Culture and Ecology of Chaco Canyon and the San Juan Basin

~-~--------~- ~--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).