University of Virginia Library

MAMMAL AND BIRD REMAINS

By Frank C. Hibben

Mammal and bird remains were very numerous at Tseh So and a
good collection of several thousand pieces was secured both from the
ruin itself and from the refuse pile. It must be stated, however, that
the supply from the refuse pile was disappointingly small. The fill of
the rooms themselves was the greatest source of this material.

Complete remains were found in several instances and under most
interesting circumstances. Thus, complete skeletons of turkeys were
found between the fire screen and the ventilator in each of the four
kivas, and two such were found in Kiva 4. Each of these turkeys was
a female, and in each case the skull was missing. It was at first supposed
that a complete bird had been thrown down the ventilator shaft
and thus carried out into this space with the subsequent wash. However,
in Kivas 2 and 3 the bones were articulated and obviously placed
in an extended position. Furthermore, the remains were placed symmetrically
in this space and directly on the low platform which covers
the floor in that area.

In this connection must be mentioned the rather interesting accompaniment
of turkey bones with the burials at Tseh So. Every burial
with the exception of one, the immature burial from Room 7, was accompanied
by one or more bones of Meleagris gallopavo. These were
usually femurae and humeri, but other parts occurred also. It must be
stated, however, that this association is not definite, insomuch as the
fill of all the graves was mixed with a liberal quantity of many kinds of
mammal and bird remains. The Meleagris bones seemed to be in direct
association with the burials and to be along side of the food vessels
which had been placed with the dead. The bones were never in the
vessels.

In a cist in the floor of Kiva 3 was the complete skeleton of an immature
dog. This cist had been prepared by an excavation down
through the shale floor, the hole being lined with adobe and sealed with
adobe, forming an area of marked contrast to the darker colored floor.
This cist was just to the north and east of the fire pit. The dog was
only slightly flexed and lying on the right side with its head to the
south, as will be noticed was also the direction of the burials. The bones
were laid in, or subsequently covered with, a fine infiltration of mud
which represented, evidently, the wash from the walls and roof.

A nearly complete lynx skeleton was found on the floor of the
substructure to the west.

In the matter of articulated bones, several limbs were found which
were laid in such a position as to indicate that the ligaments were in

place at the time of their deposition. Two of these were deer and one
an antelope, in each case placed on the room floor. In no sense were
these burials, or other than accidental depositions.

In several of the rooms, noticeably Rooms 1 and 11, bone fragments
supplemented the shards as spalls in the walls. Also, two adobe
lumps which bore the impressions of roof structure contained embedded
bone fragments. In the fragments of the roof of Room 16 these bone
splinters were obviously used as pegs to hold down a piece of cloth,
the imprint of which yet remained plainly visible.

Many of these bone fragments bear interesting impressions showing
methods of working. The bones were cut by incising a groove
around the circumference and subsequent breaking. Long bones were
split lengthwise by inserting a wedge and splitting the bone shaft. The
joints were cut through by the same incising technique. Bone incising
as decoration was also practiced to a limited extent, but the few examples
from Tseh So were more scratches according to a plan than incisions.
A bone embedded in the north wall of Room 1 displayed several
vertical grooves which were the result of working by abrasion.

Implements of animal and bird bones from this site show about
equal numbers of deer, antelope, jackrabbit and turkey utilized, with
perhaps deer and turkey predominating. Many of the implements
were obviously made from the limb bones of large herbivorous mammals
but positive identification was uncertain.

The considerable number of bone beads recovered from Tseh So
were all manufactured from the long bones of turkeys. Those mentioned
in connection with burial Bc50 60/6 were of this type.

The accompanying table gives (Table III) a picture of the distribution
of the bone remains and of the different types represented. A more
elaborate table had been prepared, showing the distribution of these
remains by levels, but as the bones proved to be about equally distributed
through the room fill, this table is not here represented. Also,
in compiling the percentages, the material from the rooms, and refuse
pile, as well as from the test trenches, was utilized. This table, however,
shows only those specimens from the rooms, kivas, and the
trenches immediately surrounding the ruin. These percentages are a
close parallel to those from the refuse mound and ruin combined. The
numbers indicate the number of bones found in each situation, exclusive
of complete or articulated skeletons. Those below the line indicate
specimens found below the floor, id est, in the substructure. Note especially
those species absent in the substructure.

Sylvilagus auduboni warreni—(Colorado Cotton Tail) 29.7%

The remains of this rodent bulked large in the bone remains
from almost every room of the pueblo. It is most natural to suppose
that this mammal should have played a large part in the food

economy of the Chaco people as it is found in fair numbers in the
region today. The Chaco Canyon is well within the borders of its
range although the altitude is in general somewhat low. Insomuch
as this species is one of the Upper Sonoran and Transitional zones,
its frequency here may be a valuable clue to former edaphic conditions
in the Chaco. No other member of the auduboni group was
identified from this ruin although Sylvilagus auduboni cedrophilus
occurs just to the south.

