119, 285, 289, 296Dean, Jeffrey S., and Richard L. Warren, on wooduse, 157, 159-160DeAngelis, James M., 22, 24, 30, 31, 58decision making. See leadership

Index 429demography: community, marriage, and boundaries,282, 324; craniometric studies, 264, 268; genderin society, 286, 322, 334-335, 338; historic,310. See also popUlationsdiet and health: agriculture and, 180-185; cooking,62, 124, 193; corn as supplemental, 95;discussion, 192-193; early diet, 113-115, andlater, 238, 289; wild plants, 42, 63DiPeso, Charles C., 209, 267-268Dittert, Alfred E., Jr., et. aI., 61Dogoszhi style of pottery decoration, 290, 291Doll House site, 307, 311, 320-322, 328Dolores Project, 52Dolores River Valley, 284Doyel, David E., and Stephen H. Lekson, 282Doyel, David E., et. aI., on great/small sites, 257Dozier, Edward P., 342Drager, Dwight L., 188, 190drought: an index for measuring, 52-53, and patternsof 119-120, 177 -179; paleoenvironmentaldrying, 46-47, 51-52, 55, and early aridity, 93;eleventh century, 152, 179, 182, 263; twelfthcentury, 6, 182,241,242,244,255,261,273,276,296, and later, 241, 296DuBois, Robert, 16Durand, Stephen R., 264Durand, Stephen R., and Kathy Roler Durand, 256Durango, Colorado, 296Dutton, Bertha P., 226Dutton Plateau, 252Ebert, James I., and Robert K. Hitchcock, 245ecology, 331, and the human place in, 332; regionalmodels, 254-255, 272-79, and hinge points,285-286; subsistence zones, 333. See alsoenvironmentegalitarians: household size, 333; social organization,338Eleanor ruin, 256Elliott, Michael Lee, 79, 91Ellis, Florence H., 219. See also Hawley, FlorenceElmore, Francis H., 37El Penasco, 323El Rito outlier, 247En Medio phase Oshara, 63, 82,93-95, 122En Medio rockshelter, 61environment, 8; carrying capacity, 289, 336-339;climate change, 31-34, and reconstructing,45-59, 61, 119-125; geographic constraints,278, 284, 289, 335, 336, 338, expansion, 332,and contraction, 335; effective temperaturemeasuring, 332, and threshold change, 333;mapping, 12-14; microhabitat, 343; outlier,252-253, 261-262; populations in habitats,261-262, 336-339; resource ownership, 338;semidesert scrub, 332, 342-343; steppe, 32. Seealso alluviation; ecology; fauna; flora;precipitation; waterEscalante ruin, 254Escavada Black-on-white pottery, 129, 131,226Escavada Wash: location and drainage, 1, 22, 24, 31,258; sites along or near, 101, 255, 257, 275,and agriculture, 183, and water control, 125,173; historic use, 324, 325; water resources,154, 185ethnographic analogy, 7, 156, 267. See also Historicperiodethnography, and ceremony, 221-222; and society,322; of horticulturalists, 339-342. See alsoHistoric periodethnohi story , 309, 311, 324, 327. See also HistoricperiodEuler, Robert C., et. aI., 33, 55, 119European comparison, 332Euro-American use of Chaco Canyon, 311. See alsoAnglo-American components; Spanishcomponentsexcavation, 4, 14-16, and mapping, 11-12exchange threshold, 338Fagan, Brian, 369Fajada Butte, canyon floor at, 31; observatory on,220; visibility of, 257Fajada Butte community, 106, 129, 131, 165, 198,208. See also Fajada Gap communityFajadaGapcommunity, 100, 191, 195,288. SeealsoFajada Butte communityFajada Wash: aggradation, 31; south fork site, 101,118Fanale, Rosalie, 12, 327-328Farabee, William C., 193,235Farmer, Malcolm F., 301fauna: basketmaker and puebloan use, 114-115, 157,183-184, 192, 226, 235, 236, 289, and shift,276; burned bone, 70,82,114; eastward shift offauna, 61; exotic, 134; extinct, 24, and paleofauna,78, 82, 89, 93, 94; freshwater aquatic,36, 47, 70; gatherers' relationships, 333-335,336, 343; overview, 43-45, and pack ratmiddens, 48-52; ritual use, 218-219, 285, 291

