Culture and Ecology of Chaco Canyon and the San Juan Basin

324 Chaco Project SynthesisGeorge, Delgadito, and Bit'ahnii Ts'osf-were slowlyencompassed by Ed Sargent's holdings, and theirdescendants eventually abandoned some of their allotments.Stock reduction programs (to eliminateerosion), World War II, and mineral development onNavajo lands brought more pressure and change.In summary, Brugge's data confirmed andexpanded on Gwinn Vivian's (1960) earlier work. Hisresearch into the historic records and excavations atthe Doll House site provided considerably more detailthat indicated good correlation between the twodatabases. He also found that these data fit with theoral histories that were provided by current residentsof the area. Yet Brugge (1986: 148-160) presented anumber of ideas pertaining to demography, defense,economy, sociopolitical structure, religion, andclimate that needed more testing. A detailed understandingof how many decisions made about Navajoculture in distant places, and sufficient knowledgeabout what the Navajo were doing during the earlyyears were lacking. How Navajo arrived at decisionsthrough time, especially at an individual or clan level,remained a puzzle.Some of Brugge's questions were addressedduring the Chaco additions survey (see above). Basedon ethnohistoric data collected by Fred York, W.Powers (1989) outlined three major goals: 1) toevaluate and discuss Navajo and historic land ownershipand use and the effect of various events,legislation, policy, etc., on those uses; 2) to analyzesite usage and settlement patterns with regard tofencing, seasonal use, and subsistence practices thatoccurred; and 3) to identify site attributes that indicateseasonality and discriminatory factors in sites. BothYork and W. Powers realized that data from theadditional lands survey areas alone were insufficient toproperly address these issues; throughout her presentation,Powers relied on work by Bailey and Bailey(1986), Brugge (1981b, 1986), and K. Kelley (1982)for data to expand knowledge about family use of theChaco areas.York's data on the use of sites generally datedbetween 1920 and 1950. He focused on the peoplewho lived in the sites and the seasons of use. Powerswas more concerned with competition over land, notjust among different ethnic groups, but also among theNavajo themselves. What became evident were thenumerous interrelationships among families and clanswho used most of the sites for which data wasgathered. W. Powers, therefore, suggested thatintermarriage may have been a mechanism thatfurthered cooperation among groups and providedthem with a means to acquire resources.W. Powers suggested seasonal use of sites.Although no reasons were given for selection ofspecific locations for sites, availability of water wasthe reason for winter use of the entire Chacra Mesa.Summer residences were predominantly in ChacoCanyon, south of Chacra Mesa prior to fencing, andlater north in the Escavada drainage. In addition towinter residences for herding families, sites on ChacraMesa included trails; play hogans; locations of squawdances; and male and female sweat lodges associatedwith the largest Navajo family settlement-that ofNavajo George and his descendants and relatives. KinBineola was used in the spring; and Kin Klizhin wasused in both the spring and summer as an area wherefields were planted and herds were kept, predominantlyby 'Asdzaa Bilfilani and her descendantsand relatives. Spanish herders later used Kin Klizhinin the winters.Most information from informants dealt withsites on Chacra Mesa, and indicated that most familieswere related to each other, either by descent or bymarriage. Although there were a number of hoganson some sites, not all of them were used continuously.People using portions of Chacra Mesa often rebuilt inthe same location after a period of years. Thus,population may not be as high at anyone time asarchaeological data might suggest. Informants alsorecognized some circular structures as either chickenhouses or dog houses; these had been recorded asstorage rooms by the survey crews. Many hogans hadbeen lamb pens that had been roofed to prevent attackby coyotes rather than habitations. The major differencebetween the structures is that lamb pens do nothave east-facing entryways; size and location werealso more variable. Who built trails and who usedwater sources were established, but rights over wateruse were not ascertained.Data on which trading posts were used byseveral families was obtained. At some sites, thearticles obtained from trading posts were present;informants could describe how other large objects such