Lepus californicus texianus—(Texas Jack Rabbit) 29.3%

The many fragments representing the Texas jack rabbit are
second only to those of the cotton tail. Room 8 was especially prolific
in the remains of this rabbit, but these did not seem to represent
any articulated individuals but rather a large collection of
single, and in most cases, broken bones. Four femuri of the Texas
jack rabbit occurred on the floor of the second substructure room
on the west side of the mound. The presence of these bones on
this level is most interesting, especially as all of these four showed
signs of having been worked.

Cynomys gunnisoni zuniensis—(Zuñi Prairie Dog) 9.6%

The percentage of the Zuñi prairie dog is a doubtful figure
although it follows next in order of number of bones recovered.
The situation of some of these remains beyond question represents
a part of the food of the original inhabitants of Ruin 50, but others
are undoubtedly the result of rodents deceased in their burrows in
the mound from natural causes. During the excavation, many
such burrows were encountered and many had wrought havoc
with the burials. None, however, went deeper than the floor of
the Pueblo II structure. Insomuch as the prairie dog is an accepted
delicacy to most Indian palates of the present day, it was
not surprising to find it represented here. The first pit in Kiva
3 yielded prairie dog bones slightly charred. No other species of
prairie dog was represented.

Odocoileus hemionus—(Mule Deer) 8.2%

The specific variety represented in this instance is probably
Odocoileus hemionus hemionus although no positive identification
may be made from the skeletal material. These deer bones occurred
in fair numbers both as refuse in the room fill and as material
for implements. It will be noticed also that the mule deer
was apparently quite as much used in Pueblo I as in the later level,
or perhaps even more so inasmuch as other species seem to be
absent in the early period. The deer bones were almost invariably
broken so that only joints and slivers of the shafts remained. This
is, of course, a common expedient among primitive people for extracting

the marrow. Undoubtedly many of the hundreds of fragments
of unidentified bones are referable to this species although
it is impossible of proof.

The source of these deer is only a matter of conjecture, but it
is not impossible that many of them may have come from the
immediate neighborhood. Stories of old informants have much to
say of the game formerly inhabiting the low country and piñonjuniper
country where it is now completely absent.

Canis familiaris—(Common Dog—Coyote) 5.8%

Under this heading may be grouped both the domestic dog
and the coyote. It is extremely dubious whether the Indian dog of
Chaco times ever departed very widely from the wild coyotes and
wolves with which he undoubtedly at times interbred. The bones
of the dog show up in fair numbers throughout the rooms and especially
in the substructure. It is worthy of note that these remains
are represented largely by portions of jaws and skulls, and
the larger bones when present are whole and not splintered with a
maul. This may be an indication that the dog or coyote was not
a food item but is not conclusive evidence. The fact that the dog
was an acceptable dish to some Indians and is here intermingled
with other obvious food items may be taken to the contrary. The
complete skeleton in Kiva 3 has already been mentioned.

Antilocapra americana americana—(Antelope) 3.3%

It is an established fact that the antelope was once common
on the mesas of the Chaco region, and the arrows of Tseh So evidently
brought down at least an occasional beast. The narrow
toe bones were used for scrapers and awls and the scapulae for
scrapers. As a food item the bones were broken in the same
manner as those of the deer. The lesser number of antelope as
compared with deer may be due to the greater difficulty of their
capture rather than comparative numbers. Antelope bones were
discovered in the Pueblo I level below Rooms 19 and 20.

Sylvilagus nuttalli pinetis—(Rocky Mountain Cottontail) 1.7%

As this rabbit has a center of distribution north of the Chaco
in Colorado, it is interesting to find it even in moderate numbers
at this site. It is especially interesting as this is a pine forest or
Transitional zone form and no such pine forest now occurs within
many miles of Chaco Canyon. Sylvilagus nuttalli pinetis does occur
in the Jemez range to the east and for an unknown distance
south.

Neotoma mexicana fallax—(Colorado Wood Rat) 1.6%

The remains of an ancient rat nest in a corner of Room
2 undoubtedly accounts for some of the Neotoma remains in

that place, although the bones were scattered throughout the room.
Other bones, especially one from the fire pit of Room 14, probably
represent a use of this rat as food. As the wood rat is fairly
common in the area and the Chaco is well within its range, it seems
reasonable to conclude that it was not a favorite food item. Its
normal upper Sonoran range fits in well with Chaco flora and altitude.
Needless to say, the wood rat is not undelectable among the
present day Navajos.