430 Chaco Project SynthesisFerdon, Edwin N., 160,270field houses, 46, 100, 130fireboxes, 131firepits: basketmaker, 106, 111, 121; comer style,235; great house, 143, 199; Mesa Verde style,226; slab-lined, 198; small house, 134, 196,197, 198; small site, 192; use of rooms and,188, 190. See also hearths; heating pitsfirewood,6, 50,152,160Fisher, Reginald G., 31, 34, 58, 188flora, overview of, 37-43, and faunal connections,43-45; people and, 332-339, for pueblo era,100, and at rockshelters, 78; receding pine belt,127; reconstructing environments, 16, 46-52;site indication by, 42-43; use of wild plants, 42,63,180,192,339; vegetative maps, 11, 12,31,38-41. See also horticultureFloyd-Hanna, Lisa, and others, 41Folsom site, 64, 88, 93Force, Eric R., et. aI., 24, 289Forestdale Smudged pottery, 156Fort Sumner, 322, 323fossils, 22, 48Four Comers area: environment, 56, 63, andweather, 32; interior decoration, 292;popUlations, 243, 264, 268Fowler, Andrew P., and John R. Stein, on roads, 264Fowler, Andrew P., with others, on popUlation, 296Franklin, Hayward H., 260, 261Frazier, Kendrick, 369Fredland, Glen, 51, 52Frisbie, Theodore R., 268, 269, 271Fritz, John M., 221-222Gabriel, Kathryn, 222Galisteo Black -on-white pottery, 231Gallo Cliff Dwelling (Bc 288), 113, 192,226, 238,357Gallo Wash: discharge, 31, 34; environment, 51;paleoenvironment, 25; site along, 226; watercontrol along, 173Gallo Wash Mine, 325Gallup, New Mexico, 123Gallup Black-on-white pottery: appearance, 275; assymbolic, 276; dating with, 131, 156; definingPueblo II with, 128, 129; in a ceramiccontinuum, 141, 152; small site use, 226, 235Gambler's Spring, 35Gambler, the, 299, 329George, Navajo, 322, 324, 325George, Willie, 322George Washington University, 327Giardino, Marco J., and Michael R. Thomas, 12Gillespie, William B., at rockshelters, 78, 82, 88; atUna Vida, 163; environmental analysis by, 32,45, 63, 342, and models, 53, 55-56, 69, 177,179, 181; on diet, 193; on rainfall, 34Gillespie, William B., and Robert P. Powers, 56,261-262Gilpin, Dennis, 282Gladwin, Harold Sterling, 6, 98, 111 -112Gleickman, Carol Legard, 309, 310, 328Gobemador area, 301, 302, 322Grass Mesa, 284Greasy Hill complex, 258great houses: alignment, 222; burials, 193-194;ceramics, 239, 274, 281; comparisons, 196-218;construction, 160, 185, and dates, 199, andevents, 201, 204, 205, 280-281; diet, 192;excavation, 130, 143-165; functions, 235, 242,252, 273, 275, at outliers, 257, and asrepresentative of dual society, 288; populations,188, 190; spacing among, 264, and siteclustering, 208; specialization, 201, 204;unusual features, 205-208; variability, 264, 288,292great kivas: alignment, 219; architecture, 205, aspublic, 286; basketmaker, 97, 98, 99,101,106,111; caches and ceremonial deposits, 106,117-118, 160, 218, 286, 291; contrast withMesa Verde, 270; puebloan, 101, 163, 164,252, 260, and outlier, 260; regional network,267, and north of the San Juan River, 284; RioGrande Valley, 282; road relationship, 252;stone circles, 169Great North Road, 152, 154, 169,261,264,276Great Plains comparison, 336Grebinger, Paul, 245, 272Greenlee ruin, 258Grey Hill Spring, 254Grey Ridge community, 262Guadalupe community: basketmaker-puebloan eras,247,252,255; discussion, 256-257, 261; greathouse, 274Guadalupe Ruin, 274Gulf of California, 121habitation sites: archaic, 70, 96; historic, 310, 324;puebloan, 130, 190. See also great houses;small houses

Index 431Hack, J. T., 32Half House, 98, 112,349,354Hall, Stephen A., on charcoal, 66; on environmentalmodeling, 28, 45, 46, 50-52, 55, 343Harbottle, Garman, and Phil C. Weigand, 18Harvard Peabody Museum, 235Hassen, Fekri A., 201Hawikuh Polychrome pottery, 309Hawley, Florence M., at Chetro Ket!, 4, 16, 58, 157,159; on ceramics, 129; on masonry, 141, 152,205, 226. See also Ellis, Florence H.Hayes, Alden C., on alluviation, 66, 182; onarchitecture, 101, 130, 160, 188, 208; onceramics, 129, 246; on historic sites, 303; onpopulations, 115, 118-119, 190, 201, 204,235-236, 269, 272; on preceramic era, 64; onsurvey, 11, 13, 15,99-100,276Hayes, Alden C., and Thomas C. Windes, 165Headquarters sites, 198, 226, 356health, 194. See also diet and healthhearths, dated, 90; early small site, 111, 113;preceramic, 66, 70, 82, 84, 89. See alsofirepits; heating pitsheating pits, 115. See also firepitsHerr, Sarah A., 285Hewett, Edgar L., 163, 171, 193,301Hill, J. Brett, et. aI., 243, 244, 296Hillside ruin, 131, 198,348Historic period: divisions, 309, and site typology,310; excavations, 15; hunting comparison, 114;ideology and rituality, 165,218,222,264,285,286, and society, 290-293; settlements, 243, andsociety, 261, 280,281,296,340-341; rock art,15; site numbering, 303Historic Pueblo period, 283; East/West compared,341Hodges, William K., 25-26, 58Hogan, Patrick, 95, 96hogans, 301, 302, 324Hogback community, 252, 275Hohokam comparisons, 270, 340Holien, Thomas, 269Holsinger, S. J., 169, 171, 193Hopi comparisons, agricultural, 127, 179, 185, 280;residential, 190; ritual, 219, and ideological,243,285,291,292; social, 212,243,280horticulture: beans, 113-114, 179; com, 63,82,89,90,95,113,125-126,179-180,256,273,287,340; early general, 91-93, 95-96, and later, 141,274, 280, 285; growing season, 31-34, 127,179, 333, 334, 342; imported crops, 58; plantdomestication, 332, 339, and threshold fordomestication, 336, 340. See also agriculture;flora; storage; waterHosta Butte, 264Hosta Butte phase, 6, 129-130Houck ceramics, 240Houck variant, 263household, 333, 335, 340Hrdli(\ka, AleS, 299Hungo Pavi, 199, 287, 288hunter-gatherers, 332-339; population sizes for, 335Hyde Exploring Expedition, 4, 299, 346-347hydrological resources. See precipitation; waterideology: artifacts, 62, 218-222; leadership, 283;Mesoamerican, 271; regional, 293; roadsegments, 264inscriptions, 309, 325Intermediate period (Salmon ruin), 260, 261Ireland, Arthur K., 9, 12, 32-33irrigation. See water control featuresIrwin-Williams, Cynthia, at Guadalupe, 256; atSalmon Ruin, 258; on a regional system, 15;outlining the preceramic era, 61-64, 90-96; onsocial organization, 260-261Irwin-Williams, Cynthia, and Phillip H. Shelley, 279,280Jackson, William H., 46, 182, 188,299Jacobson, LouAnn, 11, 12, 236Jacobson, LouAnn, and John Roney, 241Jay phase Oshara, 62, 63, 64, 69, 70Jemez Pueblo, 299Johnson, Amber Lynn, 331, 339-342Johnson, Gregory A., 279-280, 284, 335Jojola, Theodore S., 222Jones, Kirtland, 38, 42, 43, 58Jorde, Lynn B., 115, 183Judd, Neil Merton, on architecture, 141, 152, 205,292, and artifact caches, 218; on ceramics, 238;on environmental factors, 35, 36, 46, 55, 58,180, 182, 185; on Hillside ruin, 198; onideology, 291; on Navajo use at Chaco Canyon,299-301; on outside influences, 225; onpithouses, 4; on populations, 194, 195,279; onroad segments, 169Judd's Pithouse No.1 listed, 348; mentioned, 112Judge, W. James, defining Pueblo II, 128; excavationby, 15; on Chaco as central, 208, 218, 261; on

