Culture and Ecology of Chaco Canyon and the San Juan Basin

68 Chaco Project SynthesisTable 3.5. Projectile points assigned to the Archaic period from four areas added to the park.Point classification Site type Material typeClear identification:Reworked Jay point 105, near 29SJ2430, Kin Klizhin BasaltBajada point 29Mc465, deflated dune area on Chacra Mesa Unknown nonlocal chertBajada point 29SJ2842, upper south bench of Chacra Mesa BasaltSan Jose point 29SJ2861, lithic scatter I, on Chacra Mesa ObsidianSan Jose point 29SJ2846, lithic scatter 2, on Chacra Mesa Fossiliferous chert (type 1010)Problematic identification:Middle Archaic, possibly San 29SJ2843, lithic concentration 2, on Chacra Mesa ObsidianJoseLate Archaic 29SJ2890, refuse scatter I, on Chacra Mesa Light-colored splintery wood with quartz crystalsIndeterminate Archaic 29SJ2847, lithic scatter I, on Chacra Mesa ChertLate Archaic or BasketmakerTotal 9 points29MC412, surfaceObsidianant Archaic chert point and one obsidian Late Archaicor Basketmaker point were also found on ChacraMesa, either along the ridge or near the ledge of themesa. One other point made from a light-coloredsplintery wood with quartz crystals in Late Archaicstyle was recovered. Several were of problematicalidentification (Table 3.5; Cameron and Young 1986:Plates 2 and 3).Unclassified lithic sites (Judge 1972; Sebastianand Altschul 1986:92-93) posed a problem. Although344 unknown components were recorded during theadditional lands survey, Sebastian and Altschul werenot able to infer what percentage may have beenArchaic, due to the nature of the data available. Basedon the comments in the column of Table 3.3 and thestatements of Sebastian and Altschul, the shaded areasin that table indicate components that probably shouldnot be considered because 1) no clearly determinedArchaic components were located in the Kin Bineolaand South Addition, and 2) several component typesdid not fit the Archaic pattern. Because Chacra Mesacontained 95 percent of the other/unknown lithics, aswell as most Archaic sites, Young evaluated the lithicsfrom identified Archaic, Anasazi, and Navajo sites inorder to properly assign the other/unknown site typematerials. She determined that the Archaic assemblageswere distinct: there were fewer utilized orretouched pieces and more projectile points. Theother/unknown assemblages closely resembled theAnasazi pattern (Cameron and Young 1986:44-45).Although the number of projectile points of basalt andobsidian, as well as non-local chert, listed in Table 3.5suggest the importation of material types, Cameronand Young (1986:29) indicate that only about 3percent of all the lithic raw materials were nonlocal.Similar figures for Navltio (8 percent) and Anasazi (5percent) suggested heavy reliance on locally availablematerial types, but reduction strategies among thesecultural groups differed. Archaic sites had a higherpercentage ofbiface thinning flakes (3 percent) versusthe Anasazi (1 percent) and Navajo (1.2 percent). Theformal-to-informal tool ratios were higher for theArchaic than for later sites (Cameron and Young1986:36-38, 52). Simmons (1982) also was able todistinguish Archaic from later tool assemblages usingdata from the surveys in the Alemita Coal Lease area.More recently, Vierra (1994) was able to distinguishbetween lithic debris assigned to aceramic, Archaic,and ceramic period sites by evaluating material types,