Culture and Ecology of Chaco Canyon and the San Juan Basin

66 Chaco Project SynthesisTable 3.3. Archaic and unknown component types by survey area examined after additionallands were added to the park. aKin KinComponent Type Klizhin BineolaChaeraMesaSouthAdditionTotalsCommentsHearth2ooo2Baking pitLithic scatter4oo2o26OtherTotals...Q7...Qo.J.4o11UnknownLedge roomo24o6 Probably not ArchaiC, ? NavajoHearth468899 Possibly Anasazi, possibly ArchaicBaking pitWater controlo10119173133 Possibly Anasazi, possibly Archaic19 Probably not ? NavajoCist/storageLithic scatterRoad/trail.Rock artStair2oooo0000168542oo2o20 Possibly Anasazi, possibly Archaic8 Possibly Anasazi, possibly Archaic5 Not characteristic of Archaic7Other222o25Unknown-1-1i.J.Totals102529910344a Taken from Sebastian and Altschul (1986:Table SP.35).Shading covers components that probably are not Archaic.components were recorded; none were in the KinBineola or South Addition sections (Sebastian andAltschul 1986:Table SP.35). Hall (1977) exposednine charcoal deposits, two of which dated at around5500 B.C. and A.D. 5, while studying alluvial stratigraphyof the Chaco Wash. Hall (1975:Table la) alsodated a hearth (1-70916290.± 115; 5300-5500 B.C.)and a baking pit (1-7248, 2110.±. 85; 145 B.C.) in thecanyon to confirm the long occupation of the area byArchaic people. Thus, Hayes (1981) was cognizant ofthe effects of erosion and alluviation on the archaeologist'sability to discern site locations. He was notcertain that all Preceramic sites in the canyon had beenrecorded.Archaic evidence from the additions survey(Table 3.3), as defined by the presence of diagnosticprojectile points, ground stone (basin metates, onehandmanos), and an absence of ceramics, suggestedthat 75 percent of the components represented camps