Culture and Ecology of Chaco Canyon and the San Juan Basin

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).