vernacular architecture in the chacoan world
TRANSCRIPT
9 Vernacular architecture in the Chacoan world
Kellam Throgmorton
During the Chacoan period (850–1140 CE ) in the northern U.S. Southwest, Ancient Pueblo people built some of the largest masonry structures in North America ( Figure 9.1 ). Yet the impressive edifi ces of these “great houses” over-shadow the much more modest majority of Ancient Pueblo houses – the “small houses” ( Figure 9.2 ). Small houses are the vernacular housing tradition during the Chacoan period. Given the vast scale of Ancient Pueblo settlement across the northern Southwest, it is not surprising that vernacular housing exhibits a great deal of diversity in design and construction. Such diversity was expressed, in part, through three materials – adobe, wood, and stone – which house build-ers combined in varying ratios and constructed into a multitude of architectural styles.
In this chapter, I examine these varied vernacular architecture traditions and underscore how such variations were part and parcel of social differences throughout the Chacoan world. In particular, I highlight the ways in which vernacular architecture traditions stem from two major factors: (1) the entan-glement of Ancient Pueblo people with the Chacoan landscape, which was mediated by relations between households and social groups; and (2) the cul-tural differences between groups from distinct communities of architectural practice that had their own traditions and styles of house construction. This examination of vernacular architecture broadens our perspective of Chacoan society by emphasizing that social relationships emerged through the com-plex entanglements of settlement impermanence (or persistence), architecture, and people. In particular, it highlights the uneven connections peoples had to the social, economic, and ritual practices that revolved around Chacoan great houses.
Chacoan vernacular architecture (small house) did not exist in isolation from Chacoan monumental architecture (great house). Rather, the two existed in a dialectical relationship – one can only be understood through consideration of the other. The social relations between the builders and inhabitants of the different architectural traditions were defi ned and developed in relation to one another. The dialectic between these social groups created a dynamic, ongoing tension between great house and small house architectural styles throughout the Chacoan period. At no other time in the Ancient Pueblo past were unequal
15031-0189d-1pass-r03.indd 186 02-07-2016 11:08:12
Figure 9.1 Pueblo Bonito, a great house located in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. Photo courtesy of Alison Robinson.
Figure 9.2 LA 82627/2509, an excavated small house site in the Chuska Valley, New Mexico (see Yost and Van Dyke 2006; photo courtesy of Ruth Van Dyke).
15031-0189d-1pass-r03.indd 187 02-07-2016 11:08:13
188 Kellam Throgmorton
relations and social differences so apparent as during the Chacoan period (Lek-son 1999; Lipe 2006 ). Social heterogeneity, however, was also present among small house inhabitants, and as such this chapter addresses not only differences between small house and great house architecture, but also the great variability in small house architecture in the Chacoan world.
The Chacoan world
The Ancient Pueblo northern Southwest corresponds to an area roughly bounded by the San Juan Mountains of Colorado, the Colorado River in Utah, the Rio Grande River in New Mexico, and the southern edge of the Colo-rado Plateau, which extends across west-central New Mexico and east-central Arizona. Chaco Canyon is located in northwest New Mexico, in the middle of the semi-arid San Juan Basin ( Figure 9.3 ). However, during the 11th cen-tury “Chaco” extended far beyond the canyon’s walls, and a large portion of the northern Southwest was infl uenced by Chacoan architectural styles, ritual, social organization, and economy ( Kantner and Mahoney 2000 ; chapters in Lekson 2006 , 2009 ; Van Dyke 2007 ). Archaeologists disagree on exactly what kind of social formation Chaco was. Different interpretations of the Chacoan system emphasize economy, ritual, or ideology, and range from overgrown egal-itarian pueblos, to a “rituality” guided by a priestly elite, to a hierarchical, pre-modern state ( Cordell and McBrinn 2012 :197–202; Heitman and Plog in press ; Lekson 2009 ; Reed 2008 ; Van Dyke 2007 ). Regardless of what it is called, the dominant role of Chaco in the northern Southwest during the 10th through the 12th centuries CE cannot be ignored.
During the Early Bonito Phase (850–1020 CE ), communities focused on great houses fi rst appeared across the southern and western San Juan Basin, pos-sibly as a consequence of migration from 9th-century villages in the Mesa Verde region ( Wilshusen and Van Dyke 2006 ). The Classic Bonito Phase (1020–1100 CE ) witnessed the expansion of Chaco to the very edges of the northern South-west and the appearance of distinctively Chacoan “outlier” great houses in what is now southeast Utah, southwest Colorado, northwest New Mexico, and northeast Arizona – an area at least 250 miles across in any direction ( Kantner and Kintigh 2006 ; Kantner and Mahoney 2000 ; Marshall et al. 1979 ; Powers et al. 1983 ). Chacoans refurbished and expanded old great houses and they con-structed several new ones within Chaco Canyon ( Lekson 1986 , 2007 ; Lekson et al. 2006 ), as well as to the north along the San Juan, Animas, and La Plata riv-ers ( Reed 2011 ). In the Late Bonito Phase (1100–1140 CE ), Chacoan infl uence continued throughout the northern Southwest, though great house architec-tural traditions were reinterpreted as part of a larger shift in ideology ( Van Dyke 2004 ), and the focal point of Chacoan power may have shifted north toward the San Juan, La Plata, and Animas Rivers ( Brown et al. 2008 ; Lekson 1999 ). By 1140 CE construction and refurbishment at great houses within Chaco Canyon had ceased, and great house communities across the Chacoan world took on a more provincial character.
15031-0189d-1pass-r03.indd 188 02-07-2016 11:08:13
Vernacular architecture in the Chacoan world 189
The plans and layouts of Early Bonito phase great houses demonstrate that they were initially exaggerations of the small house tradition ( Lekson 1986 :271; Lipe 2006 :269). Great house architecture developed during the 9th century in the Mesa Verde region, within early villages that had populations of several hun-dred people ( Wilshusen and Potter 2010 ). Some lineages or corporate groups chose to erect unusually large, U-shaped buildings that were constructed of full-height stacked tabular masonry ( Wilshusen et al. 2012 ). These U-shaped
Figure 9.3 A map of the San Juan Basin and surrounding regions of the Ancient Pueblo northern Southwest. Areas and sites mentioned in the text are labeled. Chacoan infl uence extended across nearly all the areas depicted on this map.
15031-0189d-1pass-r03.indd 189 02-07-2016 11:08:13
190 Kellam Throgmorton
“proto-great houses” were associated with oversized pit structures containing ritual fl oor features, and their middens suggest periodic feasting events ( Blin-man 1989 ). The shape of proto-great houses created a restricted plaza space and increased the size of surface storage rooms – both strategies used by corporate groups to increase their status ( Schachner 2010 ).
The aggregated villages where proto-great houses fi rst appeared were short-lived, and many villagers migrated southward into the San Juan Basin where they contributed to the rapid growth of Early Bonito phase communities between 880 and 920 CE ( Van Dyke 2007 ; Wilshusen and Ortman 1999 ; Wilshusen and Van Dyke 2006 ; Windes 2007 ; Windes and Van Dyke 2012 ). Great houses fi rst appeared in the San Juan Basin within these communities. During the Classic and Late Bonito phases they developed into the planned, symmetrical, multi-story monumental structures we see today. Great houses were built to embody and express important cosmological principles ( Van Dyke 2000 , 2007 ). They were meant to be seen and experienced, and are situated within an exten-sive, formalized ritual landscape of road segments, earthen berms, and shrines ( Stein and Lekson 1992 ; Van Dyke 2007 ). They could contain up to 600 rooms, although the average great house had signifi cantly fewer than this. There are over 200 recognized great houses within the Chacoan world ( Mahoney and Kantner 2000 :1).
Lekson (1986 :259) estimated that several construction episodes at Chaco Canyon great houses would have required between 55,000 and 192,000 person hours, a fi gure that includes the time required to source roof beams from over 80 km away in the Chuska Mountains and on the slopes of Mt. Taylor ( Lekson et al. 2006 :81). A typical vernacular habitation, by contrast, may have taken about 2,500–3,000 person hours to acquire materials and construct ( Truell 1986 :156). Even among small houses that were built using a signifi cant amount of stone in their walls, the lower quality of workmanship and less complicated masonry styles suggest that a vernacular wall took from one-quarter to three-fi fths the amount of time required to build a comparable sized wall using great house construction techniques ( Truell 1986 :152).