432 Chaco Project Synthesisoutliers, 246, 254, 256; on preceramic data,61-64,70,78,82,88,90-93; on questions andsurvey, 8, 13, 14,95,99-101, and final model,272-283Judge, W. James, and others, on agriculture, 121,123; on environment, 119; on the final model,275,280Judge, W. James, and Daniel W. Martin, 14Kantner, John, 369katsinas, 271, 296Keetch, C. Wesley, 36Kelley, Edmund, and Loren D. Potter, 41Kelley, J. Charles, 267Kelley, J. Charles, and Ellen Abbott Kelley, 267, 271Kelley, Klara B., 310, 311, 324, 325, 327, 328Kelley, N. Edmund, 38Kello Blancett site, 242Keresan comparison, 280Kernoble, John Michael, 34Kiatuthlanna Black-on-white pottery, 141Kiatuthlanna phase, 111Kidder, Alfred V., 4, 127, 128,225Kimbeto Point, 258Kin Bineola: dates and situation, 130,247,253,287;great kiva, 288; Navajo use, 324; road segmant,154; sites near, 100, as clustered, 100-101;visibility, 169; water, 11,35,37, 171,276Kin Indian, 258Kin Kletso listed, 351, 355: dates, 6; architecture,128, 204, 205, 225, 292; workshop, 215Kin Klizhin: dates, 130, 236; early sites near, 100;Navajo and Spanish at, 324; visibility, 169;water control, 171; Upper Kin Klizhin, 258Kin Nahasbas listed, 351, 360: cache, 218;discussed, 163-165; excavation, 15; fauna, 219;great house, 288; structures, 157; workshop,215Kin Neole, 195, 347Kin Ya'a, 169,247,262kivas: built in old rooms, 152; caches in, 218;external influence on, 269; faunal remains, 114,163,219; fixed orientation, 134; functions, 154;great house, 199, 201, 205, 293; late styles,226, and Mesa Verde style, 231; masonry, 129,205,208; multifamily, 287; outlier, 256, 257,260; popUlation and, 190, 191; small house,197, 198Klausner, Stephanie, 9Kluckhohn, Clyde, 208, 279Kolber, Jane, 15Kutz Canyon, 264Kwakina-style polychrome pottery, 235LA 835 comparison, 282LA 26749 comparison, 113Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, 8Lagasse, Peter F., et. aI., 35, 174Lamphere, Louise, 293land ownership, historic, 324, 325, and sitemanifestations, 327; Navajo land management,327-328LANDSAT, 12,21,327La Plata Black-on-white pottery, 99, 100La Plata Mountains, 1, 165, 253La Plata-Piedra variant, 262La Plata River Valley, 260La Plata variant, 122Late Basketmaker period, 90, 124. See alsoBasketmaker III and Basketmaker III - Pueblo Ileadership: ceramic symbol for, 276; mobility anddecision making, 335; religious, 261;subsistence threshold for, 336, 338; variousmodels, 120-125,216,278-280,283,331-338LeBlanc, Steven A., 283Lekson, Stephen R., on architecture, 157, 185, 196,198-208 passim, 269-270, 275, 277, 279, 287;on artifacts, 160, 214; on Chaco peak, 276; onpopulations, 190-191, and with others ondispersion of population, 243, 283, 296Lekson, Stephen R., and W. James Judge, 205, 254Lewis, Candace K., 290Lewis, David, and Thomas Shipman, 25Leyit Kin listed, 353: architecture, 197, 198; burial,238; ceramics, 231; fauna, 226; late occupation,226Lightfoot, Kent G., and Gary M. Feinman, 120Lindbergh, Charles, 8linguistics, 264, 301Lino Grey pottery on Basketmaker sites, 99Lister, Robert R., 269Lister, Robert R., and Florence C. Lister, 70lithic scatters, 94, 343-344lithics: Alibates chert, 84; Anasazi pattern, 68;basket maker , 115-116; imported, 212-214;outlier, 253, 260; preceramic, 62, 63, 67, 68,70,84, 88, 95; puebloan, 129, 156, 157, 169,216, and Mesa Verdean, 240; sampling, 14,216; sources, 17-18, 22, 69, 253. See alsoprojectile points; tools