Ovis canadensis texiana—(Texas Bighorn Sheep) 1.1%

The present range of this most interesting animal is restricted
to the Guadalupe Mountains of Texas and southern New
Mexico. However, undoubtedly it once had a much wider distribution,
not only in the northern mountain ranges but in the breaks
and open country of the northern portion of the state as well. The
few fragments of Ovis which were yielded by Tseh So may be referred
with reasonable certainty to texiana. The area beneath the
floor of Room 20 contained three fragments of Ovis bones, among
them a portion of a jaw and teeth. This dentition is heavier than
is allowed under the species Ovis canadensis canadensis and is
therefore texiana or auduboni, and probably the former. No bones
of Ovis were certainly identified as among those used for tools.

Thomomys perpallidus aureus—(Pocket Gopher) .6%

The Thomomys or western pocket gopher is represented by
many varieties in northern New Mexico. There is no colony in
the immediate vicinity of Mound 50 at the present time, but there
may well have been in past years. The few bones of this species
may be out of place on the food list entirely. However, many
Indians of today, notably the California Miwok, consider a pocket
gopher pounded to an edible pulp a delectable delicacy.

Taxidea taxus berlandieri—(Texas Badger) .3%

A few gnarled and twisted bones found on the room floors were
unmistakably those of the powerful digging equipage of the
badger. That this animal was taken occasionally for food seems
entirely logical. Badgers are seldom numerous and evidently only
an occasional one found his way into the flesh pots of Tseh So.

Peromyscus maniculatus rufinus—(Tawny Deer Mouse) .2%

This typical little rodent was also identified from Tseh So, especially
from several skulls. Undoubtedly other species of the
small rodents were present, but identification was difficult without
the skulls. It is also hardly to be supposed that the white-footed
mouse was a food item used by the aborigines of Chaco. Its presence
in the ruin is undoubtedly due to entirely natural causes.

Lynx baileyi—(Plateau Bob Cat) .1%

Outside of a nearly complete skeleton of a lynx found on the
floor of the substructure, only one other bone was found, this being
a humerus from Room 4. That this animal was known to, and
used by, the ancient inhabitants seems certain. However, it would
scarcely have been a major food item, if it were eaten at all, and
the difficulty of catching these cats would also have limited their
presence at Tseh So.

Bird Remains

Meleagris gallopavo—(Wild Turkey?) 8.7%

Of all the bird remains, the greatest number by far were those
of the turkey. Of all the bones at the ruin 8.7% were those of the
gallopavo. These were found under all conceivable circumstances,
as was mentioned before in connection with the burials and the
kivas. Perhaps the most interesting notation concerning the turkey
was its total absence in the Pueblo I level. There are certainly
enough specimens to insure of this being more than merely
negative evidence.

Is is interesting also to speculate upon the source of these
birds, as well as upon the long-mooted question of their domestication.
A fragment of egg shell from Room I has the circumference
and shape of a turkey egg. Also, the Chaco country at
present is not suited for turkeys as there is little or no oak scrub
mast or piñon nuts. This situation may have been different in
1000 A. D., however. Large numbers of turkeys were brought to
Tseh So, but whether alive or dead it is impossible to say.

Aguila chrysaetos—(Golden Eagle) .1%

The golden eagle was represented by a single ulna, with accompanying
radius, on the floor of Room 13, which is the kiva
enclosure for Kiva 3. The bones were lying directly on the
surface of the enclosure to the northwest of the kiva, an angle
which had evidently been used at one time for habitation. It is
useless to speculate as to the culinary or ceremonial purposes of
this bird at this site. Judging from more modern parallels, this
wing may well have been used for the latter purpose.

VEGETABLE REMAINS

By Frank C. Hibben

Foods

The following vegetable items were positively identified which
were possible food items:

Zea mays, 12-row and 8-row varieties; Cucurbita moschata; Juglans
major; Juglans rupestris; Bracket fungus (species); and starch
and protein meal other than maize.

Zea Mays. Maize remains were the most abundant of the food
items identified. Small cobs occurred in every level in about equal
quantities. Certain fire pits, however, such as those in Rooms 15 and
18, contained the greatest number of corn cobs. No room which might
be termed a granary was located.

In Room 1 was found a large deposit of vegetable material from
which most of the above identifications were made. This was a mass
of matter some two feet thick lying directly on the floor at a depth of
five and one-half feet from the surface and covering the entire floor
of the room. In this deposit occurred at least two hundred cobs of
12-row maize, and fragments from many more. This 12-row maize is
of the same variety as grown by the Navajos of the region today. The
most notable general aspect of this maize was its stunted appearance.
No complete cob was more than four and one-half inches long, and
most of them were under three and one-half inches. The diameters
also were quite small.[1] All of the cob remains exhibited lateral flattening
from the superincumbent earth load.