Early excavators assumed that great houses were purely residential, commu-nal pueblos ( Gladwin 1945 ; Judd 1964 ), but this interpretation has been chal-lenged on several lines of evidence ( Bernardini 1999 ; Windes 1984 ). Currently, many archaeologists favor an interpretation that Chacoan great houses served ritual purposes for the surrounding community ( Durand 2003 ), though this does not exclude their use as habitations for elites that controlled important ritual knowledge ( Lekson 1999 ; Van Dyke 2007 ). Nonetheless, there is compel-ling evidence that at least some great houses had signifi cant residential popula-tions ( Reed 2008 ). Variation in great house form within Chaco Canyon and across the Chacoan world belies the notion of simple interpretation of the pat-terns of living that occurred within these structures, though it seems clear that in most cases the residents participated in specifi c economic, political, and ritual practices that marked them as elites within the Ancient Pueblo world. Although some small houses possessed ritual paraphernalia and artifact assemblages similar
15031-0189d-1pass-r03.indd 190 02-07-2016 11:08:13
Vernacular architecture in the Chacoan world 191
to great house residents ( Heitman 2011 ), the vast majority of small houses are clearly residential and associated with the more quotidian ceramic, lithic, faunal, and botanical debris of day-to-day living. The substantial differences in small houses and great houses suggest to some that distinct cultural groups with different social organization inhabited them ( Vivian 1990 ). Regardless, small house architecture was itself not homogenous, and some of this variation was expressed through differential use of adobe, wood, and stone.
Small house architecture during the Chacoan period: adobe, wood, and stone
During the Chaco era, small houses clustered into communities of anywhere from a dozen to nearly 100 households within a radius of 2–3 miles. Many such communities are focused around a great house ( Kantner and Mahoney 2000 ; Marshall et al. 1979 ), but there are also numerous small house com-munities that lack great house architecture. The layout of the Ancient Pueblo vernacular house was formalized by about 700 CE in the northern Southwest ( Figure 9.4 ). The subterranean pit structure formed the core of the house, and it was typically located east, southeast, or south of a block of surface rooms. Sur-face rooms were originally used for storage, but by 850 CE nearly all households
Figure 9.4 A schematic plan of a typical “unit pueblo” or small house dating to approxi-mately 850–1150 CE , showing the relationship of surface structures, pit structures, and midden areas.
15031-0189d-1pass-r03.indd 191 02-07-2016 11:08:14
192 Kellam Throgmorton
also constructed surface living rooms. The household suite consisted of a large surface living room backed by two smaller storage rooms, a pit structure, and a midden beyond the pit structure. Vernacular houses generally had no more than a dozen rooms.
Small house architecture during the Chacoan period utilized varying quanti-ties and combinations of three basic materials – adobe, wood, and stone. Each of these materials has properties that infl uenced the decisions made by vernacu-lar architects during house design and construction and affected the material-ity of the vernacular house. Using these three materials, Chacoan vernacular architects could build a nearly endless variety of housing options that refl ected beliefs and mores about what a house should look like and that were suitable for the intended purpose and length of use of the house. McGuire and Schiffer (1983 ) suggest that vernacular housing design exists along a continuum from low investment but high maintenance to high investment but low maintenance. Adobe and wooden houses may have been simpler to construct but were more diffi cult to remodel and repair and had a shorter use-life. Houses with greater quantities of stone were more labor intensive to construct but had a longer use-life; they could be more easily remodeled because the stone did not have to be procured again, and stone walls could be partially dismantled and reconfi gured in ways that adobe and wood could not.
Adobe
Adobe was a local material, manufactured of the very earth on which the habi-tation was built. In many places the earth removed during pit structure exca-vation provided the material used to construct the walls and cover the roof of surface living and storage rooms ( Wilshusen 1988 ). Borrow pits indicate that vernacular builders sometimes augmented the sediment from pit structures by additional excavation, and adobe mixing pits suggest the reapplication of adobe plaster to structure walls and roofs to protecting against insects and moisture damage.
During the 9th century, Ancient Puebloans built pit structures that had earthen or adobe-plastered walls ( Bullard 1962 :149; Gladwin 1945 ; Truell 1986 :220). Many vernacular architects continued to build earthen- or plaster-walled pit structures well into the 10th and 11th centuries ( Fox 2002 :122–128; Gladwin 1945 :49–58; Truell 1986 :221–222; Varien 1999 ). Pit structure roofs, built of wood, reeds, and brush, were covered with a layer of earth. The builders of interior pit structure features shaped hearths and storage bins from adobe, and even when stonework became more commonly employed, adobe still served as the agent to bind pieces of stone together. In some areas, the interiors of the pit structures were partitioned with low ridges of adobe. When masonry was employed in pit structure walls, the builders almost always applied a layer of adobe plaster to cover the stonework.
Many 9th- and early 10th-century vernacular architects built surface struc-tures primarily of adobe, placing the mud atop foundations made of upright
15031-0189d-1pass-r03.indd 192 02-07-2016 11:08:14
Vernacular architecture in the Chacoan world 193
stone slabs or low, single-stone-wide walls ( Varien 1999 ; Wilshusen 1988 ). Adobe walls were built up using “turtlebacks,” or lenticular blobs of hand-molded adobe placed in rough, wet-laid courses, particularly in the San Juan Basin ( Windes and Van Dyke 2012 :75), where trees were scarce. Some vernacu-lar builders used adobe itself as a foundation, even when the upper portion of the wall was masonry ( Gladwin 1945 ). Adobe was molded around frame-works of closely spaced upright wooden posts, a technique known as “post-and-adobe.” In jacal wall construction, house builders molded adobe over a latticework of thin-diameter wooden rods.
Adobe was a common wall construction material in small site surface struc-tures within Chaco Canyon as late as 1050 or 1100 CE ( Lekson et al. 2006 :94; Truell 1986 :283), a pattern that also applies more generally throughout the San Juan Basin ( Windes and Van Dyke 2012 :76). Although adobe declined in pro-portion to stone as a construction material over time, it never disappeared, and in many 12th-century vernacular houses the masonry walls included nearly as much adobe mortar as stone.
Wood
Large diameter beams and smaller diameter poles of pinyon pine, juniper, pon-derosa pine, cottonwood, and occasionally Douglas fi r were used in both great houses and small houses during the Chacoan period. Pinyon pine and juni-per were locally (though sometimes sparsely) available in most parts of the San Juan Basin and surrounding areas and were most common in vernacular homes ( McKenna 1986 :27). While great house beams were carefully selected for straightness, stripped of bark, and the butt ends fi nished with a variety of techniques, wood selection and preparation was less meticulous in vernacular houses.
In 9th- and 10th-century vernacular pit structures, upright wooden posts sup-ported the heavy superstructure of the roof. Large wooden beams spanning the pit were supported on these uprights and covered by layers of smaller diam-eter beams, reeds, brush, juniper bark, and earth. Additional wooden poles often spanned the gap between the ground and the protruding portions of the super-structure. In some cases, vernacular architects embedded small-diameter poles in a narrow bench that encircled the interior of the pit structure ( Roberts 1939 :181, 213, 234), forming a sort of wainscoting around the earthen or adobe upper walls of the structure. In contrast, roof construction in great house pit structures typi-cally involved anchoring horizontal wooden beams within the upper masonry lining of the structure, accompanied by a complex, domed, basket-like wooden lattice rising from the structure bench ( Lekson 1986 :52–60). This technique was similar to the slightly older vernacular version, but was executed at a larger scale and without the use of upright posts. In addition, six or eight wooden beams were laid horizontally on the structure bench and encased in masonry ( Lekson 1986 :54), which is reminiscent of adobe ridges placed on the benches of some 9th-century vernacular pit structures ( Toll and Wilson 2000 :28).