Index 433Little Colorado (River) area, 6, 296livestock, 302, 310, 323-324, 325, 327; andrangeland management, 327-328Lizard House, 198,226,231,356Lobo Mesa, 37,253,261Loew, Oscar von, 188Loma Alta variant, 262Loose, Richard W., at Pueblo Alto, 154, 171; onairborn taping, 12; on outliers, 245-246; onpithouse, 106Loose, Richard W., and Thomas R. Lyons, 115, 182,273Los Pinos phase, 94Love, David W., on channel cutting, 45-46, 55, 58,180; on geology, 22-28, 36; on a lithic code, 17Luhrs, Dorothy L., 163Lupton variant, 122Lyford, Forest P., 36Lyons, Thomas R., 8, 15,61Lyons, Thomas R., and Robert K. Hitchcock, 11Mahoney, Nancy, 283Maker, H. J., et. aI., 37Malcolm, Roy L., 301, 303, 311Malde, Harold E., 31, 41Maloney, Joseph, 98Malville, J. McKim, 222Mancos Black-on-white pottery, 128, 131Mancos Canyon, Colorado, 219Manuelito Canyon, 264Marcia's Rincon, 134, 138, 141,208,236,275Marshall, Michael P., on alignment and roads, 222,with Anna Sofaer, 222, 264Marshall, Michael P., and David E. Doyel, 258Marshall, Michael P., et. aI., on regional affiliations,246-247,252-254,257,261,277Martin, Paul Schultz, 55masonry: contemporary types, 6, 163-164; coreand-veneer,197-198; expedient, 141; influenceson, 267; McElmo style, 201, 205, 226; stonepreparation, 197, and reuse, 118, 141, 197;Type I, 196, 197; water control feature withmasonry, 181Mathews, Tom W., 15,69,78Mathews, Thomas W., and Earl Neller, 78Mathien, Frances Joan, 240, 270-271, 292Mathien, Frances Joan, and Thomas C. Windes, 157,163, 165Matson, R. G., and Karen M. Dohm, 123,286Matthews, Washington, 299Maxon, James C., 231McElmo Black-on-white pottery, 70, 128, 165,225,226, 231, 236, 239, 240; Chaco copies, 236;Chaco-McElmo variety, 6,17,238,239,252McElmo phase, 128, 160, 240-241; earlyinterpretations, 6McElmo style architecture, 128, 157, 204, 225-235,254,273,287,293; and McElmo masonry, 201,205, 226McGuire, Randall H., 271McKenna, Peter J., on ceramics, 17, 296; on smallsites, 99, 101, 106, 131-134, 143, 241, andfireplace size, 111, 121; on subsistence changes,242,243McKenna, Peter J., and H. Wolcott Toll, 239-240McKenna, Peter J., and L. Truell, 281McNitt, Frank, 299mealing areas and milling facilities: early catchments,138, and bins, 141; small house rooms,196-198; outlier, 257, 260; space integrated bymilling room access, 293Menafee Shale (formation), 22, 25, 99, 100, 129Merlin, Thomas W., and Frances Levine, 303Mesa Tierra site, 235, 347Mesa Verde, Colorado, 122Mesa Verde Black-on-white pottery, 129, 225, 226,235, 236, 239, 240, 241, 296Mesa Verde comparisons, 15, 53, 193, 194, 205,220, 225, 226, 235-243 passim, 246, 258, 260,263Mesa Verde phase, 241-242; divisions, 240, 263Mescalito, Katherine, 322Mescalito, Rafael, 322Mesoamerican cultural fluctuations, 271Mesoamerican influence, 7, 128, 160,254,267-272Mexican use of Chaco Canyon, 309Mexico, 62, 128Middle Archaic period, 64, 67Middle Rio Puerco Project, 256migrations, as explanations, 267; from the north, 231,236,287,288; from the south, 98,113; out ofChaco basin, 262, 281; out of Four Comersarea, 343; regional movements, 6-7, 240; to SanJuan River, 239, 290Mills, Barbara J., 190,236,265mineral resources. See clay; lithics; obsidian;turquoisemobility routes. See migrations and population,mobilityMogollon area, 296

434 Chaco Project SynthesisMogollon ceramics, 99, 117Mogollon Rim, 285Moncusco Plateau, 253Montezuma phase, 226Mount Powell, 57Mount Taylor, 57, 160,253,270Museum of New Mexico (MNM), 4, 17Nacimiento Mountains, 1Naroll, Raoul, 188National Geographic Society (Expedition), 4, 35,348-350National Park Service (NPS), 1, 19, 52, 325,355-357; Water Resources Division, 36Navajo comparisons, 68, 171,220Navajo components, 64, 70,90,301,303,308,311,324, 343-344; the Doll House site, 322Navajo George's camp, 322, 324, 325Navajo land use, 12, and economics, 323, 325,327-328Navajo period. See Historic periodNavajo relationship to Puebloans, 299, 301-302, 308,322, 328, 329Navajo Reservoir, 61Neitzel, Jill E., and Ronald L. Bishop, 239,291Neller, Earl, 48, 70, 78, 82, 84, 88, 95Nelson, Ben A., 271New Alto, 152, 154, 157,204,205,225New Archaeology, 7New House at Kin Nahasbas, 164NMCRIS (New Mexico Cultural ResourceInformation System), 13, 311New Mexico State Historic Preservation Office(SHPO), 245-246, 253Nials, Fred L., 11Nichols, Ronald Franklin, 46, 174, 182Noble, David Grant, 369North Mesa, 22, 64, 174Northwestern University, 303Obenauf, Margaret Senter, 11obsidian, 18, 116, 213, 214, 240Old House at Kin Nahasbas, 163, 165Old Wello, 299, 301organizational models, 279-280Oshara tradition, 62-63, 88, 90, 93, 94, 95outliers, 15, 245, 246, 254, 263Owl Roost Shelter, 78Pacific Coast, 117pack rat middens, 47, 48-52, 78, 82, 89, 90, 94Padilla Wash, 100Padilla Well settlement, 129, (complex) 258,287,288Paiute comparison, 343Paleoenvironment, 18, 45-59, 63, 82, 88, 93, 96Paleoindian period, 55-56, 63, 64, 93, 343Palkovich, Ann M., 194, 195Palmer Drought Severity Index (POSI), 52-53, 177pan-Southwestern adaptation, 256, 293Parking Lot Ruin, 152, 154Parsons, Elsie, Clews, 285, 292pastoralism, 338, 344Pax Chaco, 296Peach Springs, 247, 262Pecos Classification, 4, 128, 246peer polity system, 264Penasco Blanco listed, 346, 348: architecture, 196,199, 204, and additions, 204; as part of system,288; early sites near, 98, 100, 121, and shifts,100; pictographs, 220; road related feature, 154;water control feature, 35, 173, 174Pepper, George H., on burials, 289; on caches andritual, 218, 219, 223, 292; on Navajo lore, 299;on Pueblo Bonito, 190Petersen, Kenneth L., 55petroglyphs, 14, 70, 82, 220, 285, 293Picosa culture, 62pictographs, 14, 70, 78, 84, 220, 285, 293Piedra variant, 122Pierre's House, 254Pierson, Lloyd M., 6, 188Pindi Pueblo, 194Pinedale Polychrome pottery, 235Pippin, Lonnie C., 55, 256pit houses and pit structures: alluvial burial, 46, 98,99, in cross-section, 29; antechamberto-ventilator,112; beginning use, 91; comparisons through time, 100, 106, 111-112, 124,131, 134, 196-199,284,286; popUlations and,124, 190-191,286. See also kivas; great kivasplazas, Ill, 112, 113, 138, 152, 154,197,199,221,257Plog, Stephen, 288, 291pochteca, 268, 271Poco site, 171, 172, 360Pojoaque grant ruin, 282pollen: alluviation dated by, 28; counts for, 273;dietary evidence, 192-193; great kiva, 154;paleoenvironmental reconstruction, 46-52, 55,94

