Culture and Ecology of Chaco Canyon and the San Juan Basin

Chapter SevenThe Final Years (A.D. 1140 to 1300):Abandonments, Fluctuations, or Continuity?From the beginning of Chacoan studies, students have recognized a late development in the Chaco Canyonsequence that had Mesa Verde-like qualities .... They mentioned a "Montezuma Phase" but generallyregarded the post-Bonito occupation in Chaco Canyon as the result of immigration from the northern SanJuan, i.e., an earlier "McElmo Phase," augmented by new arrivals from Mesa Verde and/or the northernSan Juan. (McKenna ]991: 128)The Mesa Verde Phase in Chaco Canyon ... has been a controversial and inconsistently recognized periodof occupation. The turmoil surrounding the period, which can be generally assigned to the thirteenthcentury, stems from the lack of period-specific research in Chaco Canyon, poor definition leading toproblems of recognition, and, in no small part, the name "Mesa Verde" applied to phenomena in ChacoCanyon. As in most phase definitions, ceramics played a large role in defining not only the event but thecultural and historical implications for the phase. (McKenna 1991:127)Judd (1964) proposed an early, as well as a late,set of influences in Chaco Canyon from the San Juanarea. The evolution of carbon-painted ceramic waresis the basis for discussion of the "Mesa Verde"influence in Chaco Canyon. Carbon-painted ceramicsrecovered from Bc 50, Bc 51, and Talus Unit No.1and identified as McElmo Black-on-white werethought to appear between A.D. 1050 and 1150, andpossibly earlier in Chaco (Gordon Vivian andMathews 1965:83). About the same time, McElmostylemasonry characterized the construction of KinKletso, the Tri-Wall structure at Pueblo del Arroyo,Casa Chiquita, New Alto, and other sites in thecanyon where this pottery type was recovered. Thus,interaction between people living along the San JuanRiver and its tributaries and those in the central SanJuan Basin was recognized. Explaining the interaction,however, remained a challenge. Although sitecomponents we now assign to the Late Bonito phasecan be separated from those that belong to theMcElmo and the later Mesa Verde phases (seeWindes's revised chronological scheme in AppendixB: Figure B.1), this was not clear at the inception ofthe Chaco Project. Following a brief review of priorwork, survey, and excavations at one site, as well asthe ceramic analyses carried out by Chaco Projectarchaeologists, will be discussed within a broaderframework of information available today on Pueblouse of Chaco Canyon and the San Juan Basin duringthe thirteenth century.Past HistoryWhen Gordon Vivian and Mathews (1965:30)summarized knowledge about Chaco Canyon afterA.D. 1130, there was limited data on which to basetheir interpretation. Kidder (1924:57) had documentedMesa Verde pottery in Pueblo Bonito, whichsuggested reuse of this site during the late A.D.1200s. In conjunction with planned construction of anew park headquarters building, a small house unitand a four-room site were tested by Gordon Vivian in1950. Both sites contained Mesa Verde Black-onwhitesherds. Another small pueblo (29SJ589, or Bc236) had Mesa Verde pottery in the upper levels (Z.Bradley 1971). Similar pottery was recovered byGordon Vivian from Una Vida and in the upper levelsat a number of other small sites, but data often were----- ~-~---