15031-0189d-1pass-r03.indd 193 02-07-2016 11:08:14
194 Kellam Throgmorton
Within Chaco Canyon, vernacular pit structure builders ceased using upright posts in the later 11th and 12th centuries and constructed masonry “pilasters” that were situated on an interior encircling bench ( Truell 1986 :180–181). Ver-nacular architects built fl at roofs supported on beams laid horizontally between the pilasters ( Truell 1986 :182). This shift to pilaster support roofs also occurred during the late 11th century in the Mesa Verde region where it may be associ-ated with “cribbed-log” style roof techniques ( Varien 1999 ). Great house pit structures may have used the basket-like lattice style roof until nearly the end of the Chacoan period (1140 CE ), when they were replaced by masonry pilasters and cribbed-log style roofs ( Cameron 2008 :267).
In surface structures, vernacular architects used upright wooden posts as sup-plementary roof supports during the 9th and early 10th centuries. In the Mesa Verde region, some surface structures were built almost entirely using post-and-adobe walls ( Kuckelman and Ortman 2003 ; Varien 1999 ). The upper por-tions of many surface structures with half-height masonry walls may have been constructed of jacal ( Wilshusen 1988 :610–614). Vernacular house builders used similar roofi ng techniques for surface structures as they did for pit structures, horizontally spanning rooms with wooden beams covered by layers of smaller diameter poles, reeds, brush, juniper bark, and earth.
Wooden elements in contact with the earth, such as the upright roof sup-port posts in pit structures or in some surface structures, were susceptible to rot, decay, and insect infestation ( Cameron 1990 :157). Using rot-resistant species like juniper ( McGuire and Schiffer 1983 :291) was one way that Ancient Pueblo architects combatted this issue. Nonetheless, rot and decay probably limited the lifespan of a purely wooden and earthen pit structure to around 15 years with-out signifi cant remodeling and maintenance ( Ahlstrom 1985 ; Cameron 1990 ). Similar constraints affect surface structures with wooden elements in contact with the ground. Not all wooden elements were in locations heavily affected by rot and decay, however, and valuable roofi ng timbers were frequently recycled from older structures ( Ahlstrom 1985 ).
Stone
Stone initially occurred as upright slab foundations for surface structures, or as slabs used to line the interior walls of pit structures. Sandstone is available locally in almost all parts of the northern Southwest; some sandstone lends itself more readily to being used as rough angular blocks, while some occurs natu-rally as tabular pieces. While great house builders carefully pecked and fl aked stone into specifi c shapes that were used to create several recognizable masonry styles ( Judd 1964 ; Lekson 1986 ), vernacular architects of the Chacoan era were less selective of the stone they used for building houses and invested less time and labor into shaping and fi tting masonry, often using signifi cant quantities of adobe to fi ll gaps between stones.
Ancient Pueblo architects fi rst used full-height masonry in late 9th-century proto-great houses and in the earliest phases of construction at Chaco Canyon
15031-0189d-1pass-r03.indd 194 02-07-2016 11:08:14
Vernacular architecture in the Chacoan world 195
great houses ( Wilshusen and Van Dyke 2006 ; Windes and Van Dyke 2012 ). The masonry of these structures consisted of horizontally stacked tabular sandstone slabs, cemented together with adobe mortar. Vernacular houses of the late 9th and 10th centuries incorporated smaller amounts of tabular masonry into their construction, often by adding a few stones into adobe surface structure walls or by alternating thin courses of tabular masonry between thick adobe turtlebacks, almost as a kind of “temper” ( McKenna 1986 :82).
Great house architects developed increasingly complex masonry technolo-gies throughout the Classic and Late Bonito phases. Great house pit structures were completely lined with masonry, and great house surface rooms were built of core-and-veneer walls, a technique where a core of rubble and adobe was faced on both sides by a veneer of well-shaped and fi nely set stones ( Lekson 1986 ). In contrast, masonry walls constructed by vernacular architects were typically only one or two stones wide and, with few exceptions, did not employ the core-and-veneer technique. Full-height masonry fi rst appeared in vernacu-lar surface structures in Chaco Canyon during the late 10th and early 11th centuries ( Truell 1986 :274), while masonry lining in pit structures was not common until the mid-11th century ( Truell 1986 :222). Masonry was not the most common construction technique in either vernacular pit structures or surface structures until 1100 CE ( Truell 1986 :283), a full 200 years after it was fi rst used in great house contexts ( Truell 1986 :187). Small houses with full-height masonry may have had a use-life of about 60 years on average ( Varien and Kuckelman 1999 ). In contrast, many great houses were inhabited for two centuries or more.
Within the interior San Juan Basin, masonry-lined pit structures and full-height masonry surface structures appeared at roughly the same time as they did in Chaco Canyon. However, in peripheral regions and in locations with marginal farming potential, masonry was used later than in Chaco Canyon, and earthen and adobe construction was less completely replaced. In the Gal-lup Basin, masonry surface structures were common by 1100 CE , but probably not before this date ( Allen and Nelson 1982 ; Scheick 1983 , 2002 ). Similarly, vernacular housing constructed around 1050–1075 CE south of Ute Moun-tain in the Mesa Verde region exhibited a range of construction styles includ-ing jacal , partial-height masonry, and full-height masonry ( Billman 2003 ). The lack of masonry was most striking in the Mesa Verde region, where the local vernacular was earthen pit structures and post-and-adobe surface structures or compounds until 1075–1100 CE ( Kuckelman and Ortman 2003 ; Morris 1991 ; Varien 1999 ), about the time that Chacoan-style masonry great houses were built in the region. By the fi rst half of the 12th century, vernacular architects across the Chacoan world were using masonry in both pit structures and surface structures.
Within Chaco Canyon, some small houses were built using masonry tech-niques normally reserved for great house construction. At least 40 small houses built after about 1100 CE contain core-and-veneer walls ( Lekson et al. 2006 :97; Truell 1986 : Appendix B). There may have been a “Bonito effect,” whereby
15031-0189d-1pass-r03.indd 195 02-07-2016 11:08:15
196 Kellam Throgmorton
small house architecture near the central core of downtown Chaco Canyon was more substantially built than it otherwise might have been ( Lekson et al. 2006 :97), possibly as a result of emulation of certain great house attributes.
Factors infl uencing small house architecture: residential mobility and cultural identity
Vernacular house construction is guided by social factors (among others) and is tempered by environmental possibility ( Rapoport 1969 ). Dwellings form part of the constitutive built surroundings that both enable and constrain the worldviews, needs, and beliefs of their inhabitants ( Bourdieu 2010 [1977 ]). Chacoan vernacular housing was a fundamental expression of social relations that refl ected and constituted the material and immaterial resources drawn on by a household. The mobilization of resources by a household responded to a variety of conditions (both social and ecological) and depended on the power relationships they shared with other households.
I examine here two major factors that affected the combination of adobe, wood, and stone used to construct vernacular housing in the Chacoan world. Households relocated their residences at different temporal and spatial scales as a consequence of their relationship with the Chacoan landscape and their position within Chacoan society. Settlement persistence and impermanence were major contributors to architectural diversity that stemmed from and con-tributed to the unequal social relations of the Chacoan era. Also contributing to architectural diversity were historical and cultural distinctions between dif-ferent groups of people within the Chacoan world. Technological and stylistic variation in architecture are rooted in distinct communities of architectural practice that arose from shared historical circumstance and perceptions of cul-tural similarity and difference that developed through social interaction.
Residential relocation and the Chacoan landscape
Much of the San Juan Basin and surrounding regions are not suitable for agriculture, but there are numerous niches within the ecosystem that can be farmed successfully with appropriate attention to microclimates, slopes, soils, and hydrology ( Bradfi eld 1971 ; Hack 1942 ). These niches are of varying size, productivity, and reliability. Agricultural fi elds that rely on direct rainfall or the runoff of minor drainages are among the least reliable, and could often only be used in particularly moist years. Among the most reliable and productive are alluvial fan or fl oodwater farming locations found where a large tribu-tary enters a main watercourse. These locations are agriculturally advantageous because all the accumulated runoff of the tributary’s watershed is available to be spread across cropland before it disappears into the main watercourse ( Hack 1942 ). This offsets some of the extreme geographic variability in rainfall that characterizes the semi-arid San Juan Basin.
