Culture and Ecology of Chaco Canyon and the San Juan Basin

Related Communities 261possibility of more local control. This weakening oflinks led Irwin-Williams (1980b:2oo) to question theeffectiveness of outliers as buffers in a Chacoansystem. She found no locations for local redistributioncenters, and the ceramics along the GreatNorth Road did not support trade items from Salmonbeing imported to Chaco Canyon; rather, data suggestedthat more Chacoan ceramics were moving fromthe canyon toward Salmon. The presence of WhiteMountain and Chuskan ceramics during the Chacoperiod linked Salmon to other areas as well. Thecontinued use of White Mountain ceramics after theChaco period led Ir"lvin-WilliaIl"&8 to suggest that therewere well-defined regions incorporated into the Chacosystem and that these regions had multiple links withone another.The ceramic analysis by Franklin (1980) indicatedthat a much smaller population probably usedthe site during the Intermediate period from the mid­A.D. 1100s until around A.D. 1186. Recurringdrought and population decline between A.D. 1130and 1185 were thought to have led to the reversion ofthe nucleated Chaco system to an aggregated systemseen during the Mesa Verde period. Overall, Irwin­Williams thought the stress-adaptive model wasconfirmed.In summary, studies at these three communitiesdid not support the redistribution model proposed byJudge (1979). The Guadalupe community wasestablished early, so its trajectory paralleled to someextent that of Chaco Canyon. Yet, it did not have asmany luxury items, and the timing and use of somefaunal remains seemed to follow a trend establishedearlier in the canyon (Roler 1999). The Bis sa'anicommunity was established late; it probably couldhave supported a local population but would not havehad much in the way of food or goods to contribute toinhabitants in the canyon. Because the communityexisted during the wettest period in the Chacoanflorescence, would agricultural products have beenneeded? Or is this community part of the cooperativeChaco subregion, as Marshall et al. (1979) propose?Salmon ruin had one great kiva and a tower kiva; theformer was thought to represent an integrative structurefor the community that exhibited two distinctartifact distributions-one Cibolan (found in the towerkiva and surrounding rooms), and one local. Theburial of one man toward the end of Chacoan use ofthe site suggested that he may have been a bow priest,so Irwin-WIlliams (1980b) suggested the possibility ofa Chacoan religious leadership that was similar to thatof the Historic Pueblos in which the individual is notmaterially distinct from the local group.San Juan Basin PerspectivesTo understand the variation in settlement patternsand locations, Gillespie and Powers (1983) used datacoded in the San Juan Basin Regional Uranium Studydatabase to review sites in 18 subregional zones.They found several general trends L'1 both the numbersand the elevations of sites from Basketmaker III (A. D.500-750) through Pueblo I (A.D. 750-900), Pueblo II(A.D. 900-1100), and Pueblo III (A.D. 1100-1300).Although there were a number of caveats regarding thedatabase, these investigators thought that changeswould reflect general adaptations to local conditions.Assuming that the number of sites reflectedchange in demographics, by Basketmaker III, 80 percentof the sites were located in three majorregions-the Chuska Valley, Chaco Canyon, and alongthe Rio Puerco of the east. Elevation zones for thesethree areas ranged from 1,646 to 1,829 m (5,400 to6,000 ft), and from 1,928 to 2,012 m (6,000 to 6,600ft). The climate during Basketmaker III and Pueblo Iwas thought to be variable and marked by wet and dryperiods, with gradually warming temperatures andincreased summer precipitation. By Pueblo I, thenumber of sites in eight of the subregions began toincrease. In the Chuska Valley, the percentage of sitesin the 1,646 to 1,829 m zone decreased, but the siteswere coalescing into communities located primarily inmiddle drainage systems between the Chuska Mountainsand the Chaco River, where ephemeral streamslost most of their runoff. Thus, moisture would havebeen concentrated in areas where the danger offreezing was minimal and the areas were optimal forfloodwater farming. A similar situation existed alongthe northern edge of Lobo Mesa. In Chaco Canyon,at Tohatchi Flats, and on the Lobo Mesa flanks, wherethe elevations ranged from 1,829 to 2,195 m (6,000 to7,200 ft), a number of settlements would have theadvantage of short distances to resources (e. g., thepiiion-juniper woodlands and the grass-shrublands, aswell as alluvial areas). Here, agricultural productsand hunting and gathering resources would have beeneasily available. These locations included commu-