A limited number of cobs were recovered in a fragmentary condition
from the substructure (Pueblo 1) rooms on the northwest side of
the mound. These were of an 8-row variety, and were even more
stunted and warped than those from the Pueblo II above. No kernels
were found so that the variety has not been determined.

In connection with the maize it must be mentioned that several
varieties of meal found in the kivas were examined to see if corn meal
was represented. None of these was definitely established as corn meal,
although some of them contained starch.

Cucurbita moschata. The gourd family was represented at Tseh
So only by moschata, although all of the specimens were examined for
the possible presence of maxima this far north. Most of these identifications
were made on the basis of twenty-two fragmentary pumpkins,

represented by stems, rinds, and seeds found in the deposit in Room 1
mentioned before. Also, a potsherd containing some seeds of the
moschata was found on the floor of Room 2.

Juglans major. The large walnut is an interesting record for the
Chaco Canyon. This identification was made from three nuts which
formed part of a necklace found with burial Bc50 60/6. In this case
a portion of the shell had been cut away so that a cord might be passed
through the columella and the nut thus used as a bead. Fragments
referable to Juglans were also found charred in a fire pit in Room 16.

Juglans rupestris. The smaller species of walnut was also represented
by three shells on the same necklace mentioned above. These
had been cut in the same manner for suspension as were the major
specimens. The possible source of these walnuts is only a matter of
conjecture. There is little doubt that the trees did not grow in the
Chaco area.

Bracket fungus. A large section of bracket fungus was found
with the rest of the vegetable material in Room 1. It was impossible
to identify this as to species, but the cross sections displayed the unmistakable
structure of the bracket fungus. A large lump of resin on
its base seemed to indicate a fungus growing on a resinous tree, probably
pine or piñon in this case. The mere fact of its presence with the
maize and pumpkin remains, and the known edibility of some fungi are
the only basis for listing this as a possible food item.

Starch and protein meal. In Kiva 2 a small quantity of whitish
meal was found contained in a broken olla neck superimposed on a circular
potsherd as a base. The meal, when stained and observed in the
microscope, proved to be made up of about equal proportions of protein
and starch. This was definitely not corn meal. As most of the nut
meals would run much higher in protein, this meal may have been made
from beans but this is only a conjecture.

Another small quantity of meal from the same kiva proved not to
be vegetable at all but amorphous gypsum. However, this substance
(which, as far as appearance goes, is a true meal) seems from its
situation to have been used for a like purpose—not for gastronomical
purposes but possibly ceremonially in the kiva.

Identified Vegetable Material Other Than Food

The following non-subsistence items were also identified from
Tseh So:

Juniperus (sp.); Pinus ponderosa; Pinus edulis; Populus (sp.);
Equisetum (sp.); Sporobolus (sp.); and Yucca (sp.).

Juniperus. Large posts of juniper, several inches in diameter,
were used as vigas and as cross pieces in the roof construction of the
pueblo. Also, smaller poles of juniper were used as lintels in the
ventilating shafts of the kivas as well as lintels, uprights, and sills in
several of the room doorways, notably those in Rooms 2 and 4. Split
fragments and slabs of juniper were used also to augment the roof
covering of sacaton and horsetail. Large quantities of such juniper
fragments were found in connection with the cache of food in Room 1
mentioned before.

Juniper bark also seems to have been utilized by the inhabitants
of Tseh So. A small fragment of plain woven matting in Room 1
is made of this material. Fragments and scraps of juniper bark from
other sections of the pueblo seem to indicate the use of juniper bast
for both cordage and matting purposes.

Pinus ponderosa. Vigas of pine occurred in a fragmentary condition
in both the rooms and the kivas. The largest of these was
slightly under eight inches in diameter and was a long viga which ran
east and west across both Rooms 2 and 4. Pine beams used in the kivas
were somewhat smaller in diameter, judging from the fragments which
remain. The larger size of those from the rooms may have been made
necessary by the addition of a second story over the central portion.
Several bunches of charred pine needles also occurred in the ruin, a
mass of these being found in the fireplace in Room 16. These seem to
be the remnants of several bunches or tufts of long needles bound
together to make a small broom or whip. No evidence of the binding
was present, however.

Pinus edulis. As piñon occurs in large quantities in the immediate
vicinity of Chaco Canyon, and probably did even more so in ancient
times, it is but logical that the inhabitants of Tseh So used this species
to a very considerable extent. Fragments of piñon occurred in considerable
quantities in every fire pit which was examined. Piñon limbs
in small fragments were also used sparingly in the roof construction.
In general the piñon does not lend itself to the making of straight poles
or sticks which would be the most useful for this purpose.