15031-0189d-1pass-r03.indd 196 02-07-2016 11:08:15
Vernacular architecture in the Chacoan world 197
Within historic pueblos such as Hopi, the frequency of residential reloca-tion by households was related to their social standing within the village ( Ber-nardini 2005 , 2008 ; Levy 1992 ). Households that controlled important ritual knowledge and ceremonies also controlled more consistently productive and reliable land, such as large tributary-mouth fl oodwater fi elds. Households that had little to contribute to the ritual knowledge of the community were often relegated to more marginal land ( Levy 1992 ). Marginalized households would be among the fi rst to leave a village and seek entry somewhere else during periods of drought. Residential movement and social stratifi cation were related to the social management of scarcity ( Levy 1992 :56), rather than the ecological management of subsistence risk. In the Chacoan world, residential movement should also be conceived as occurring within entwined social and environmen-tal contexts based on relationships between social groups, rather than solely from an ecological perspective where independent households make rational, adap-tive choices intended to mitigate subsistence risk and environmental variability.
Great houses were positioned on the landscape not only in locations where reliable farmland could be found ( Marshall et al. 1979 :338), but also in places that provided excellent visibility and geographic landmarks ( Van Dyke 2007 ). Great house dwellers elaborated their centrality in agricultural practice and Chacoan society through the construction of a historically constituted ritual landscape ( Van Dyke 2007 ). They built berms around their dwellings that mim-icked middens but at a massive scale where accumulation symbolized time-depth. They constructed roads linking them to important earlier settlements. Carefully positioned shrines created a network of intervisibility with other great houses and with important physical features of the landscape such as distant mountains and mesas. Great house dwellers used manipulation of the landscape to emphasize their participation in Chacoan ideology ( Van Dyke 2007 :197).
Many small house dwellers experienced the Chacoan landscape as members of a community of households that surrounded a great house. Great house residents, organized as corporate groups or lineages, may have established precedence over individual households and instituted systems of land tenure that organized but did not directly control community agricultural produc-tion. Small houses that were not affi liated with Chacoan great houses ( Allen and Nelson 1982 ; Billman 2003 ; Fetterman 2011 ; Reher 1977 ; Scheick 1983 , 2002 ) were often located in more marginal farming locales, making use of much smaller drainages and watersheds, relying on small seeps and springs, or even dry-farming from direct precipitation. As a consequence, many small house dwellers were more exposed to the effects of changing local ecology and environmental fl uctuation. Small house dwellers may have been more likely to move during periods of low rainfall and poor productivity. While it is not clear how small houses are situated within the network of shrines across the San Juan Basin, Chacoan road segments, earthen berms, and other kinds of landscape modifi cation are positioned with little consideration of small houses.
15031-0189d-1pass-r03.indd 197 02-07-2016 11:08:15
198 Kellam Throgmorton
Small house architecture refl ects these more episodic and shorter-lived rela-tionships with landscape and society. For example, NM-H-29–88 is located near the confl uence of several tributaries of Cottonwood Wash, an intermit-tent arroyo south of the San Juan River in northwest New Mexico (see Fig-ure 9.3 ), which is now largely badlands but once probably supported grassland with shallow sandy sediment and modest agricultural potential. The site is not within a great house community and was inhabited intermittently throughout the Chacoan era ( Rohman 2011 ). Between 900–1000 CE , three jacal surface structures were built using upright sandstone slab foundations ( Figure 9.5a ). These structures were never remodeled, and based on the low durability of their materials may only have been used for one or two years. Nonetheless inhabitants of Structure 17 accumulated one of the denser middens on the site ( Table 9.1 ). Sometime after 950 CE a small two-room surface structure was built that initially consisted of partial-height blocky and tabular sandstone masonry and post-and-adobe walls ( Figure 9.5b ). Later remodeling reduced the size of the masonry room and replaced the post-and-adobe walls with adobe molded onto upright slab foundations. Several hundred ceramic and lithic artifacts were associated with this structure, which was probably occupied intermittently at several times throughout a 75–150 year period ( Table 9.1 ).
Figure 9.5 Plans of several structures at NM-H-29–88, Cottonwood Wash, New Mexico (adapted from Rohman 2011 :Figs. 6–7, 6–11, 6–21, 6–35, 6–39, 6–52, 6–53, 6–58, 6–61, 6–64, 6–68, 6–73, 6–77, and 6–82).
15031-0189d-1pass-r03.indd 198 02-07-2016 11:08:15
Tabl
e 9.
1 Pr
ojec
t to
tal n
umbe
r of
art
ifact
s fr
om h
abita
tions
ref
eren
ced
in t
he t
ext.
To
tal V
olum
e of
M
idde
n D
epos
its
Pres
ent (
m 3 )
a
Vol
ume
Exc
avat
ed (m
3 ) b
Pe
rcent
of
Tota
l E
xcav
ated
To
tal A
rtifa
cts
(she
rds
and
fl ake
s)
Rec
over
ed
Den
sity
of D
epos
its
(arti
facts
/m 3 )
Pr
ojec
ted T
otal
N
umbe
r of A
rtifa
cts
in M
idde
n
NM
-H-2
9–88
(C
otto
nwoo
d W
ash)
( R
ohm
an 2
011 )
Stru
ctur
es 1
5 &
16 c
8.4
6.28
75
%
593
94
443
Stru
ctur
e 17
d 16
.8
1.88
11
%
581
309
5192
St
ruct
ures
1 &
2/S
truc
ture
s 7
& 1
9 e 13
.35
13.8
5 10
0%
647
47
647
Surf
ace
Stru
ctur
e an
d Pi
t St
ruct
ure f
9.75
6.
1 63
%
1057
17
3 16
89
5MT
9934
(U
te M
ount
ain
pied
mon
t) (
McA
ndre
ws
et a
l. 20
05 )
Hab
itatio
n A
reas
1 &
3 g
93.7
5 3.
3 3%
56
62
1716
16
0,85
2
Cha
co C
anyo
n Sm
all H
ouse
s (T
ruel
l 199
2; W
inde
s 19
93)
29SJ
629
10
8.0
39.7
5 37
%
16,6
56
419
45,2
54 h
29SJ
627
55
1.25
65
.625
12
%
19,8
29
302
166,
488
Alla
ntow
n G
reat
Hou
se C
omm
unity
( R
ober
ts 1
939 )
Uni
t 3 i
287.
7 un
know
n 10
0%
unkn
own
437
125,
725
a St
anda
rdiz
ed b
y m
ultip
lyin
g le
ngth
, wid
th, a
nd a
vera
ge d
epth
of d
epos
its (
max
imum
dep
th d
ivid
ed b
y tw
o).
b C
alcu
late
d by
mul
tiply
ing
tota
l sur
face
are
a of
exc
avat
ion
by a
vera
ge d
epth
of d
epos
its.
c C
ompo
site
of A
ctiv
ity A
reas
9 a
nd 1
0, w
hich
wer
e pa
rtia
lly e
xcav
ated
and
all
visib
le a
rtifa
cts
wer
e co
llect
ed fr
om s
urfa
ce.
d St
ruct
ure
17 M
idde
n 1
was
tes
ted
and
all v
isibl
e ar
tifac
ts w
ere
colle
cted
off
surf
ace.
e
Com
posit
e of
Act
ivity
Are
as 2
, 3, a
nd 4
, whi
ch w
ere
part
ially
exc
avat
ed a
nd a
ll vi
sible
art
ifact
s w
ere
colle
cted
from
sur
face
. f
Com
posit
e of
Mid
den
(Act
ivity
Are
a 13
) an
d A
ctiv
ity A
rea
6, w
hich
may
hav
e be
en a
tra
sh-fi
lled
roo
m.
g H
abita
tion
Are
as 1
& 3
wer
e as
soci
ated
with
Mid
den
1, o
ne o
f tw
o on
the
site
. h
Anc
ient
inha
bita
nts
disp
osed
of t
rash
in a
n ac
tive
arro
yo, w
hich
car
ried
aw
ay a
n un
know
n qu
antit
y of
ref
use.
i
No
info
rmat
ion
avai
labl
e on
how
mid
den
was
exc
avat
ed. T
he p
roje
cted
tot
al w
as c
alcu
late
d us
ing
aver
age
dens
ity o
f oth
er s
ites
in t
he t
able
.