Index 435population as a system, 331, and early interpretations,4, 6-7; behavioral questions, 191. See alsodemographypopulations: aggregating, 63, 201, 256-257, 261,286, 335-339, 340, and group reductions, 336;amalgamation, 111; composItions, 115,122-126, 129, 130, 152-154, 156, 231, 236,238, and distinct segments, 260, 286, 296;densities 95, 123, 334, 343, and packingthreshold, 336-339; detecting foreigners, 269;mobility, 95-96, 119, 125,223,272,274,284,285, 296, 333-334, 343, and mobilitythresholds, 335, 336; regional interactions, 115,117, 119, 194-195; violence, 244, 269, 296.See also abandonment; migration; popUlation asa systemPost-Bosque Redondo period, 309, 322, 323Post Processual Archaeology, 14Potter, Loren D., 16,31,41,42,43,58Potter, Loren D., and N. E. Kelley, 11,41,59, 173pottery, appearance of, 124; early painted, 112;historic, 308; McElmo interpretations, 4, 6, andMesa Verde style, 6, 239. See also ceramics;clay; and see pottery types separately by namePowers, Robert P., 14, and others on synthesis, 37,246, 247-255Powers, Willow Roberts, 311, 324, 325Pre-Bosque Redondo period, 309, 310Preceramic period, 15. See also Archaic period;Basketmaker II period; Paleoindian periodprecipitation: and agriculture, 177-179; drainagepatterns, 22, 26; flora and, 41; seasonality, 55,119-120, 124, 125. See also water, availablepredictive modeling, 13, 14preservation and maintenance, 8prestige, 284projectile points: Archaic, 64, 66-68, 91; Paleoindian,61,64; Puebloan, 129,214; the haftingof,63Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM), 15,245-246, 253pueblitos, 303, 309, 322,Pueblo Alto listed, 348, 360: cache, 218-219;ceramics, 17, 181,215-216,219; dates, 16, andphases, 143-152; detecting features, 12;generally, 199, 143-157, 275, 292; lithics,213-214; historic visit, 299; road relatedfeatures, 275; trash, 154-156,201; water near,35; East Ruin, 152, 154; East Wing, 152; NewAlto, 152, 154, 157, 204, 205, 225; ParkingLot Ruin, 152, 154; Rabbit Ruin, 152; WestWing, 143, 154Pueblo Bonito listed, 346, 347, 348: as central, 275,292; artifacts, 214, 218-219, 269; burials, 238,268; construction, 121, 196, 199, 201, 204,205, 221; fauna, 114; flora, 42, 113;populations, 195, 223, 279, 281, 289, andcompetition, 289-290; road related, 154; smallsites near, 197-198, and relationship to smallsites, 134; trash, 175,201,270; water channel,46Pueblo Bonito-Chetro Ketl vicinity, 100, 129Pueblo del Arroyo listed, 347, 348: construction,199, and additions, 204; lithics, 214, andworkshop, 215; ritual and caches, 218-219;Talus Unit comparison, 160; Triwall structure,225, 355; water channel, 46Pueblo Pintado: construction, 287,288; as an outlier,15, 157, 165, 169, 247; pine near, 38, 51;population, 188; road related, 258; Spanishvisit, 323Pueblo Revolt, 301, and refugee era, 328, 329Pueblo I period: demographics, 261, andpopulations, 113, 115, 123, 123-124, 284;distinct architecture, 99, 100, 122, and sites,101, 106, 121, and variants, 262; outliers,246-247,256; storage, 286; tools, 118Pueblo II period: blurred with Pueblo I, 97;ceramics, 128; demographics, 262; dogs, 291;ecosystem model, 272; interior decoration, 292;outliers, 254, 274; road features, 170; sites, 46,101,128-129; separation into phases, 190; EarlyPueblo II mentions, 129, 188, 247, 253, 254;Late Pueblo II mentions, 129, 252Pueblo II - Pueblo III carbon-on-white pottery, 239Pueblo II - Pueblo III era: ceramics, 212, 239;outliers, 246-247, 254; stone circles, 160Pueblo III period: burials, 195; ceramics, 128;customs, 292; demographics, 262; excavations,6; outliers, 255; shrines, 101; small sites,128-129; stone circles, 169; separation intophases, 235, 240-241; Early Pueblo III, 129,191, 235-236, 252-254; Late Pueblo III, 129,236, 252Pueblo IV period, 195, 292Pueblo World, 277, 291pueblos, 100Puerco Black-on-white pottery, 252Puerco Project, 52, 256