Populus. Cottonwood is found (formerly much more abundantly)
along the Chaco River, and figures large in the vegetable remains from
Tseh So. In the ash pits it is second only to piñon, or perhaps equal in
importance, insomuch as cottonwood ash tends to reduce itself to a fine
powder which does not permit of identification. Cottonwood poles were
used exclusively in the roof structure of Room 7, and sparingly in the
rest of the pueblo. Some quantities of cottonwood bark also occurred
in the vegetable cache in Room 1.

Equisetum. Rushes referable to this genus were found in the
roof construction of approximately half of the rooms. This percentage
is somewhat uncertain insomuch as a number of the identifications
were made on the basis of prints in the roof adobe only. The rushes
were used, as stated before in the description of the roof materials, as
a covering over the poles, which were in turn laid at right angles to
the vigas. The rushes were carefully laid parallel, cut off at both ends
so as to form straight sticks which might be bound together in the
manner of a loosely-constructed matting. The binding used was two-ply
yucca fibre. Rough matting, similar to that used on the roofs,
was also employed for burial wrappings and for other general matting
purposes. A section of such matting, fourteen inches square, underlay
the immature burial Bc50 60/3. Fragments of similar nature occurred
in Room 8 on the floor, Room 7 possibly in connection with
burial Bc50 60/2, and on the floor of Kiva 3.

Sporobolus. Sacaton grass at the present time occurs sparingly
over a large area. Sporadic and diminutive clumps may be found in
certain wet portions of the Navajo Reservation, in a few isolated spots
of the New Mexico Gila and in a few places in the Rio Grande Valley.
Undoubtedly Chaco Canyon once supported a considerable growth of
this interesting plant. Most of the identifications were made from
roof material, where the sacaton grass was used in much the same
manner as the equisetum and possibly in even larger quantities. It
may be remarked that the adobe prints of the sacaton showing the
familiar sacaton nodes displayed a greater regularity of technique in
the manufacture of the roof covering than did those using the horse
tail. One example, also an adobe print, showed that the spacing between
the parallel reeds had been accomplished by knots in the yucca
binding interspersed between each stem. Two fragments of sacaton
grass were recovered from the floor of Room 1 which were undoubtedly
sections of compound arrows. Neither of these was complete enough
to show the wooden base or the wooden point, and they may never have
possessed them. However, one of these showed the remains of some
gut binding around one end, and the interior of the reed was reamed
out as though for the accommodation of a wooden neck or foreshaft.

Yucca. Judging from a number of fragments found throughout
the ruin, and especially in connection with the roof construction, yucca
cordage was in general use at this site. This, as well as could be determined,
was only of the two-ply variety.

In addition to yucca cordage, yucca leaves (of both narrow and
wide leaved varieties) were evidently used in the Chaco Canyon as
elsewhere during prehistoric times. The main evidence for this is an
almost complete sandal recovered from the floor of Room 3. This is

apparently of the regular Pueblo type, although unfortunately a portion
of the toe end is missing. The tying of the sandal (incomplete)
was of yucca cord. The preservation of this piece was due to the
position of the sandal underneath a sandstone slab lying directly on
the floor.

SUBSISTENCE

By Donald D. Brand

The evidence from Tseh So, as well as from other sites of similar
age in the canyon, indicates that these Chaco inhabitants of one thousand
years ago were a sedentary agricultural people who supplemented
their diet of cultivated plants with the fruits of hunting and gathering.
Agriculture was undoubtedly pre-eminent, as the already considerable
population of the Chaco Canyon[2] would have precluded any great dependence
upon hunting and gathering in the Chaco area.

Judging from the remains of mealing stones and of plants, maize
was the staple food, supplemented by cucurbits. Adding the evidence
from other Chaco sites, there may be reconstructed a picture of the
agricultural economy in which the widely spread New World complex
of maize—beans—cucurbits takes its place. To what extent wild seeds
and soft-shelled nuts supplemented maize starch and bean protein
cannot be estimated as these wild plants lack the residual parts (such
as cobs and silk) which remain from maize. Neither can the part
played by wild greens, tubers, bulbs, etc., be gauged, as they lack the
stems and rinds which the cucurbits leave as evidence into the future.
Seemingly the Chaco peoples were altogether lacking in cultivated
food plants outside of maize, pumpkins,[3] and beans. The peaches,
melons, tomatoes, peppers, onions, Irish potatoes, wheat and other
plants, now quite important among the Pueblos, were not known until
the coming of the Spaniards from Mexico.

Any statement concerning field cropping at Tseh So, or elsewhere
in the Chaco Canyon, must be based on pure conjecture. Some evidence
does exist that planting sticks and hoes were used, but nothing
at all is known concerning field patterns, crop associations, fences,
irrigation, methods of cultivation and harvesting, or land ownership.
Presumably there was not much difficulty in clearing land, as a close
forest or a dense brush cover was apparently never present. Planting
with "digging sticks" was quite feasible, as the soil of the canyon floor
is loose and friable. The soil is a sandy loam, easy to work, but poor

in phosphates, potash, and nitrates, and susceptible to surface concentrations
of alkali. It is possible that the long continued diversion
of flood waters over the farm areas may have resulted in such a heavy
concentration of black alkali that large areas had to be abandoned.
This may have been one of the factors that contributed to the abandonment
of the Chaco during the twelfth century.