15031-0189d-1pass-r03.indd 199 02-07-2016 11:08:16
200 Kellam Throgmorton
Sometime between 1000 and 1100 CE a semi-subterranean pit structure was built on the site, possibly in association with one or two pre-existing lightly built surface structures that were obscured by later remodeling ( Figure 9.5c ). The construction of the pit structure coincided with the addition of two or three masonry surface rooms consisting of tabular and blocky pieces of sand-stone mortared together with adobe ( Rohman 2011 ). The pit structure was excavated on a slope into soft shale bedrock; the upslope half of the structure used the bedrock for a wall, while the downslope side was made of coursed sandstone and adobe. Roof beams were placed directly across the pit and there were no support posts. During the period the pit structure was in use, a couple of additional masonry rooms were added to the surface structure, and other rooms were remodeled. Despite the architectural evidence suggesting intensive, year-round occupation of the site, the inhabitants only accumulated a small midden in comparison to the earlier Structure 17 ( Table 9.1 ). Around 1100–1125 CE the surface structures and pit structure were abandoned, but they were reoccupied sometime between about 1150 and 1200 CE . The architecture of the reoccupation suggests less intensive, intermittent use of the site.
Other areas lacking great house architecture exhibit similar combinations of low- and medium-investment architecture and short but intensive episodes of habitation. Many Chacoan period settlements in the northwest Gallup Basin, an area of limited agricultural potential, were constructed of adobe or partial-height masonry utilizing copious amounts of adobe mortar. They were inhab-ited for no more than a generation before abandonment ( Allen and Nelson 1982 ; Scheick 1983 , 2002 ). Some of these habitations were later reoccupied while others were not, suggesting that households circulated frequently within the area at the scale of a generation. Similarly, settlements along the piedmont south of Ute Mountain were inhabited during three intervals punctuated by brief periods of abandonment between 1050 and 1150 CE ( Billman 2003 ). Most habitations from the fi rst interval had small middens or lacked a midden alto-gether, suggesting short occupations of no more than 10–15 years ( Billman 2003 :4.16). The second interval was characterized by slightly longer occupa-tion spans of 20–30 years, but population dropped after 1100 CE and the area was largely depopulated prior to a third period of occupation beginning around 1130 CE ( Billman 2003 :5.15).
The 5MT9934 settlement has one of the longer periods of inhabitation among settlements on the Ute Mountain piedmont. Habitation Areas 1 and 3 at 5MT9934 were occupied between 1075 and 1125 CE ( Figure 9.6 ). The architecture of these habitations utilized a variety of materials and included surface structures of adobe, post-and-adobe, and full-height masonry of basalt cobblestones, as well as earthen-walled pit structures with masonry pilasters ( Figure 9.6 ). The midden that accumulated during this period probably con-tains well over 100,000 artifacts, evidence of an intensive occupation of the site. Nonetheless, there are few surface storage rooms within the habitations, suggesting limited storage against crop failures, and the mixture of architectural materials more closely resembles habitations with shorter occupation spans.
15031-0189d-1pass-r03.indd 200 02-07-2016 11:08:16
Vernacular architecture in the Chacoan world 201
In contrast to these settlements with either episodic or short periods of habi-tation, other vernacular houses exhibited greater architectural investment. In Chaco Canyon, the heart of the Chacoan world, small houses exhibited archi-tecture and occupational complexity seldom seen elsewhere. Several habitations excavated during the Chaco Project in the 1970s ( Truell 1992 ; Windes 1993 ) may have been occupied nearly continuously for over 150 years ( Table 9.1 ), as were numerous others that were excavated during the 1920s through the 1940s with less rigorous quantifi cation of refuse ( Heitman 2011 :144–151). Vernacular architects within Chaco Canyon used a wide range of construction techniques in these houses, ranging from upright slab and adobe walls to partial and full-height masonry. Pit structures were both earthen-walled and masonry-lined. Full masonry construction in these dwellings occurred during the later 11th century ( McKenna 1986 ; Truell 1986 ), one of the earliest occurrences in ver-nacular housing anywhere in the Chacoan world. In addition, several Chaco Canyon small houses had architectural features such as foundation trenches, core-and-veneer masonry, multiple stories, and ritual deposits that are more characteristic of great house construction ( Heitman 2011 ).
Figure 9.6 Plan of structures in Habitation Areas 1 and 3 at 5MT9934, Ute Mountain pied-mont, Colorado (adapted from McAndrews et al. 2005 : Figs. 3.26 , 3.27 , 3.33 , 3.36 , and 3.45 ).
15031-0189d-1pass-r03.indd 201 02-07-2016 11:08:16
202 Kellam Throgmorton
Allantown was potentially one of the earliest great house communities out-side Chaco Canyon, and dendrochronological data suggests Roberts’s “Unit 3” was built around 1004–1016 CE ( 1939 :227–244). This vernacular structure con-sisted of six full-height masonry surface rooms and a masonry-lined pit struc-ture with very carefully fi tted stonework covered in adobe plaster ( Figure 9.7 ). Concealed beneath the plaster covering an interior bench were the butt ends of four non-functional wooden upright posts and a wainscot of several dozen thin-diameter upright wooden poles, which rose from the back of the bench to the ceiling. The surface rooms were constructed of horizontally laid tabular stones on a foundation of sandstone blocks. Many of the stones were shaped and tightly fi tted together with minimal adobe mortar. A couple rooms were remodeled, and a sizeable midden contained at least 20 burials suggesting an occupation of about 30–50 years ( Roberts 1939 :239). Extrapolating from the density of other, better-quantifi ed middens, the ones that accumulate at Unit 3 may have contained over 150,000 fl akes and sherds ( Table 9.1 ).
The examples of vernacular houses from Chaco Canyon and the Allantown great house community complicate the distinction between great house and vernacular architectural styles. Nonetheless, in both cases the vernacular forms
Figure 9.7 Plan of “Unit 3” in the Allantown great house community, Arizona (adapted from
Roberts 1939 : Figs. 50 and 51 ).
15031-0189d-1pass-r03.indd 202 02-07-2016 11:08:16
Vernacular architecture in the Chacoan world 203
postdate the appearance of great house construction within the community. More generally across the Chacoan world, it seems that the use of great house construction techniques by vernacular architects become common only after a great house was built nearby.
Architectural design involved the entwined issues of agricultural produc-tivity and social connectivity. Not all households experienced droughts, crop failures, fl oods, and other disasters the same way because their social connec-tions afforded greater or lesser access to additional fi eld locations, food sharing networks, and other mechanisms for coping with scarcity. The relatively low investment in architecture made by many households in places like Cotton-wood Wash, the Ute Mountain piedmont, and the Gallup Basin refl ects their frequent residential relocation. The greater investment in architecture, and the greater occupational complexity of vernacular houses at Allantown or within Chaco Canyon, suggest that households were creating more persistent habita-tions in these communities.
Cultural identity and historical connections
Cultural and historical distinctions between different groups of people also contributed to architectural diversity among vernacular houses in the Chacoan world. The groups that left the Mesa Verde region and migrated to the San Juan Basin during the Early Bonito phase ( Wilshusen and Van Dyke 2006 ) may have been the descendants of the corporate groups and lineages that fi rst constructed proto-great houses. The central core of many Early Bonito phase communities founded in the San Juan Basin around 875–925 CE was an early great house inhabited by two to six households ( Windes 2007 :83), situated among numerous smaller habitations of one or two households. Differences in layout, architecture, and organization of small houses and great houses within these communities suggests that the occupants may have had distinct cultural and historical origins prior to the Early Bonito phase ( Vivian 1990 ).
