Culture and Ecology of Chaco Canyon and the San Juan Basin

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.