University of Virginia Library

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.