Culture and Ecology of Chaco Canyon and the San Juan Basin

The Classic Adaptation 195e.g., a difference in stature (Akins 1986:Table 6.2).On the average, both males and females from thenorthen section of Pueblo Bonito were 4.6 cm tallerthan contemporaries at small sites. Those from thewestern section fell between those from the northernrooms and the small-site populations. Akins (1986:137) noted that in addition to stature, lower infantmortality and better overall general condition of thePueblo Bonito popUlations suggest some dietary andhealth differences among these populations.Palkovich (1984) compared human remains fromJudd's western burial cluster (romus 320, 326, 329,and 330, n = 12) with a burial sample from other smallsites in Chaco Canyon (Bc 51, n=57; Bc 53, n=20;and Bc 59, n=73), as well as Kin Neole (in the KinBineola community, n=68). Based on modem lifetables, Pueblo Bonito had ll..fl underrepresentation ofinfants and children (Palkovich 1984: 107). Within thecanyon, there were no significant differences in theage profile between Pueblo Bonito and the small sites(Palkovich 1984:Table 1). At Kin Neole, however,there was an abundance of infants and children.Females were recovered nearly twice as often as malesat Pueblo Bonito, Bc 59, and Kin Neole (Akins 1986).The presence of more infants and children in the KinNeole population might indicate that more familieslived year-round in outlying communities, with perhapsonly scheduled trips to the center that may havebeen maintained by a small resident population.Craniometric studies by Akins (1986) indicatedthere were two distinct genetic groups buried inPueblo Bonito; her work has been confirmed recentlyby Schillaci (2003; Schillaci et al. 2001). The burialpopulations in the northern section (rooms 32, 33, 53,and 56) and the western section (rooms 320,326,329,and 330) contained both males and females in theirclusters. Because the males and females in eachcluster are most closely related to their burial group,they probably represent members of the same lineage.The presence of two groups suggests the possibility oflong-term use of this site by more than one descentgroup, and might explain the architectural differencespresent in the earliest phase of construction (Lekson1984a; Windes and D. Ford 1996).Results of these studies hinted at possiblerelationships with people in other sites in ChacoCanyon and the larger Anasazi area through time; butlarger samples are needed to support the interpretations.In her initial small sample, Akins(1986:70-75) compared cranial measurements fromskeletal remains from Pueblo Bonito with those fromother canyon sites: two from Pueblo del Arroyo; sixfrom two small sites in Fajada Gap area (four from29S1299, and two from 29SJ1360); and five from Bc59 (a small house site located across the Chaco Washfrom Pueblo Bonito). Those from the western groupat Pueblo Bonito were most closely linked to theburials from Bc 59, while those from the northerngroup were most closely linked to the Fajada Gapsites. Thus, Pueblo Bonito may have functioned as aburial repository for two lineages living in smallhouses in different areas of the canyon. Given thelocation of the sites included in Akins's study, theseties were not necessarily between small sites and theirclosest great house. Schillaci (2003; Schillaci et al.2001) linked the remains in Pueblo Bonito to laterPueblo III and Pueblo IV burial populations with sitesin the Hopi-Zuni area and the Rio Grande, thusproviding evidence for continuity in ties betweenhistoric and prehistoric Pueblo peoples.In summary, the popUlation living in ChacoCanyon during the Classic Bonito phase may havebeen much smaller than earlier estimates suggest. Ifthe lower numbers are accurate, it is more likely thatthey could have grown sufficient crops to sustainthemselves in all but major drought periods. However,their high-carbohydrate diet, which is similar tothat of populations across the Colorado Plateau, wasnot necessarily healthful. Nutritional stress affectedeveryone, but those in Pueblo Bonito had some advantagesover those in small sites, as well as those inseveral other sites within the larger region for whichcomparable data is available. Although the differencesbetween the two burial popUlations in Pueblo Bonitohave been attributed to differences in rank (Akins1986; Akins and Schelberg 1984), we cannot rule outgenetic differences to account for the 2 cm differencein stature between lineages in Pueblo Bonito andbetween Pueblo Bonito and the small house sites. Ifhints of relationships between popUlations in greathouses and small house sites in Akins's (1986)craniometric analysis prove correct, we need to reevaluatethe differences in stature that she thoughtmight represent ranking among social groups.