Culture and Ecology of Chaco Canyon and the San Juan Basin

198 Chaco Project SynthesisPueblo Bonito. Nine are found along the south side,in an area from South Gap to the first large rincon tothe west (opposite Cly's Canyon). Relatively fewappear farther west or down canyon. Approximately14 are located in and around Fajada Butte, but they arespaced farther apart (Truell 1986:Figure 2.16). Noneof the sites had more than 30 to 35 rooms, but these-larger sites are comparable in size to Lizard House andTalus Unit No. 1.At this time, several unusual features appeared insmall house sites (Truell 1986:195-297). These includedoors exiting into nonplaza areas. Doors varyin shape, including T -shaped and corner doorways atBc 51. A colonnade was present at Bc 51; fivecolumns in Room 42 form the north wall. Whenoriginally built, they were not joined at the floor levellike those at Chetro Ketl. But like those at ChetroKetl, they were filled in at a later date.For rooms with floor features, those with adobeand/or slab-lined firepits tend to have larger floorareas, and a number of these rooms do not face theplaza. Mealing bins are present, usually in plazafacingrooms. Trough metates are now set in rows ofslab-lined bins; such bins are no longer associatedwith firepits or heating pits. Not all sites had mealingbins. Truell (1986:300) suggested the possibility of achange from multifunctional to unifunctional rooms.There is more diversity in room suite arrangements(TrueIl1986:300-301).Pit structures are closerto their associated room suites; sometimes roomssurround the pit structure-a characteristic seen ingreat house construction as well. At Lizard Houseand Bc 236, the ratio of rooms to pit structures islarger (ca. 9: 1 vs. 5 or 6: 1) and excavated floors hadslab-lined firepits. This contrasts with evidence fromother small and large sites. Bc 57 and Lizard Houseexhibit larger rooms, while Bc 51 has a less regularroom pattern and is the only site with a pit structurelocated west of a room block. Bc 51 seems like ananomaly; and Truell (1986:301) suggested that"typical" is a slightly elusive connotation for earlyA.D. 1100s site construction. What is apparent is thegreater variability in small house form and featuresduring this period.Prior to the late A.D. WOOs, there is noevidence of painting, incised designs, or coats ofwhite gypsite plaster in small house sites (Truell1986:188-189, 296). Building blocks with incisedlines (straight lines or hachure patterns) were recordedat Kiva 3 at Bc 50 (Brand et a1. 1937:78-79); Bc 57(Kiva C); Bc 59; Leyit Kin; and possibly LizardHouse. Wall murals in the late A.D. 1000s to earlyA.D. 1100s appear when pit structures becomemasonry-lined and have fewer, and less varying floorfeatures. Motifs range from a dado to intricate andvariable drawings. Examples are found in Kiva B atLeyit Kin (Dutton 1938:49), and in Kiva 5 and Kiva6 at Bc 51 (Kluckhohn 1939b:38-39). White plasterwas found in Kiva Eat 29SJ627 (Truell1992:99), andin kivas 2 and 4 at Bc 50 (Brand et a1. 1937:75-77,79; TrueIl1986:188-189).In summary, Truell's (1986:315) study of smallsite architecture indicates that prior to the mid-A.D.1000s there was more conformity in small site layoutand use. Deviations from the standard pattern becomeevident in the late A.D. lO00s and early 1100s, andthere is more variability in the A.D. 1100s. Thesimilarities between small houses and great houses arethought to represent a local shared culture rather thannonlocal (Mesoamerican) origins. Lizard House andTalus Unit No. 1 were considered intermediary insize, form, and construction.Great House Architecture. Data on architecturalform, masonry styles, ceramics, and availabledendrochronology for 12 great houses were compiledin an attempt to answer several questions about theconstruction techniques and the functions of theselarge structures, and the people who built them andtheir social organization (Lekson 1984a). Like Truell,Lekson concluded that the smallest of the greathouses-e.g., the Hillside ruin, as reported in Judd(1964: 146); the Headquarters site (Gordon Vivian andMathews 1965:81); and Talus Unit No.1 (Bannister1965: 194 )-were no larger than the largest of thesmall houses (Lekson 1984a:55). Division into sitesize may be an artifact of earlier analyses rather thanreflective of Pueblo practices, especially during theLate Bonito phase.Procurement of materials for construction involvedthe collection of local stone, clay, and water(estimates of 1,440 kg of stone, 463 kg of sand, and130 L of water for every m 3 of wall), as well as theimportation of more than 200,000 ponderosa, spruce,