In any consideration of field patterns, existence of fences, and evidence
for irrigation, it must be kept in mind that the present surface
of the Chaco Canyon floor is not that of one thousand, or even of five
hundred, years ago. Whatever evidence there may be on the present
surface for outlines of fields or of irrigation systems must be attributed
to Navajo farmers (who have cultivated plots in the canyon for anywhere
from one to five hundred or more years) and to white settlers
(who have been in the canyon for at least forty years).

Since numerous claims have been made for prehistoric irrigation
in the Chaco Canyon, it seems advisable to consider this matter in
detail. The floor of the Chaco Canyon is not comparable with the lands
irrigated by the Hohokam of the Middle Gila area, for the Arizona
lands are relatively open and do not possess limiting cliffs to confine
and direct the movements of air and water—laden with silt and sand.
In an area so closely circumscribed as is the cliff-walled Chaco, the
processes of deposition and evacuation become accentuated and accelerated.
Scarp fronts of crumbly sandstone and friable shale, windstorms,
torrential rainfalls, and extremes of temperature, all contribute to the
cycles of aggradation and degradation. Some eight centuries have
elapsed since the builders of the Chaco pueblos occupied the canyonvalley.
Certain archaeologists, who trace the outlines of prehistoric
irrigation systems on the present surface of the canyon floor, would
have us accept one or the other of the following assumptions:

• 1. That the present surface is and has been the same as that of
  eight hundred years ago, or

• 2. That whatever filling took place after the abandonment of the
  pueblos has been exactly compensated by denudation.

Patently, traces of prehistoric ditches could not be found on the
present surface unless this surface were that of eight hundred years
ago. It is exceedingly difficult for anyone familiar with the rapid
changes effected by nature in the Southwestern landscape to believe
that an original surface could be maintained for a century, to say
nothing of eight centuries. Scarcely less credible is the assumption
that some patron saint of archaeologists, like Joshua of old, halted
the processes of nature at the proper historic moment—leaving the
old occupational surface revealed to the delighted eyes of modern
savants. Actually, one must look beneath the present surface, anywhere

from a few feet down to as much as a rod, for the prehistoric
horizons.

After ruling out the present surficial evidence, there still remains
the possibility that ditch irrigation with waters taken from the Chaco
River may have been carried on prehistorically. However, there is
neither evidence nor need for such an assumption. Nowhere have
natural arroyo channels or archaeologists' trenches revealed in their
walls the outlines of former ditches. Furthermore, present conditions
are certainly no more humid than in prehistoric days, yet Navajos
have been raising and harvesting crops of maize, beans, etc., with no
ditch irrigation, for many generations. To be sure, a form of irrigation
is practiced, namely, planting fields in areas where natural subsoil
irrigation will operate, and diverting surface flood waters with dikes.
This is the procedure followed by the desert Papagos, who raise crops
under really arid conditions; and it was undoubtedly employed by the
prehistoric peoples of the Chaco. Such is also the conclusion of others
who have worked in the Chaco, e. g., Neil Judd and Kirk Bryan.

Of domesticated animals, there were only the dog and, possibly,
the turkey. Certainly the turkey and, perhaps, the dog were used as
food. Neither pack nor draft animals were present to lighten the
labors of the Chaco farmers. Among animals commonly hunted for
food were the pronghorn (American antelope), mule deer, American
elk, several rabbits, prairie dog, and the scaled quail. Probably the
badger, bears, beaver, gopher, mountain sheep, mice and rats, porcupine,
squirrels, and jays were eaten at times. Trade or occasional
hunting parties may have brought in bison infrequently. The remains
of other animals (such as coyote and fox, bobcat and mountain lion,
eagles, hawks, etc.) probably represents the acquisition of these creatures
for other than food purposes.

Altogether, the peoples of Tseh So and the Chaco could have had a
well-balanced diet with no outstanding deficiencies. The few skeletal
studies made to date from the Chaco are not sufficient to indicate any
disease trends that might be attributed to food habits.

THE PLACE OF TSEH SO IN THE CHACO CULTURE PATTERN

By Florence M. Hawley

No longer ago than the early 1920's archaeologists were debating
the age of prehistoric Southwestern ruins and were laughing over
each other's exaggerated estimates. Now, since many of the ruins
have been definitely dated by the Douglass system of tree ring chronology,
archaeologists debate the reasons for spurts and lags that produced
very uneven levels of culture over the area during a single
century. Pueblo I overlapped Basket Maker III and Pueblo II in actual
dates; and Pueblo II, where found, is contemporaneous with much of
Pueblo III. A vivid example of this appeared in dating the Chaco
ruins.

