Culture and Ecology of Chaco Canyon and the San Juan Basin

The Classic Adaptation 215chalcedonic silicified wood drills (Cameron 1997b;Lekson 1997) support that determination in severalinstances. Although turquoise was imported fromoutside the San Juan Basin as early as Basketmaker III,the largest number of pieces are recovered in Bonitophase proveniences, and particularly from PuebloBonito (Mathien 1981a, 1997b). The evidence fromworkshops suggests that some individuals or familiesat a number of sites participated in the manufacture ofjewelry items. Between A.D. 920 and 1020, workshopareas existed at 29S11360 (McKenna 1984);29SJ629 (Windes 1993); Pueblo Alto (29SJ389;Windes 1987); Kin Nahasbas (Mathien and Windes1988); and possibly at 29SJ626 (Windes 1993d). Atthis time, many new forms of jewelry were also introduced(e.g., buttons, rings, unusual shell pendants);and the amount of labor invested tended to be greater(Mathien 1997: 1162). Tne material recovered from aremodeled room in the house at 29SJ629 suggests thatthis may have been a tradition passed down throughthe family (Mathien 2oo1b). The presence of twowomen with children in the pit structure at 29S11360suggests that perhaps an extended family participatedin this occupation. Whether or not this was a full-timespecialization has not been determined. During theClassic Bonito phase (A.D. 1040 to 1100), more materials(e.g., selenite) were made into unusual shapes.During the Late Bonito phase (A.D. 1100 to 1140),indications of jewelry-making are present in Room 23at Una Vida, Pueblo del Arroyo, Kin Kletso, Bc 51,and Bc 59. However, the lack of details for theseprior excavations makes it difficult to determine whowas doing the work and where.Summary. During the entire Bonito phase,inhabitants of Chaco Canyon were importing highnumbers of ceramics and lithics-overall more so thanat previous or later times. Similarly, higher numbersare evident for timbers used as roof beams (Dean andWarren 1983; Windes and McKenna 2001), turquoise,and shell (Mathien 1997). Sometime around A.D.1050, macaws (Hargrave 1970; Judd 1954) and copperbells (Judd 1954; Sprague 1964; Sprague and Signori1963; Vargas 1995) appear, but they are many fewerin number and their appearance tends to be limited togreat houses, especially Pueblo Bonito (Mathien2oo3a).The level of craft specialization was probablylow. H. Toll (1985; H. Toll and McKenna 1997)acknowledged the probability that there were someceramic specialists, some hunting specialists (Akins1982a, 1982b), and some jewelry-making specialists(Mathien 1984a), and possibly a few administrativespecialists, based on the analysis of grave goods(Akins 1986; Akins and Schelberg 1984), but hedoubted that there was sufficient wealth to create acoercive power base, as proposed by Sebastian(1992b) and Wilcox (1993). Some probability of taskdifferentiation, especially for food preparation, as evidencedby the presence of milling areas at 29S11360(McKenna 1984:257), 29SJ627 (Truell 1992),29SJ629 (Windes 1993), and Pueblo Alto (29SJ389;Windes 1987) is also proposed (Mathien 1997: 1227).Although the large number of imports indicatesincreased interactions with neighbors in the San JuanBasin and beyond and does not necessarily imply fulltimecraft specialization, the consumption patterns dosuggest differences between the use of these materialsat great houses and small house sites. The greatwealth of objects recovered from Pueblo Bonito (Judd1954; Pepper 1920), plus the unusual black-and-whitenecklaces in the great kiva at Chetro Ketl (Hewett1936) and the painted wooden artifacts recovered froma rear room at this site (Gwinn Vivian et al. 1978) aredefinitely more spectacular that items recovered fromBc sites located across the wash (Brand et al. 1937;Dutton 1938; Kluckhohn and Reiter 1939) or the smallsites excavated during the Chaco Project.H. Toll and McKenna (1997:144-149) wereaware that comparing the percentages of materialsused at small houses and great houses is difficultbecause of the poor provenience dating for earlierexcavations, and the fact that the one great houseexcavated by the Chaco Project, Pueblo Alto, is notexactly contemporaneous with the small house sitesuncovered in this project. Although their comparisonsof imported ceramics through time (H. Toll andMcKenna 1997 : Table 2.66) indicated a similar overallmaximum import percentage, the variations in specificwares did suggest some differences. These may bedue, in part, to the changes in types imported throughtime and the short intervals of overlap between PuebloAlto and the small sites with which it was compared.In contrast, the estimates for ceramicconsumption at the excavated sites indicated that thevolume consumed at Pueblo Alto was considerably