436 Chaco Project Synthesisquarry, sandstone, 70, 360Querino Polychrome pottery, 226, 240Rabbit Ruin, 152Rafael's Rincon, 100railroad, 323, 327ramadas, 100, 111, 112, 121, 138, 196, 199,205Red Mesa Black-on-white pottery, 100, 128, 129,141, 152, 177, 274, 282, 288; separated intoEarly/Late, 196; Early mentions, 112, 118, 196Red Mesa phase, 111, 287Red Mesa Valley, 56, 242, 252, 263Reed, Paul F., 123, 126, 286Refugee period, 328, 329Reinhard, Karl J., and Karen H. Clary, 194Reinhart, Theodore R., 61, 63remote sensing, 8-12; underground, 12; reexamination,15resonating chamber, 118Reyman, Jonathan E., on alignment, 219-222; onburials, 268; on ceremonialism, 270, 271, 285,291; reviewing Pepper, 190Ridge ruin, 268Rio Grande (Valley): artifacts, 18; great kiva, 282;Navajo presence, 301; populations, 231, 243;preceramic era, 63, 88, 96; turquoise, 267Rio Puerco (Valley), 61, 242, 255, 256, 262, 274Rio San Jose, 262rituality, 275, 283, and ceremony, 216, 218, 271,285, 296, 340, 342; shrines, 101, 165, 270road segments, detecting, 11, 15; functions for, 264;Pueblo II era, 170; related to architecture, 143,152,154,160, 171,201,242,270,275; relatedto cosmology, 220, 222; related to outliers, 246,252, 254; trade network and, 245, 255, 258,261, 276roasting pits, 111Roberts, Frank H. H., Jr., 97, 101, 120, 121, 129;field notes of, 235Roberts's Small House, 235, 238Robinson, William J., and Martin Rose, 119, 177Robinson, William J., et. a!., 101rock art, 14, 82, 303, 308; petroglyphs andpictographs, 70, 78, 84, 220, 285, 293rockshelters, 61-63, 82, 88-90; formation of, 78Roney, John R., on populations, 242-243, 296; onroads, 171, 175, 222, 264; on later site, 235Rosa variant, 262Rose, Martin R., et. a!., 33, 52, 177Ross, Joseph R., 25Ruppert, Hans, 18St. Johns Polychrome pottery, 226, 235, 340Salado Wash, 256Salmon community: architecture, 205, 255,290,293,discussed, 258, 260-261, and ranking size, 254;com at, 180Samuels, Michael L., and Julio L. Betancourt, 50, 57,160San Jose phase Oshara, 62, 90, 95, 96San Jose projectile points, 64, 82San Juan Basin: boundaries and location, 1,21,342;climate, 32, 56-57, and land, 37, 253, andwater, 34; ecological zones, 12, and Navajo use,12; horticultural diversity/variability, 113, 180,340; peripheral studies, 61, 95; popUlations,101, 121,242-243, 245-246, and distinctions,122-123; preceramic perspective, 90-94, 96;visibility in, 275San Juan Basin Regional Uranium Study (SJBRUS),13,57, 90,91, 261San Juan Mountains, 1, 50San Juan River (Valley), as a regional focus, 239,240,242; Chacoan outlier along, 255, 258,260;people north of, 6, 70, 284, and influence, 225;soils, 37Sargent, Ed, 324, 325, 327Schaafsma, Polly, 271, 293Schaafsma, Polly, and Curtis F. Schaafsma, 296Schachner, Gregson, 284-285Schalk, Randall F., and Thomas R. Lyons, 12,21Schelberg, John D., on agriculture and popUlations,115,119, 182, 183, 191, and mobility, 125; onsocial organization, 121,208,277,283Scheick, Cherie, 123Schillaci, Michael A., 122, 195,223,264, 289, 296Schillaci, Michael A., et. a!., 268School of American Research (SAR) 4, 301, 303,351-354Scott, Norman J., 41, 43, 59Scurlock, Dan, 43Sebastian, Lynne, on agriculture and populations,179, 191, 277-279, 282; on leadership, 122,123-124,215,216,281,283,288,290,291Sebastian, Lynne, and Jeffrey H. Altschul, 68, 100,130, 190sedentism, 338Senter, Donovan, 46,218,219settlement: climate for, 56-57; clustered, 95, 101,208,264; distance (space) between great houses,

Index 437264, and nearest-neighbor analysis, 256, andnearness and style, 111; distance betweenroad-related features, 252; distance to resources,310; distinct centers, 113, 120, 122, 128,262-263, 279; historic site typology, 310, andratio of population, 324; identification by flora,43; mapping, 12-14; outliers, 246, 254;permanency, 339-342; planned, 156; regionalmodels, 240, 258, 261-263, 272; reoccupation/reuseof, 226, 231, 236, 241, 252,256,277; seasonality, 63,88,91,93, 124, 175,280, 324, or periodic use, 156; situations, 90,129, 242-243, 308, and shifts, 99, 100, 118,120, 123; spatial ordering of sites, 221;town-and-village dichotomy, 100, 196; unitconfigurations, 111, 196. See also environment,geographical constraintsShabik'eshchee Village, 97, 98,100,101, Ill, 112,118, 120, 121,262,349,359Sheep Camp Shelter, 51, 88-89shell, 70, 117, 138, 240Shelley, Phillip H., 260shrines, 101, 165,270Siemers, Charles T., and Norman R. King, 22Simmons, Alan H., 68, 88,90, 93Simons, Li & Associates, 8, 31, 34Simpson, James Hervey, 21, 329sites, the naming and numbering of, 13. Seeseparately by name or numberSkunk Springs, 247, 253, 287Sleeping Dune and Ant Hill Dune, 70, 84-88, 358small houses: artifacts, 218, 274; compared to greathouses, 196-218, 281; situations of, 6, 106,131, 197,226,235,236,257,270, and growthpatterns, 293; unusual features, 198small sites, 99, 101, 106, 111, 131-143, 197; burialat, 193; mapping, 11; populations at, 188, 189,190-191; seasonality, 175; unit configuration,111, 112, 128-129smallpox, 323Smithsonian Institution, 13, 235social organization: ascribed or achieved, 277; asenterprise, 264; band-to-tribe, 125;basketmaker-pueblo model, 120-125;contemporary multiplicity, 123; debt andrepayment, 274-275, 278-279, 336; dispersedresidency, 334; duality, 279-286, 289, 296-297;ecosystem model, 272-277, and energysubsidies, 273, 276; exchange and status, 275;hierarchical, 284, or stratified, 208, 253, and arotating sequential hierarchy, 280-286, 297;kinship and lineage, 260, 284, 288, 291-293, ofNavajo clans, 322; impetus for Navajo politics,323; labor size threshold, 334-335; ownershipand work, 340, 342; point of self-organizedcriticality, 336; population reduction, 244;ranked,125,245,254-255,267,272,277,333,336, and alternatives, 277, 338; reciprocity toredistribution, 121,274-275; risk pooling, 335;ritualistic power, 275-276; special activities,201, 215-216, 221-222; state model, 264;variability-to-homogeneity, 333, and paths tocomplexity, 338-339. See also leadershipSocorro Black-on-white pottery, 239Sofaer, Anna, 220, 222Soil Conservation Service, 8, 37, 58soils, 180-181, and vegetation, 38-41; alkaline, 128;identifying, 22, 25,26; the red paleosol, 28, 47.See also alluviationSolstice Project, 222South Gap community, 100, 129,288South House at Bis sa'ani, 257Southwest, American: horticultural adaptation, 331;regional perspective, 128, 264Southwest Archaeological Group (SARG), 13Southwest Paleoclimate Project, 52space (spatial) syntax analysis, 205, 292-293Spadefoot Toad Site listed, 360: artifacts, 17, 18,116; construction, 122, and discussion,138-141; era, 112, and seasonality, 191-192;kivas, 287; special activities, 214-215Spanish comparison, 268Spanish components, 303, 308, 309Spanish contact/encounters, 264, 301-302, 322, 323,325stairways, 257Stanford's J site, 70Stein, John R., and others, on public architecture,201, 242, 270; and others, on San Juan Riverfocus, 222, 241, 276, 279Sterling site, 247, 258,274Stevenson, Matilda Coxe, 292Steward, Julian H., 120, 125Stone, William G., et. al., 34, 35stone circles, 169, 361-362stone paving, 69, 70storage: threshold for initiating, 333-334, 343storage facilities: basket maker, 106, 111, 112, 120,121; c1iffshelter, 236; comparison of great/smallhouse, 196, 197, 199, 201, 204, 205, 273;

