Culture and Ecology of Chaco Canyon and the San Juan Basin

--_._-- -------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