Douglass has dated Judd's Basket Maker III pit houses in the
Chaco at 777 A. D.[4] Pueblo I here has not yet been dated, but Pueblo II
(as represented by the upper structure of Mound Bc50, Tseh So)
dates 922 plus between ten to twenty years, the rings for which had
decayed from the exterior of the dated specimen. This places the cutting
date of the beam about 940 or 950 A. D., a later date than had been
expected for Pueblo II in the Chaco. Chetro Ketl and Pueblo Bonito
dates extend back into the 900's.[5] Dates in the late 800's came from
beams built into walls in Una Vida and in Kin Biniola, but these
appear to have been logs once used in earlier structures, salvaged, and
re-used in later walls. We cannot avoid the evidence, however, of
small Pueblo II pueblos having been built in the Chaco at the same
time that some of the larger pueblos were under construction. The
wall types used at this period in the two classes of structures were
successive in typology and in some cases were found superposed one
upon the other. Evidently the two wall types were more or less contemporaneous
over a part of their period of use, although one probably
preceded the other in origin. A similar statement may be made for
the two classes of structures, the large pueblos and the small: they
were more or less contemporaneous over a part of their period of construction
and of use, although the latter preceded the former in origin.

Sedentary occupation of the Chaco goes back to the people of
Basket Maker III who brought their culture into the Chaco sometime
before 777 A. D. They lived in pit houses until they began to think of
using slabs, such as those which lined their pit walls, as the bases of
walls constructed above ground. The upper part of these walls was
crude masonry, if one may distinguish by that name a wall largely of

adobe but interspersed with small stones. The women made pottery
similar to that of their neighbors to the south in the Pueblo I villages
of the Red Mesa country. We may give this Pueblo I culture the
approximate date of 850 A. D., plus or minus, in the Chaco.

In the early 900's the Chaco people were building small pueblos
with rooms outlined by walls of small stones set in a great deal of
adobe. Their most common painted pottery, Escavada Black on White,
became more sophisticated in design but cruder in workmanship than
the Red Mesa Black on White prevalent in the previous period, although
the latter continued to be made. Some of the pueblos built
during the 900's were not small, however; daring builders were expanding
them beyond anything previously attempted. A new and
more stable type of wall than any previously devised was used. This
was built up of large slabs of sandstone set in abundant mortar. The
idea of a core in a wall had not yet occurred to the builders. The fact
that slab walls were found superposed over walls of the small stones
set into clay in the central section of Una Vida indicates that the
cruder walls of small stones probably had been devised before slab
walls were used, but the dates on the small stone walls at Mound
Bc50 and the dates on the slab masonry of other sections of Una Vida
prove that the former were still being made for some time after the
latter had been developed. This is what one might expect, for in the
Chaco the study of trash mounds has demonstrated the hold-over of
pottery types of a former period into the succeeding period; one does
not expect clean-cut breaks between types of any element of material
culture. Moreover, the dates obtained on beams taken from Pueblo III
wall types which succeeded the slab masonry leave no doubt but that
each of these types, although prevalent at one period, lasted over into
later periods when other types were prevalent.

The small house pueblos of the Chaco were contemporaneous with
the first of the large house pueblos being constructed during the tenth
century. We may imagine the debates of builders on whether the new
expansion was feasible and advisable, and the recommendations of
masons that the larger villages be built with heavier walls. Building
was upward as well as outward; towers rose and several stories were
laid above each other. Pueblo II merged into Pueblo III in the
eleventh century in the Chaco, and types of masonry were developed
in which the inner core was covered by a surface marked into bands.
The bands were of large blocks separated by bands of small spalls, the
bands being narrow at first, then wide and carefully laid, then wide and
carelessly laid in somewhat uneven lines. Finally the large blocks
were laid up without trace of banding, and in other walls small blocks
the size of the spalls used previously were laid up, likewise without
trace of banding.

The pueblos begun on a large scale during Pueblo II were further
built up, built over, and re-built. The neat shapes of the Chaco ruins
as we see them today were not a part of the original plan of many of
these pueblos; the builders changed old structures and added new ones
until the completed unit fitted their taste in architecture. But not all
of the pueblos occupied during this period were large. Just as there
were small villages characteristic of Pueblo II but some large ones
being built at that time, so there were large ones characteristic of
Pueblo III but some small ones being built contemporaneously. Talus
Unit 1, built against the cliff just to the west of Chetro Ketl, is an
example of a Pueblo III structure as small as any of those of Pueblo II.
Its masonry types and its dates leave no doubt as to its period.