438 Chaco Project Synthesisheated rooms, 112; historic, 322; joined cists,112; McElmo structures, 279, 293; necessarycapacity, 179; outlier, 257; public, 252, 254;puebloan, 100, 138, 163,286-287; road-related,154; slab-lined, 63; threshold for initiating,333-334, 343Struever, Mollie, 16. See also Toll, Mollie S.Stuart, David E., 124-125, 131,244,283,296subsistence strategies: adaptive phases, 339-342;available resources, 334, 335, and decreasingdiversity, 336; broad spectrum, 62, 70, andconstraints, 331; changes, 121, 124, 242, andthreshold for storage, 333-334, 343, thresholdfor horticulture, 336, and factors fordomestication, 332, 336, 340; context for com,340; duality, 289; ecological zones, 333;historic patterns, 310, 322; household sizes,333,335; hunter-gatherer, 62, 64, 93, 114, 122,280, 332; intensification factors, 332; laborthreshold, 334-335, 336; land-sharing, 327-328;mixed foraging, 62; mobility threshold, 335,336; pastoralism, 338, 344; population packing335-339; pooling consumables, 335; a scaledmeasuring device for, 332; seasonal, 62, 63,seasonal sedentism, 120, sedentism, 338; systemstates, 332. See also agriculture; horticultureTainter, Joseph A., and David "A" Gillio, 282Talus Unit, 154, 157, 160-161, 198,225,270,351,355Teacapan site, 268Tewa comparisons, 280, 281, 285Threatening Rock, 26Three C Site, 97, 112, 118, 143,355Tietjens, Janet, 301Tohatchi Banded pottery, 129Tohatchi Flats, 261Toll, H. Wolcott, III, on ceramics, 17, 211, 212,215-218, 291, and with others on ceramics,116-117, 138, 141, 156, 157, 209-211, 215,238; on social systems, 277, 279, 281, 291, 293Toll, H. Wolcott, III, et. aI., on agriculture, 35, 36,58, 179Toll,MollieS., on com, 113, 125, 179-180,273,onpollen counts, 16,41, 113, 192,287; on woodspecies, 115Toll, Mollie S., and Anne C. Cully, 95Toltec empire, 268, 271tools: abraders, 118, 169; archaic, 68, 82, 84, 93;basketmaker,99, 115-116, 118; bone tools, 118,131; cached, 138; formal tools, 116; greenstoneaxe, 115; groundstone, 62, 63, 66-67,115,118,129, 141; hafting, 63; hammerstones, 115;preceramic, 62-63, 66; puebloan, 118, 129, 134.See also projectile pointstooth transfigurement, 268Totah region, 242, 243town life. See great houses and settlementTozzer, Alfred M., 235, 299trade: archaic, 69, 84, 95; basketmaker, 117, 121,124-125; Chaco as center, 201, 264, and itemsfrom Chaco, 269; exchange events, 285; formalexchange, 275; meat, 185; Mesa Verde phase,240; outlier network, 253-255, 257, 261;pochteca, 268, 271; threshold for exchange,338; trocadores, 268trade guilds, 268trading posts, 324-325Transwestern Pipeline Survey, 95trash deposit: great/small house compared, 154-157,174-175, 201, 204, 216; population estimatesand, 190, 191; shifts in places for trash, 276tree-ring data, for architectural events, 6, 16,97, 101,152, 157, 159, 163, 181, 199, 276, on Navajosites, 301, 309; for environmental reconstruction,52-53, 55, 119,273trocadores, 268Truell, Marcia L., excavations by, 106, 141, 236,240; on structures, 99, 111-112, 122, 134, 141,143, 174, 175, 196, 197-198, 208, 286, 287,and fauna,. 291, and interior decoration, 292,and offerings, 138, 218Trujillo phase Oshara, 63T-shaped doorways, 198, 256, 270Tsin Kletzin, 98, 169, 173,204Turkey House (Roberts's Small House), 235, 238,350turkeys, 114, 226, 235, 238Turner, Christy G., II, 268Turner, Christy G., II, and Jacqueline A. Turner,264, 268, 289turquoise, cached, 138, 165; ceramic design for, 291,and importance of, 290; sources for, 18; tradenetwork and products of, 134,214-215,267-278passimTusayan Black-on-white pottery, 12829Mc183 placement, 16929Mc186 placement, 16929Mc187 placement, 16929Mc261 kiva, 288

