Culture and Ecology of Chaco Canyon and the San Juan Basin
Culture and Ecology of Chaco Canyon and the San Juan Basin
Culture and Ecology of Chaco Canyon and the San Juan Basin
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
The Classic Adaptation 205in <strong>and</strong> around Pueblo Bonito suggest <strong>the</strong> presence <strong>of</strong>an increasingly larger central settlement (PuebloBonito, Chetro Ketl, Pueblo del Arroyo, <strong>and</strong> surroundingsites). Lekson (1984a, 1988a) attributed thisto a formalization <strong>of</strong> a regional network that includedo<strong>the</strong>r communities located throughout <strong>the</strong> <strong>San</strong> <strong>Juan</strong><strong>Basin</strong>. Thus, <strong>the</strong> system would have reached its peakin <strong>the</strong> early A.D. l100s, <strong>and</strong> could have drawn onpeople living outside <strong>the</strong> canyon for seasonal labor.The McElmo Style. The change in masonrystyle <strong>and</strong> type <strong>of</strong> s<strong>and</strong>stone, as well as floor plan,attributed to <strong>the</strong> McEimo styie needed fur<strong>the</strong>revaluation. Judd (1927b) did not include <strong>the</strong> McElmostyle in his categories <strong>of</strong> masonry types, but Hawley(1938) did (her no. 8)(see Figure 6.2). GordonVivian <strong>and</strong> Ma<strong>the</strong>ws (1965) suggested <strong>the</strong> McElmostyle bega..~ around i\.D. 1050 <strong>and</strong> lasted throughA.D. 1124 or later, <strong>and</strong> was representative <strong>of</strong> aninflux <strong>of</strong> nor<strong>the</strong>rn people into <strong>the</strong> canyon. Lekson(1984a) dated Judd's types III <strong>and</strong> IV <strong>and</strong> Hawley'stypes 6, 7, <strong>and</strong> 9 to <strong>the</strong> period from A.D. 1050 to1115. All are considered <strong>the</strong> products <strong>of</strong> skilledmasons. Lekson (1984a:267-268) concluded that <strong>the</strong>masonry style <strong>and</strong> ground plan <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> structures, plus<strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> carbon-painted ceramics, correlate best withtime, ra<strong>the</strong>r than <strong>the</strong> migration <strong>of</strong> nor<strong>the</strong>rners into <strong>the</strong>canyon. Not only are multi storied structures withround rooms enclosed within <strong>the</strong> room block early in<strong>Chaco</strong> <strong>Canyon</strong>, but <strong>the</strong> ground plan is not typical in<strong>the</strong> Mesa Verde area. When found in <strong>the</strong> north, it is<strong>of</strong>ten thought to come from <strong>the</strong> south. The use <strong>of</strong>different s<strong>and</strong>stones in construction is attributed to <strong>the</strong>availability <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> resource in specific areas <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>canyon. The McElmo masonry style found in <strong>the</strong>central canyon at Kin Kletso, Casa Chiquita, <strong>and</strong> NewAlto probably represents <strong>the</strong> exhaustion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> darkbrowns<strong>and</strong>stone outcrops in this area, whereas <strong>the</strong>Bonito style at Wijiji far<strong>the</strong>r east persists because thisoutcrop had not been exhausted by earlier great houseconstruction in this area.The function <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> McElmo units was evaluated(Lekson 1984a). The size, shape, <strong>and</strong> placement <strong>of</strong>rooms in <strong>the</strong> Bonito <strong>and</strong> McElmo room blocks aremore important than <strong>the</strong> differences in building material<strong>and</strong> masonry style. Suites <strong>and</strong> room blocksslowly evolve from a set <strong>of</strong> paired small rooms behindlarge rectangular rooms (similar to those at contemporarysmall house sites, but larger) to linear suitessurrounded by many almost-square small rooms <strong>of</strong> asimilar size. Lekson <strong>and</strong> Judge (1978) proposed that<strong>the</strong>se sites may have been used primarily for storage,with only a few people in residence as a caretakerpopUlation; yet even an unusually large crop <strong>of</strong> comcould have been stored in two back rooms at ChetroKetl.Overall, <strong>the</strong> form <strong>and</strong> function <strong>of</strong> rooms(determined by size <strong>and</strong> features) at great housesindicate both stability <strong>and</strong> change through time.Rectangular rear rooms tend to be featureless <strong>and</strong>average 12 m 2 in size. They are thought to representa storage function (Lekson 1984a:41-42) <strong>and</strong> are anexample <strong>of</strong> stability through time. They are frontedby much larger rooms (Windes's [1987] big-roomsuites) during <strong>the</strong> A.D. WOOs. By A.D. 1060, <strong>the</strong>earlier paired room suites (two smaller rooms frontedby one or two larger rooms) begin to be replaced by aset <strong>of</strong> linear rooms, with room size decreasing fromfront to back (Lekson 1984a:62). Between A.D. 900<strong>and</strong> 1100, <strong>the</strong> average size <strong>of</strong> front rooms decreasedfrom 45 m 2 to 10 m 2 •More recent investigators have used space syntaxanalysis to confirm a trend toward increased specializationin both small sites <strong>and</strong> great houses aroundA.D. 1050. Not only are <strong>the</strong>re differences in <strong>the</strong> use<strong>of</strong>space within small sites, but by A.D. 1100 it is alsoapparent between small sites (Bustard 1996, 1999).Bustard (1995, 1999) <strong>and</strong> Cooper (1995, 1997)document similar changes in great houses; e.g., <strong>the</strong>lack <strong>of</strong> household patterning, <strong>and</strong> increased spatialsegregation. Cooper (1995) also noted differencesbetween Aztec West <strong>and</strong> Salmon (both in <strong>the</strong> north, or<strong>San</strong> <strong>Juan</strong> River, area) vs. <strong>Chaco</strong> <strong>Canyon</strong> great houses.However, nei<strong>the</strong>r could determine <strong>the</strong> exact function<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> great houses.Unusual Features. Unusual architectural featuresthat occur, <strong>of</strong>ten at two or more great house sitesbut not in all, include masonry piers, buttressing,filled rooms, use <strong>of</strong> natural features, ramadas <strong>and</strong>portals, balconies, stairs, <strong>and</strong> room-wide platforms(Table 6.8). Some features may be time-related. Theappearance <strong>of</strong> ramadas <strong>and</strong> portals is common in <strong>the</strong>early great house sites; e.g., at Pueblo Bonito (Room3, Judd 1964:95; Pepper 1920:7). The use <strong>of</strong> masonrypiers as ro<strong>of</strong> supports in great kivas (e.g., Room308 in Pueblo Bonito [Judd 1964:96], rooms 117 <strong>and</strong>