The builders of vernacular housing within these communities were prob-ably a combination of migrants and pre-existing local populations ( Van Dyke 2007 :89). At the Kin Hocho’i site in New Mexico ( Fowler et al. 1987 ), a vil-lage with a possible early great house was established next to a great kiva (a very large, circular, subterranean ceremonial structure) in the mid-9th century. At the periphery of this community, two different groups of people may have inhabited a single roomblock (LA 4487) built around 845 CE ( Sciscenti 1962 ) ( Figure 9.8 ). The builders of the northeast half of the surface structure used partial-height horizontally stacked tabular masonry, while the builders of the contiguous southwest half used adobe molded onto upright slab foundations. The pit structures associated with the north half of the building had unusual roofi ng and entry styles for the area (a gabled roof and a passage entry) and were associated with non-local ceramics from northeastern Arizona, while the pit structures near the southern portion of the structure were more typical of
15031-0189d-1pass-r03.indd 203 02-07-2016 11:08:17
204 Kellam Throgmorton
the nearby southern Chuska Valley (oval or D-shaped structures with adobe ridges subdividing the fl oor space). Neither particularly resembled the local pit structure style (which were smaller, more circular, and had fewer interior fea-tures). These fi ndings suggest that villages supporting great houses and/or great kivas often included settlers from adjacent regions with distinct architectural traditions.
Nearby at the Allantown great house community in eastern Arizona, an early village and dance court (similar in size to a great kiva, but shallow and unroofed) was also established around 845 CE ( Roberts 1939 ). Based on the construction style of their pit structures, this village was likely built by migrants from the Mesa Verde area ( Throgmorton 2012 ). As the community developed during the late 9th and early 10th century, vernacular architects built houses using several architectural styles ( Figure 9.9a ). One habitation (Roberts’s Structure 15) dat-ing to around 870–900 CE had an adobe surface structure with upright slab foundations and a circular pit structure lined with upright slabs, fi ve wooden roof support beams, and an interior partition made of upright slabs and adobe ( Roberts 1939 :135–149). Nearby, two adjacent habitations (Roberts’s “Unit 1”
Figure 9.8 Plan of LA 4487 in the Kin Hocho’i community, New Mexico. Adapted from unpublished maps at the Laboratory of Anthropology, NMCRIS fi le nos. 20171, 36818, 39501, 54717 .
15031-0189d-1pass-r03.indd 204 02-07-2016 11:08:17
Vernacular architecture in the Chacoan world 205
and “Unit 2”) dating to the late 9th or early 10th century exhibited architec-ture distinct from this structure and from each other. One ( Figure 9.9b ) had a fi ve-room surface structure with upright slab foundations topped with partial tabular masonry and adobe, slightly sunken fl oors, and a sub-rectangular pit structure with slab-lined walls, four upright roof support posts, and a low adobe ridge dividing the fl oor space of the structure ( Roberts 1939 : Fig. 4 4, 181). The other ( Figure 9.9c ) consisted of a six-room surface structure with both full and
Figure 9.9 Plans of “Unit 1,” “Unit 2,” and “Structure 15” in the Allantown great house community, Arizona (adapted from Roberts 1939 : Figs. 44 , 45 , and 51 ).
15031-0189d-1pass-r03.indd 205 02-07-2016 11:08:17
206 Kellam Throgmorton
partially height masonry walls ( Roberts 1939 :194–226). The circular, slab-lined pit structure had a four-post roof support system and a wainscoting of wooden poles rising from a bench to the ceiling.
In addition to diversity within settlements there are also regional distinc-tions evident in vernacular architecture. After the abandonment of 9th-cen-tury villages in the Mesa Verde region and the subsequent migration to the San Juan Basin, the few remaining Mesa Verde vernacular architects largely avoided masonry architecture until the appearance of Chacoan great houses 200 years later ( Varien 1999 ). Instead, many late 10th- and 11th-century Mesa Verde region households constructed rectangular post-and-adobe compounds that surrounded an earthen pit structure, such as at 5MT2544 ( Figure 9.10 ) ( Kuckelman and Ortman 2003 ; Morris 1991 ; Varien 1999 ). These structures, with their heavy reliance on timber for upright posts and need for frequent refurbishment due to rot and decay, are very different from the adobe and masonry construction found in the San Juan Basin. They are a distinct tradition, infl uenced by the greater availability of timber in the Mesa Verde region, but possibly also a conscious rejection of masonry construction after the depopula-tion of Mesa Verde region villages focused around proto-great houses and their inhabitants.
Figure 9.10 Plan of structures at 5MT2544 (adapted from Morris 1991 : Figs. 5.6 and 5.45 ).
15031-0189d-1pass-r03.indd 206 02-07-2016 11:08:17
Vernacular architecture in the Chacoan world 207
Conclusions
Throughout the Chacoan era, vernacular small houses coexisted with symboli-cally loaded great houses, a relationship that heightened the meanings attached to architectural design. Their relations with each other were mediated, in part, by their varying relationships of persistence and impermanence with the Cha-coan landscape. Ancient Pueblo people combined adobe, wood, and stone in various ways to create settlements that could be lasting or fl eeting. Residents of agriculturally marginal locales like Cottonwood Wash, the Ute Mountain piedmont, and parts of the Gallup Basin likely built less substantial construc-tions because it was more diffi cult to establish lasting settlements in the absence of reliable farmland. Existing outside the sphere of a great house community, residents of these areas may also have had more limited social connections, and may have participated less frequently in large-scale ritual events, such as pilgrimages to festivals within Chaco Canyon ( Van Dyke 2007 ), which defi ned and reinforced social relations in the Chacon world.
Whether these particular small house dwellers were even concerned with participating in Chacoan society is debatable, and their architectural styles refl ect the seasonality and frequent mobility characteristic of preceding centuries. Per-haps these communities adhered more conservatively to past practice and had lifestyles and economic orientations that were relatively unconcerned with set-tlement permanence. For small house residents within Chacoan great house communities, settlement persistence may have been a consequence of closer relationships with great house residents, through participation in community-wide ritual, economic relationships, or relations of obligation. The more sub-stantial architectural signatures and lengthier periods of habitation of vernacular dwellings within Chacoan communities refl ect these tighter relationships.
Relationships between the inhabitants of small houses, and between small house and great house residents, were also mediated through cultural identity. Differences in the architectural styles of small house residents in Early Bonito phase communities such as Kin Hocho’i and Allantown refl ect the distinct his-torical origins of small house residents adjacent to one another within Chacoan communities. Regional distinctions are also evident, with the post-and-adobe architecture of the 10th- and 11th-century Mesa Verde region contrasting with adobe and masonry construction prevalent in the San Juan Basin. The creation of Early Bonito phase great house communities out of multiple cultural groups with related but distinct forms of social organization produced heterogeneous communities ( Vivian 1990 ). It was not until the Classic Bonito phase, however, that relations of inequality became fully evident ( Van Dyke 2008 ). Integration into a Chacoan community may have come with the price of entering into the relations of inequality. The great house–small house dialectic is one expression of this inequality.
Consideration of this dialectic relationship should take into account the het-erogeneity of small house communities, recognizing that they are not only heterogeneous in origin but also in the ways that the inhabitants chose to
15031-0189d-1pass-r03.indd 207 02-07-2016 11:08:18
208 Kellam Throgmorton
express themselves through architecture. This architectural difference highlights how the temporal scale of residential movement was also an important aspect of the relationship between small house dwellers, great house dwellers, and the Chacoan landscape. The use of adobe, wood, and stone was entangled with residential movement and social relations as households engaged in a complex process of negotiation within a historically constituted landscape.
References
Allen, C. G., and B. A. Nelson 1982 Anasazi and Navajo Land use in the McKinley Mine Area near Gallup, New Mexico, Volume One: Archaeology . Offi ce of Contract Archaeology, Museum of New Mexico, Albuquerque .
Ahlstrom, R. V. 1985 The Interpretation of Archaeological Tree-Ring Dates. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson .
Bernardini, W. 1999 Reassessing the Scale of Social Action at Pueblo Bonito, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. Kiva 64: 447–470 .
———. 2005 Reconsidering Spatial and Temporal Aspects of Prehistoric Cultural Identity: A Case Study from the American Southwest. American Antiquity 70(1): 31–54 .