Index 43929Mc391 structure, 30929SJ116 listed, 358; mention, 7029SJ126 listed, 358; excavation, 7029SJ178 shelter, 51, 88-8929SJ299 listed, 358; discussed, 106, 111, 112, 114,12229S1352 great kiva, 10129S1389. See Pueblo Alto29SJ423 listed, 358: artifacts, 18, 114, 116, 117,118; excavation, 101, 106, 111; great kiva, 99,117,118,218; shrine, 16529SJ424 location, 10129SJ425 iocation, lOi29SJ457 great kiva, 10129SJ515 (Headquarters No.2), 226, 35629SJ550 situation, 4629SJ597 listed, 359; excavation, 1529SJ625 (Three C Site), 97, 112, 118, 143,35529SJ626 listed, 359; discussed, 15, 114, 21529SJ626 East, 14329SJ626 West, 14329SJ627 listed, 359: cache, 218; ceramics, 216;excavation, 16, 112, 129, 134-138; shape, 122;special rooms, 196, 197, 198, 215; use, 17529SJ628 listed, 358; discussed, 106, 111, 114, 11729SJ629. See Spadefoot Toad Site29SJ633 listed, 360: architecture, 141-143, 197,236,and detecting features, 12; burials, 238;ceramics, 239; chipped stone, 240; fauna, 236,23829SJ706 placement, 16929SJ721 listed, 359; discussed, 106, 112, 11829SJ724 listed, 359: compared, 106, 114, 122, anddiscussed, 106, 112, 113, 11829SJ101O (Poco Site), 171, 172,36029SJ1118 listed, 360; excavation, 69-7029SJ1156 (Atlatl Cave), 70, 78, 84-88, 35829SJ1157 (Dune sites), 70, 78, 84-88, 35829SJ1159 mention, 8429SJ1278 mention, 13129SJ1360pithouse, 112, 131-134, 141, 197,215,28729SJ1578 placement, 16929SJ1659. See Shabik'eshchee Village29SJ 1731 masonry, 18129SJ1741 location, 18129SJ1750 location, 18129SJl752 discharge rate, 18529SJ1912 (Lizard House), 198,226,231,35629SJ1971 (Gambler's Spring), 3529SJ1974 artifact, 16929SJ2384 listed, 350; photographed, 1029SJ2385 (Turkey House), 235, 238, 35029SJ2404 construction, 15229SJ2606 dates, 30929SJ2782 dates, 309Twin Angels Pueblo, 258Una Vida listed, 355, 360: as early, 121; excavation,15, 157, 160-163, 196, 199, 204; ceremonialroom, 219; great house, 288; workshop, 215;ceramics, 225; visibility, 165; water controlfeature, 173U. S. Geoiogicai Survey, 8, 31University of Arizona, 8, 48University of Colorado, 282University of New Mexico, 4,8, 14, 17, 18,303University of Oklahoma, 16Upper Kin Kliz.~in, 258uranium mining, 13; SJBRUS, 13,57,90,91,261Utah, 62, 116, 123, 296Ute encounters, 302, 309, 323Vierra, Bradley J., 68, 95-96Vierra, Carlos, 8Vincent, Kirk, 31, 34Vivian, R. Gordon, 8, 17, 69, 97, 129, 143, 169,171; and with Paul Reiter, 163Vivian, R. Gordon, and Tom W. Mathews, on earlysites, 98; on environments, 32, 128, fauna, 43,flora, 37; on a duality of distinct people, 6, 279,and site types, 100, 196, and McElmo style,205; summary of Chaco, 4, 127, 225, and achronology for Chaco, 231Vivian, R. Gwinn, on agriculture, 8, 35, 57, andwater control, 173-174, 181-182, 273, 289,292, and water needs, 185; on artifacts, 160; ondividing eras, 240, 262-264; on environment/culturalvariations, 93-94, 96, and regionaldivisions, 122-123, and distinct contemporarypeoples, 126,262,279-281,286,297,343; ona regional system, 282; on roads, 15, 245, 264;on subsistence shifts, 242, 243; on the Navajoand historic use of Chaco Canyon, 301-302,303,308,309,311,324,343Vizcarra, Jose Antonio, 323Voll, Charles B., 6, 181,219,231,291Walker, James W., 9Wallace site, 247, 274Wallerstein, Imanuel, 271

440 Chaco Project SynthesisWarburton, Miranda, 311Ware, John A., 283Ware, John A., and George J. Gumerman, 154, 171Warren, A. Helene, 17Warren, A. Helene, and Frances Joan Mathien, 270Washburn, Dorothy K., 256water, availability of: 22, 28, 31-36, 56, 119-120,127, 152, 154, and paleofauna, 93, and treegrowth, 46; drainage history, 24-31 ;precipitation (rainfall) patterns, 55, 273-279,285-289; sites and water, 99, 101, 185, 188,253, 262, 324, 325; and subsistence stress, 332water control features: in the canyon, 35, 37, 96,123, 127, 130, 152, 171, 173-174, 181, 273,276, 280, 289; homestead use, 301; locating,11, 21, 38, and dating, 182; Navajo use, 299,301; related sites' use, 252, 256, 263; Zuniarea, 96wealth, 336weather stations, 31, 32, 34websites for Chaco, 287, 369Weigand, Phil C., et. aI., 18Werito's Rincon, 35, 46, 48, 98, 106Werner, Oswald, 303West Mesa, 100, 101West Wing at Pueblo Alto, 143, 152Wetherill Black-on-white pottery, 236Wetherill homestead, 301, 303White Mound ceramics, 261White Mound-Kiatuthlanna variant, 122, 262White Mound phase, 111-112Wijiji, 182, 204, 205, 220, 226, 235, 258Wilcox, David R., on society and community, 215,216, 264, 282, and with others on sitedispersion, 296Williamson, Ray A., 222, 303Williamson, Ray A., et. aI., 220Wills, Wirt H., 115, 157, 174,216,269Wills, Wirt H., and Thomas C. Windes, 101, 120,121, 125Wilshusen, Richard H., and W. Derek Hamilton, 19Wilshusen, Richard H., and Scott G. Ortman, 123,125, 126, 286Wilson, J. P., 325Windes, Thomas C., at Pueblo Alto, 143-156, 174,181-182,292; at small sites, 15, 101, 106, 118,138-141; on ceramics, 14,219; on dating sites,17, 226; on obsidian, 18, 116; on populationestimates, 188-191, 204, 208, 241, 275, 276,288; on rainfall, 34, 53, 58, 177, and seepage,35, 185; on great houses, 281, later sites, 236,roads, 170, stone circles, 169Windes, Thomas C., and William Doleman, 190Windes, Thomas C., and Dabney Ford, 119, 199Windes, Thomas C., and Peter J. McKenna, 16, 112Windes, Thomas C., et. aI., 46, 165,236Windham, Michael D., 163Wingate Black-on-red pottery, 128, 129, 182,226Wingate B1ack-on-white pottery, 252Wingate Polychrome pottery, 235, 240Wiseman, Regge N., and J. Andrew Darling, 270Wolfman, Dan, 16world-system model, 271Yoder, Donna, 15Yoffee, Norman, 283York, Fred, 311, 324Young, Lisa c., 64, 68, 94,343Young, Richard, and Loren Potter, 42zambullida, 171Zeilik, Michael, 220, 221, 285, 291Zuni comparisons, 56, 96, 219, 243, 280, 292, 301Zuni glazeware pottery, 231Zuni Mountains, 1, 253G:l:)" u.s. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 2005-775-086

-----

Culture and Ecology of Chaco Canyon and the San Juan Basin

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?