Culture and Ecology of Chaco Canyon and the San Juan Basin

310 Chaco Project SynthesisHistoric sites were assigned to 21 functionallydistinct types (two types of habitation sites, six typesof temporary camps, and 13 other types) that weredescribed in detail. To test her site typology,Gleichman then classified most of the sites into fivemajor types: two types of habitation sites (multiplehabitationand single-habitation sites) and threetemporary camp classifications (temporary shelters,stock-holding facilities, and isolated ovens andhearths). The number of unidentified structures,ceramic scatters, and Euro-American refuse sites,which would also be representative of temporarycamps, were too few to be included. It was assumedthat these site types would have been distinguished bylength of stay. Using the number and variety ofartifacts that made up assemblage size and variability,plus the presence of heavier objects and the number offeatures at a site, several tests were conducted to determineif these five site types were distinct. The testsgenerally supported the typology, and Gleichman wasable to conclude that the sites were functionaUy, asweU as morphologically, distinct. The greatest similaritywas between single-habitation sites andtemporary camps, rather than between singlehabitationand multiple-habitation sites; she attributedthis to the similarities in length of stay, even thoughthe single-habitation sites contained structures similarto those at multiple-habitation sites.Gleichman 's analysis of settlement was less clearcut, in part because data from the arbitrarily definedfour Chaco additions were too limited to include thefull range of land use by anyone Navajo family overtime. The archaeological data suggested someseasonal use of all four areas in both winter andsummer. Although the ethnohistorical data verifiedthis interpretation, the issue of how to relatearchaeological data to models remained unresolved.To analyze economic change through time,Gleichman (1987) used the land stratification presentedby A. Cully and Toll (1986) to evaluatewhether locations of habitation sites in the fouradditions reflected changes in subsistence patternsduring the 1700-1863, 1868-1930, and 1930-1980periods. Only from 1868 to 1930 did the highestpercentages of land with good grazing and waterresources correlate with the number of sites withhabitations, primarily on Chacra Mesa. From 1700 to1863, when the Navajo were thought to havedepended most heavily on agricultural production,Chacra Mesa also had the largest number of habitationsites, even though the South addition would have hadthe greatest amount of land with high agriculturalpotential. Gleichman thought that either a boundaryproblem (the Chacra Mesa addition is very close to theChaco Wash) or the variables considered wereinadequate for the type of testing that was beingcarried out. In this instance, proximity to the ChacoWash may have been more important. Based on hertest of the effects of distance from habitation sites tokey resources, the latter explanation is probably morerelevant. She concluded that no single factor wasmost important. Changes in site locations on theChacra Mesa addition suggest that the archaeologicaldata support the ethnohistorical record.Evaluation of demographic change is fraughtwith difficulties, especially when most sites are notwell dated. Gleichman (1987) reviewed previouspopulation reconstructions, discussed the problemsinherent in using either carrying capacity of the landor the average family size per habitation structure, andprovided some estimates of population size prior to thePre-Bosque Redondo period (1700 to 1863). Hercalculations suggest a slight drop in population onChacra Mesa after 1800, but the data did not providea clear indication of population changes after the late17OOs.Gleichman's analysis supported the earlier workof Brugge regarding historic Navajo economy and landuse, as well as popUlation trends. Dating of sites stillremains a problem. Gleichman's analysis also benefitedfrom research conducted outside of ChacoCulture National Historical Park by K. Kelley (1982)and by Bailey and Bailey (1986). In contrast to earlierstudies, however, Gleichman's analysis indicated thatthe size of family herds remained the same both preandpost-1930, when the livestock-reduction programtook effect. She attributed this discrepancy to thepreservation of corrals, the key variable in her analysisof number of livestock present at anyone time. Herdiscussions of assumptions, methods, and explanationsfor the results obtained, especially when evaluatinglocalities restricted by modem boundaries rather thanuse areas of the people who lived there, are apropos tonot just this research but also to all survey areas whereboundaries are arbitrarily imposed on the landscapewithout regard to use by the people under study.