Culture and Ecology of Chaco Canyon and the San Juan Basin

246 Chaco Project Synthesisrequire a cooperative effort and a preservationorientedplan. The PNM/SHPO-sponsored studyfocused on 1) a workable predictive model for outliersite location that would be useful for management; and2) nomination of outlying Chacoan sites to the federaland state lists of cultural properties (Loose 1979a:356). The major goal of NPS archaeologists was toexamine the relationship between the outliers andChaco Canyon (Judge 1976a). Judge's researchdesign specified the collection of data in order toevaluate time, space, environment, site morphology,and artifacts in an attempt to formulate and evaluatehypotheses to explain this phenomenon. He advocatedthe use of systems theory, an evolutionary approach,and a cultural ecology orientation (R. Powers et al.1983:5-6). Participants in both surveys addressedprotection and preservation goals that contributed tothe passage of Public Law 96-550 in 1980, which setaside 33 of the large pueblos as protected sites.Although there were several differences betweenthe PNM/SHPO (Marshall et al. 1979) and ChacoPr~ject (R. Powers et al. 1983) surveys, some datawere combined for analysis. Both studies focused onlarge pueblos. Marshall et al. (1979) assigned affiliations(Chacoan, Chuskan, or Mesa Verdean) to sites.The differences between Chacoan and Mesa Verdeandesignations correlated with time; those betweenChacoan and Chuskan denoted cultural differences.For Powers et al. (1983), the focus was on Chacorelatedsites and surrounding structures; ceramic typeswere designated as Cibolan. Loose (1979a:358) listedseveral criteria to define an outlier: 1) multi-bandedand cored masonry, large rooms, high ceilings, and aplanned appearance to the Chacoan structure; 2)Cibola-series ceramics; 3) Chaco-style kivas; 4) morethan 20 rooms, or an association with a prehistoricroad; and 5) a strategic location on one of the knownroad systems; and perhaps 6) a later McElmoappearance, if the structure is associated with Bonitophase roads. Powers et al. (1983) stressed the Chacocommunity, which included 1) a Chacoan structure(great house or great kiva); 2) proximity to a Chacoanroad; and 3) a number of small houses within the area.Dates assigned to ceramics by Marshall et al. (1979)differed slightly from those used by Powers et al.(1983:Figure 3), who followed Hayes's (1981)version based on the Pecos Classification (Figure 8.1).Powers et al. (1983) concentrated on the Chaco slope,while Marshall et al. (1979) focused on the southernperiphery of the San Juan Basin. Three areas (Bissa'ani, Peach Springs, and Pierre's site) were moreintensively surveyed by Powers et al. (1983), whoestablished a l-km radius from the Chacoan structureto define the area examined for the presence of PuebloII and Pueblo III sites. For these areas, a full set ofdata was recorded; other sites were only identified andlocated. Thus, early Basketmaker III and Pueblo Icommunities were less well documented, but theirpresence suggested long-term use of some areas, muchlike the data collected by Marshall et al. (1979).Research sponsored by PNM and the SHPO includeddata on 34 Chacoan, Chuskan, and Mesa Verdeangreat houses and/or communities (Marshall et al.1979). When reconnaissance and literature searchrevealed that there was a large number of outlyingcommunities, Powers et al. (1983:6) recognized thatit would be impossible to report on all of them, andthe sample for analysis was narrowed to 33 thatrepresented a Chacoan manifestation. These initialstudies provided a sufficient sample to suggest whenand how communities were organized through time.Recent studies (e.g., Gilpin 2003; Gilpin et al. 1996;Kantner 2003b; Van Dyke 1999) include sites notdocumented during these surveys; refinements inchronology and settlement patterns continue to bedistinguished among the great houses and communities(Kantner and Kintigh 2005).Based on these two early surveys, it was possibleto outline the development of communities. Marshallet al. (1979) indicated that clusters of small houses,some with great kivas, had Basketmaker III andPueblo I ceramics (A.D. 550 to 950). In thesecommunities there were no multi storied structures, noformal irrigation features, and no well-defined roads.The great kivas or single large houses within thecommunities were identified as community centers.As a result of their analysis, Marshall et al. (1979:338) proposed a new chronological sequence. BetweenA.D. 500 and 950, there were numeroussettlements consisting of traditional Basketmaker IIIand Pueblo I sites. Although communities existed,there was as no central control of the San Juan Basin.Between A.D. 950 and 1150, the classic Chacosettlements appeared. Small habitation sites aroundmulti storied buildings and great kivas were frequentlyconnected by formal roads. Other public works (irrigationcanals, dams, and reservoirs) were thought tosupport a system that incorporated extensive regional