———. 2008 History as Identity: Hopi Clans and the Curation of Oral Tradition. Journal of Anthropological Research 64(4): 483–509 .
Billman, B. R. 2003 The Pueblo Occupation of the Ute Mountain Piedmont, Volume 7: Synthesis and Conclusions. Soil Systems Publications in Archaeology, No. 22 . Submitted to Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, Towaoc, CO .
Blinman, E. 1989 Potluck in the Protokiva: Ceramics and Ceremonialism in Pueblo I Villages. In The Architecture of Social Integration in Prehistoric Pueblos , edited by W. D. Lipe and M. Hegmon, pp. 113–124. Occasional Papers No. 1, Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, CO .
Bourdieu, P. 2010 [1977] An Outline of a Theory of Practice . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK .
Brown, G. M., T. C. Windes, and P. J. McKenn a 2008 Animas Anamnesis: Aztec Ruins or Ana-sazi Capital? In Chaco’s Northern Prodigies: Salmon, Aztec, and the Ascendancy of the Middle San Juan Region after AD 1100 , edited by P. F. Reed, pp. 231–250. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City .
Bullard, W. R., Jr. 1962 The Cerro Colorado Site and Pithouse Architecture in the South-western United States Prior to A.D. 900. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology 44(2). Harvard University Press, Cambridge .
Bradfi eld, M. 1971 The Changing Pattern of Hopi Agriculture. Royal Anthropological Insti-tute Occasional Paper No. 30. Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ire-land, London .
Cameron, C. M. 1990 The Effect of Varying Estimates of Pit Structure Use-Life on Prehis-toric Population Estimates in the American Southwest. Kiva 55(2): 155–166 .
———. 2008 Comparing Great House Architecture: Perspectives from the Bluff Great House. In Chaco’s Northern Prodigies: Salmon, Aztec, and the Ascendancy of the Middle San Juan Region after AD 1100 , edited by P. F. Reed, pp. 251–272. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City .
Cordell, L. S., and M. E. McBrinn 2012 Archaeology of the Southwest . 3rd edition. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, CA .
Durand, K. R. 2003 Function of Chaco-Era Great Houses. Kiva 69(2): 141–169 . Fetterman, J. (editor). 2011 Cultural Resource Investigations within Area IV North, BHP Navajo
Coal Company’s Navajo Mine, Navajo Reservation, Nenahnezad Chapter, Shiprock Agency, San
15031-0189d-1pass-r03.indd 208 02-07-2016 11:08:18
Vernacular architecture in the Chacoan world 209
Juan County, New Mexico, Volume II: Anasazi Occupations. Woods Canyon Archaeological Con-sultants Report No 07–1 . Submitted to BHP Navajo Coal Company, Fruitland, NM .
Fox, R. R. 2002 Pit Structure Variability in the Puerco and Southern Chuska Valleys: Group Identity Through Architectural Analysis. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff .
Fowler, A. P., J. R. Stein, and R. Anyon 1987 An Archaeological Reconnaissance of West-Central New Mexico: The Anasazi Monument Project . Draft report submitted to the Historic Preser-vation Division, Offi ce of Cultural Affairs, State of New Mexico, Santa Fe .
Gladwin, H. S. 1945 The Chaco Branch: Excavations at White Mound and in the Red Mesa Valley. Medallion Papers 33. Gila Pueblo, Globe .
Hack, J. T. 1942 The Changing Physical Environment of the Hopi Indians of Arizona. Reports of the Awatovi Expedition, Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Report No. 1. Peabody Museum, Cambridge, MA .
Heitman, C. C. 2011 Architectures of Inequality: Evaluating Houses, Kinship, and Cosmol-ogy in Chaco Canyon New Mexico, New Mexico, A.D. 800–1200. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville .
Heitman, C. C., and S. Plog In press Chaco Revisited: New Research on the Prehistory of Chaco Canyon, New Mexico . University of Arizona Press, Tucson .
Judd, N. M. 1964 The Architecture of Pueblo Bonito . Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 145(1). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC .
Kantner, J., and K. W. Kintigh 2006 The Chaco World. In The Archaeology of Chaco Canyon , edited by S. H. Lekson, pp. 153–188. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe .
Kantner, J., and N. M. Mahoney (editors). 2000 Great House Communities Across the Cha-coan Landscape. Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona, No. 64. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Kuckelman, K. A., and S. G. Ortman 2003 Chronology. In The Archaeology of Yellow Jacket Pueblo , edited by K. A. Kuckelman. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, CO. Electronic Document. Accessed November 5, 2014 at http://crowcanyon.org/ResearchReports/YellowJacket/Text/yjpw_contentsvolume.asp ,
Lekson, S. H. 1986 Great Pueblo Architecture of Chaco Canyon, New Mexico . University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque .
———. 1999 The Chaco Meridian: Centers of Political Power in the Ancient Southwest . AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA .
———. 2007 Great House Form. In The Architecture of Chaco Canyon, New Mexico , edited by S. H. Lekson, pp. 7–44. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City .
———. 2009 A History of the Ancient Southwes t. School of Advanced Research Press, Santa Fe . Lekson, S. H. (editor). 2006 The Archaeology of Chaco Canyon . School of American Research
Press, Santa Fe . Lekson, S. H., T. C. Windes, and P. J. McKenna 2006 Architecture. In The Archaeology of Chaco
Canyon , edited by S. H. Lekson, pp. 67–116. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe . Levy, J. E. 1992 Orayvi Revisited, Social Stratifi cation in an “Egalitarian” Society . School of Ameri-
can Research Press, Santa Fe . Lipe, W. D. 2006 Notes from the North. In The Archaeology of Chaco Canyon , edited by S. H.
Lekson, pp. 261–314. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe . McGuire, R. H., and M. B. Schiffer 1983 A Theory of Architectural Design. Journal of Anthro-
pological Archaeology 2: 277–303 . Mahoney, N. M., and J. Kantner 2000 Chacoan Archaeology and Great House Communi-
ties. In Great House Communities Across the Chacoan Landscape , edited by J. Kantner and N. Mahoney, pp. 1–18. Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona No. 64. Univer-sity of Arizona Press, Tucson .
15031-0189d-1pass-r03.indd 209 02-07-2016 11:08:18
210 Kellam Throgmorton
Marshall, M. P., J. R. Stein, R. W. Loose, and J. E. Novotny 1979 Anasazi Communities in the San Juan Basin . Public Service Company of New Mexico and New Mexico State Planning Division, Albuquerque and Santa Fe .
McAndrews, K., C. D. Breternitz, and J. G. Hampson 2005 5MT9934: A Multicomponent Habitation Site. In The Puebloan Occupation of the Ute Mountain Piedmont Volume 4: Mul-ticomponent Habitation Sites , edited by B. R. Billman and C. K. Robinson, pp. 3.1–3.173. Soil Systems Publications in Archaeology No. 22. Submitted to Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, Towaoc, CO .
McKenna, P. J. 1986 A Summary of the Chaco Center’s Small Site Excavations: 1973–1978. In Small Site Architecture of Chaco Canyon , edited by P. J. McKenna and M. L. Truell, pp. 5–114. Publications in Archaeology 18D. Chaco Canyon Studies. National Park Service. Depart-ment of the Interior, Santa Fe .
Morris, J. N. 1991 Four Corners Archaeological Project, Report No. 4. Archaeological Exca-vations on the Hovenweep Laterals, Volume I. Complete Archaeological Service Associ-ates, 90–16. Submitted to Cultural Resource Program, Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, Salt Lake City .
Powers, R. P., W. B. Gillespie, and S. H. Lekson 1983 The Outlier Survey: A Regional View of Settlement in the San Juan Basin. Reports of the Chaco Center No. 3. Division of Cul-tural Research, National Park Service, Albuquerque .
