Culture and Ecology of Chaco Canyon and the San Juan Basin

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