While their husbands were tending the farms and were transporting
and laying the sandstone slabs into walls, the women were
working at their pottery and utilizing the resources of the canyon
quite as effectively as did the men. Gallup Black on White succeeded
Escavada Black on White, and was in its turn succeeded by Chaco
Black on White,—all three types being used to some extent contemporaneously,
but each enjoying its period of greatest popularity.

Then, in the early twelfth century, just when their culture was at
its height and the culture of other peoples throughout the Southwest
was flourishing, the population of the Chaco deserted their homes and
moved out of the canyon. Why they left is a matter of theory. Perhaps
they were oppressed by nomadic raiders; perhaps they were
plagued with superstitions and ill omens; perhaps the constant improvident
cutting of trees for building and for fire so denuded an area
never heavily forested that erosion set in and the water supply sank
beneath the surface until the farms could no longer support the farmers.
They did not leave because of drouth; tree ring studies indicate
that the large Chaco pueblos flourished through periods of drouth in
the early tenth and in the middle eleventh centuries, but that no drouth
occurred at the time of their exodus. Nowhere else in the Southwest
is there a record of any large movement of peoples at this time; the
movement and the reasons behind the movement were local.

Thus disappeared the bearers of one of the most highly developed
cultures in the Southwest. The Chaco culture was not limited to the
Chaco area; its influence is traceable in the Little Colorado, in the
Zuñi district, up into the Four Corners, and over into the Rio Grande.
Cross finds of pottery indicate that the Chaco people had carried on
trade with people of these outside areas even from early times. Their
trade had extended over into the Kayenta and the Flagstaff districts;
up into the Mesa Verde; south to the Upper Gila; and even farther
south into southern Arizona or into Mexico for the shells they cut

into jewelry and for the macaws[6] they kept for ceremonial purposes,
if we may judge from the function of macaws in the pueblos where
they are kept today. And the pottery types of the large area which
shows Chaco influence are so closely related to those of the Chaco that
it would appear Chaco people had gone out from the center and had
spread the pattern of their culture through small settlements or
through amalgamation with other peoples. They spread not only at
the time of the final desertion of the canyon but from Basket Maker III
onward. It is impossible at present to delimit accurately the area of
Chaco culture proper, and it can not be said exactly where the people
of the Chaco settled when they left the canyon about 1120 A. D., but by
the occasional presence of banded walls and by the close affinities of local
wares with the pottery of the Chaco, their influence can be traced
from the Lowry Ruin in southwestern Colorado down through the
Little Colorado and into the Upper Gila, east to the Pecos and Chupadero
country and west to the Petrified forest.

It might be said that north of the Hohokam and the Mogollon
areas of the Southwest, the Pueblo culture divided itself into two basic
patterns, that of the Tusayan and that of the Chaco. The former is
basically that marked off by pottery with carbon paint and polish over
the paint. It was formerly designated as the "Western division," by
Hawley and by Roberts. The latter is the "Eastern division," the area
of pottery decorated in black iron paint, the surface of the vessel having
been polished before the paint was applied. Design types and other
culture characteristics likewise broadly fit into these areas, because
influence from the center of highest culture virility carried out toward
the peripheries.

The former designations of area may be criticized for two reasons:
because the outlines are difficult to delineate, and because the idea of
the culture areas originally carried geographic connotations which no
longer hold in full. For instance, the Chaco was once listed in the San
Juan area, which is a correct statement geographically, but its culture
affinities are with the Little Colorado districts. Yet, if we list it as
of the Little Colorado culture, we are criticized because it is not in the
Little Colorado drainage. Perhaps the difficulty might be alleviated
somewhat by the use of culture centers rather than of culture areas,
but the idea of a center is likely to be tied up with the notion that the
culture center is a point actually located in the center of the area
affected. As a matter of fact, the culture center is not a point and
need not be near the center of anything; it is merely the district of
greatest culture influence at a given time and may change from period
to period within a large range of influence. The concept and term of

culture pattern, already in use in ethnology, avoids both the specific
use of "area" and the centralization of the term "center."

The center of most virile culture and consequently of the most
influence within the Chaco pattern appears to have been either the
Chaco Canyon or the Red Mesa district in Basketmaker III, and Chaco
Canyon in Pueblo I, II, and III. In late Pueblo III and in early Pueblo
IV the center moved to the Zuñi-Silver Creek district where pottery
glaze was developed. Many of the villages of this area were deserted
or died out during the great drouth of 1276 to 1299, and the culture
center moved eastward to the Middle Rio Grande a little later in early
Pueblo IV. There it remained, and in Zuñi and the Rio Grande pueblos
of today we find the modern inheritors of a culture which rose to its
peak in the Chaco between 750 and 1150 A. D.