Culture and Ecology of Chaco Canyon and the San Juan Basin

Historic Period Studies 311Warburton (1988) examined artifacts in relationto features and structures to determine behavior inparticular areas of sites. This approach differed fromthat of Brugge (1981b, 1986), who looked at categoriesof artifacts across sites. In Warburton's study,7,700 artifacts from 281 sites were analyzed; 1,850were non-European sherds and lithics, and 5,850 wereEuro-American in origin. Because 1,400, or 24 percent,of the Euro-American artifacts were from onesite (29S12966), this material was discussedseparately; but when the results of the analysis ofmaterial from this site were compared with resultsfrom other sites, trends observed in each were thesame. Such results added weight to conclusionsreached during the analysis of sites with fewer than 20artifacts and sites with more than 20 artifacts.Warburton's three major conclusions were: 1)site date is significant; 2) feature function is notsignificant, a conclusion that differed from K. Kelley'S(1982); and 3) "site function does not determineartifact assemblage composition, but assemblage sizeand variability may correlate with site type." The goalof correlating particular artifact assemblages withspecific ethnic groups was difficult to achieve becausesome of the artifacts were more time-specific thanculture-specific. What Warburton did determine isthat there was an increase in artifacts on sites throughtime. The change in the composition of artifactassemblages over time was not as clear as hoped.Overall, her study supported the work of Gleichman(1986), K. Kelley (1982), and Brugge (1986) regardingthe historic settlement of the Chaco area.In summary, survey data improved through time.The initial analysis by Brugge provided a frameworkfor site types and periods that was expanded throughhis more intensive survey and the additional landssurvey. Most of Brugge's conclusions were supported;e.g., those regarding historic Navajo economyand land use, as well as population trends. Additionally,the earliest Navajo settlements were on theeastern end of the canyon, and there was slowmovement toward the west. Figures 10.8 through10.15 represent a graphic view of this movement fromthe 1600s until recent times. Although these maps arebased on chronological divisions in the NMCRISsystem and do not reflect the divisions presented inany of the reports listed above, they provide a generalpicture of change in habitation sites and camps, andillustrate movements of people through time.Ethnohistoric data gathered by Brugge during theextended survey, by York (and reported by W. Powers1989) during the additional lands survey, and by otherinvestigators such as K. Kelley (1982) providecomprehensive information on changes in site use byseveral Navajo families through time. Nav~o reactionsto the use of land by Spanish-Americanherders, the Sargent Ranch, and federal regulations arereflected in the archaeological record.ExcavationOne historic site was excavated. This multicomponentNavajo site, located on a bluff on the southside of Chaco Canyon, was named the Doll House site(Brugge 1986). The assigned number, Bl, includesNPS inventory survey numbers 29SJl613, 29S11637,29S11639, and 29SJ1644; George Buckingham'Sunpublished 1968 survey numbers Bc 386, Bc 387,and Bc 388; Gwinn Vivian's (1960) CM 23; andprobably one of the sites in Malcolm's (1940) survey(Brugge 1986:88-89). It is located in a sparse piiionjuniperwoodland, but the surrounding area containsa diversity of plants in a varied environment (Figure10.16). Water is available in three nearby springs,and crops could be grown near the mouth of the twoside canyons that border the bluff. Local vegetationwould provide food for grazing and browsing animals.This multicomponent site was chosen forexcavation because it would provide data on intrasiterelationships and would permit an evaluation oflongtermoccupational shifts to more transitory uses.Brugge was interested in four Navajo issues: 1)flexibility and adaptability to natural resources,technology, and other people; 2) levels ofsociopolitical organization; 3) how challenges fromthe natural environment, such as disease, were met;and 4) the effects of inter-ethnic relations.Based on archaeological data available prior toexcavation, features at the Doll House site (Figure10.17) were thought to cluster into four periods:those about 50 years old (cluster IV); 150 years old(cluster III); 200 years old (cluster I); or 250 years old(cluster II). Brugge did not see a break in timebetween clusters; he thought each cluster mightrepresent use by an extended family of differentgenerations, probably related through the female line.