Rapoport, A. 1969 House Form and Culture . Prentice Hall, Englewood, NJ . Reed, P. F. 2008 Salmon Pueblo as a Ritual and Residential Chacoan Great House. In Chaco’s
Northern Prodigies: Salmon, Aztec, and the Ascendancy of the Middle San Juan Region after AD 1100 , edited by P. F. Reed, pp. 42–61. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
———. 2011 Middle San Juan Settlement Patterns: Searching for Chacoan Immigrants and Evidence of Local Emulation on the Landscape. Kiva 77(2): 225–249.
Reher, C. A. (editor).1977 Settlement and Subsistence along the Lower Chaco River: The CGP Survey . University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque .
Roberts, F.H.H. 1939 Archaeological Remains in the Whitewater District, Eastern Arizona, Pt. 1, House Types . Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 121. Washington, DC.
Rohman, P. J. 2011 Chapter 6: NM-H-29–88. In Cultural Resource Investigations within Area IV North, BHP Navajo Coal Company’s Navajo Mine, Navajo Reservation, Nenahnezad Chapter, Shiprock Agency, San Juan County, New Mexico, Volume II: Anasazi Occupations , edited by J. Fetterman, pp. 6-1–6-92. Woods Canyon Archaeological Consultants Report No 07–1. Submitted to BHP Navajo Coal Company, Fruitland, NM .
Schachner, G. 2010 Corporate Group Formation and Differentiation in Early Puebloan Vil-lages of the American Southwest. American Antiquity 75: 473–496 .
Scheick, C. L. (editor). 1983 The Gamerco Project: Flexibility as an Adaptive Response. School of American Research, Report No. 071. Submitted to Carbon Coal, Inc. School of American Research, Santa Fe .
———. 2002 Cultural Dynamics and Landscape Use: Pueblo II and III Occupation of the McKinley Mine South Lease. Part I: Background and Description. Submitted to the Pittsburg and Midway Coal Mining Co., McKinley Mine, Gallup, NM. Research Series 347 . Southwest Archaeologi-cal Consultants, Santa Fe .
Sciscenti, J. V. 1962 The Manuelito Project: Archaeological Salvage Operations on Interstate 40 . Lab-oratory of Anthropology Note No. 14. Santa Fe .
Stein, J. R., and S. H. Lekson 1992 Anasazi Ritual Landscapes. In Anasazi Regional Organiza-tion and the Chaco System , edited by D. E. Doyel, pp. 87–100. Maxwell Museum of Anthro-pology. Anthropological Papers No. 5. University of New Mexico, Albuquerque .
Throgmorton, K. J. 2012 Pithouse Architecture in the Puerco Valley A.D. 600–900: Form, Function, and Cultural Identity. Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Colorado, Boulder .
15031-0189d-1pass-r03.indd 210 02-07-2016 11:08:18
Vernacular architecture in the Chacoan world 211
Toll, H. W., and C. D. Wilson 2000 Locational, Architectural, and Ceramic Trends in the Bas-ketmaker III Occupation of the La Plata Valley, New Mexico. In Foundations of Anasazi Culture: the Basketmaker-Pueblo Transition , edited by P. F. Reed, pp. 19–44. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City .
Truell, M. L. 1986 A Summary of Small Site Architecture in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. In Small Site Architecture of Chaco Canyon , edited by P. J. McKenna and M. L. Truell, pp. 115–508. Publications in Archeology 18D, Chaco Canyon Studies. National Park Service. U.S. Department of the Interior, Santa Fe .
———. 1992 Excavations at 29SJ 627 Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, Volume I. Reports of the Chaco Center, No. 11. Branch of Cultural Research, Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Santa Fe .
Van Dyke, R. M. 2000 Chacoan Ritual Landscapes: The View from Red Mesa Valley. In Great House Communities Across the Chacoan Landscape , edited by J. Kantner and N. Mahoney, pp. 91–100. Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona No. 64. University of Arizona Press, Tucson .
———. 2004 Memory, Meaning, and Masonry: The Late Bonito Chacoan Landscape. Ameri-can Antiquity 69(3): 413–431 .
———. 2007 The Chaco Experience . School of Advanced Research Press, Santa Fe . ———. 2008 Temporal Scale and Qualitative Social Transformation at Chaco Canyon. Cam-
bridge Archaeological Journal 18(1): 70–78 . Varien, M. D. 1999 Regional Context: Architecture, Settlement Patterns, and Abandonment.
In The Sand Canyon Archaeological Project: Site Testing , edited by M. D. Varien. Crow Can-yon Archaeological Center, Cortez, CO. Electronic Document, http://crowcanyon.org/ResearchReports/SiteTesting/Text/Report.asp , accessed November 5, 2014 .
Varien, M. D., and K. A. Kuckelman 1999 Summary and Conclusions. In The Sand Can-yon Archaeological Project: Site Testing, edited by M. D. Varien. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, CO. Electronic Document, http://crowcanyon.org/ResearchReports/SiteTesting/Text/Report.asp , accessed November 5, 2014 .
Vivian, R. G. 1990 The Chacoan Prehistory of the San Juan Basin . Academic Press, San Diego . Wilshusen, R. H. 1988 Architectural Trends in Prehistoric Anasazi Sites at Dolores, Colorado,
A.D. 600 to 1200. In Dolores Archaeological Program: Supporting Studies: Additive and Reductive Technologies , compiled by E. Blinman, C. J. Phagan, and R. H. Wilshusen, pp. 673–702. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Engineering and Research Center, Denver .
Wilshusen, R. H., and S. G. Ortman 1999 Rethinking the Pueblo I Period in the Northern Southwest: Aggregation, Migration, and Cultural Diversity. Kiva 64: 369–399.
Wilshusen, R. H., and S. G. Ortman, S. Diederichs, D. M. Glowacki, and G. Coffey 2012 Heartland of the Early Pueblos: The Central Mesa Verde. In Crucible of Pueblos: The Early Pueblo Period in the Northern Southwest , edited by R. H. Wilshusen, G. Schachner, and J. R. Allison, pp. 14–34. Monograph 71. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, University of California, Los Angeles.
Wilshusen, R. H., and J. M. Potter 2010 The Emergence of Early Villages in the American Southwest: Cultural Issues and Historical Perspectives. In Becoming Villagers: Comparing Early Village Societies, edited by Matthew S. Bandy and Jake R. Fox, pp. 165–183. Univer-sity of Arizona Press, Tucson .
Wilshusen, R. H., and R. M. Van Dyke 2006 Chaco’s Beginnings. In The Archaeology of Chaco Canyon , edited by S. Lekson, pp. 211–259. School of American Research, Santa Fe .
Windes, T. C. 1984 A New Look at Population in Chaco Canyon. In Recent Research on Chaco Prehistory , edited by W. J. Judge and J. D. Schelberg, pp. 75–87. Reports of the Chaco Center, No. 8. Division of Cultural Research, National Park Service, Albuquerque .
15031-0189d-1pass-r03.indd 211 02-07-2016 11:08:18
212 Kellam Throgmorton
———. 1993 The Spadefoot Toad Site: Investigations at 29SJ 629 Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, Volume I. Reports of the Chaco Center, No. 12. Branch of Cultural Research, Division of Anthropology, National Park Service, Santa Fe .
———. 2007 Gearing Up and Piling On: Early Great Houses in the Interior San Juan Basin. In The Architecture of Chaco Canyon, New Mexico , edited by S. H. Lekson, pp. 45–92. Uni-versity of Utah Press, Salt Lake City .
Windes, T. C., and R. M. Van Dyke 2012 Pueblo I Settlement in the Greater Chaco Basin. In Crucible of Pueblos: The Early Pueblo Period in the Northern Southwest , edited by R. H. Wilshusen, G. Schachner, and J. R. Allison, pp. 72–100. Monograph 71. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, University of California, Los Angeles .
Yost, S. W. and R. M. Van Dyke 1996 Excavations at LA 82627/2509 (The Blackbird Site). In Investigations at Nine Sites in the Southern Tohatchi Flats and Adjacent Uplands. Pipeline Archae-ology 1990-1993: The El Paso Natural Gas North System Expansion Project, New Mexico and Arizona , Volume 8, Book 2, Chapter 14. Western Cultural Resource Management, Farm-ington, NM.
15031-0189d-1pass-r03.indd 212 02-07-2016 11:08:19