![Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110822/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Social-Sciences.jpg"})
Abstract
Pueblo Bonito is the largest and most centrally located great house in Chaco Canyon. One of its most striking attributes is its abundance of “exceptional deposits” of rare and unusual objects. It is unclear, however, whether Pueblo Bonito's assemblage reflects its unique status in the Chaco world or whether it is a product of sampling bias. To answer this question, we use binomial probabilities to interpret the significance of both finding, and of failing to find, exceptional deposits in other great houses. Our analysis suggests that excavated great houses can be grouped into three categories with respect to exceptional deposits: those that likely contain frequencies comparable to Pueblo Bonito; those with frequencies substantially less than Pueblo Bonito; and those that have been insufficiently sampled to make strong inferences. Variation and uncertainty in the presence of exceptional deposits have important implications for interpreting great house functions and Chacoan sociopolitical organization.
Pueblo Bonito es la la más grande y céntrica de las “grandes casas” del Cañón del Chaco. Uno de sus atributos más llamativos es la abundancia de “depósitos excepcionales” de objetos raros e inusuales. Sin embargo, no es claro si el conjunto de Pueblo Bonito refleja su estatus único en el mundo del Chaco o si es producto de un sesgo de muestreo. Para responder a esta pregunta, usamos probabilidades binomiales para interpretar qué significa encontrar o no depósitos excepcionales en otras grandes casas. Nuestro análisis sugiere que las grandes casas excavadas pueden ser agrupadas en tres categorías con respecto a la presencia de depósitos excepcionales: aquellas que probablemente contienen frecuencias comparables a las de Pueblo Bonito; aquellas con frecuencias sustancialmente menores a las de Pueblo Bonito; y aquellas que no han sido suficientemente muestreadas para hacer inferencias sólidas. La variación e incertidumbre en la presencia de depósitos excepcionales tiene importantes implicaciones para interpretar las funciones de las grandes casas y la organización sociopolítica de la región de Chaco.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful for the assistance of a number of colleagues in the writing of this paper, but we alone are responsible for its content. We thank Evan Giomi, Matt Peeples, and Jill Neitzel for sharing their data on Pueblo Bonito’s artifact assemblage. Matt Peeples also provided helpful advice on the statistical analyses. We are grateful to Tony Hyman, Director of the Cigar History Museum in Pismo, California, for indulging our questions about historic cigar boxes. Katelyn Bishop, Erin Baxter, and William Gillespie shared insights on various aspects of Chacoan archaeology. Stephen Plog and three anonymous reviewers provided helpful comments on previous drafts of this paper.
Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 Some researchers consider Wupatki to be a Chacoan great house, but we do not include it as a great house in this study. Wupatki has more whole or partial remains of macaws than Pueblo Bonito (Plog et al. Citation2022; Schwartz Citation2022).
2 Kin Kletso, a much smaller, McElmo phase great house, was also nearly completely excavated yet receives very little attention due to the paucity of artifacts recovered (Vivian and Matthews Citation1965). We consider Kin Kletso further below.
3 We exclude small corner rooms from blocked-in kiva complexes in this total and in all other great house room estimates presented here.
4 The earliest rooms, potentially built as early as A.D. 775–825 (Stephen Plog, personal communication 2022), were located in the area around the northern burial crypt. Wings of more regularly shaped rooms were added to the east and west of this core as early as A.D. 825–850 (Room 317, located in the western wing, has a cutting date of A.D. 828 [TRL# JPB-104, Chaco Research Archive Citation2022a]). Most of the rooms of the eastern wing were destroyed by later construction. It is possible – perhaps even likely – that exceptional deposits were also present in the original rooms of the eastern wing. Our count of 74 “early” rooms includes all surviving rooms from these early stages.
5 We exclude from analysis some artifact categories used in previous studies (e.g., Neitzel Citation2003a; Giomi and Peeples Citation2019) that are either primarily utilitarian in use, found in relatively small quantities, or both, specifically: bowls and jars, total whole ceramics, cordage/basketry/textiles, worked bone, food/plants; copper, spindle whorls, crystals, and other stone jewelry.
6 For example, Akins and Schelberg (Citation1984:91) relate a story by Marietta Wetherill (wife of Richard Wetherill), who “told of a large square room on the west side of the pueblo, where in the center of the room was the extended burial of a man with strands of turquoise beads wrapped around his forehead, looped around his shoulders and hung down to his waist. She recalled that there was almost a bushel of turquoise on him. Around the wall of the room were 13 skeletons of women, none with any ornaments.”
7 The original context of objects found in rooms 53 and 56 are uncertain as a result of Moorehead’s careless excavations. Neitzel’s (Citation2003a) artifact counts from these rooms derive from Pepper’s excavation of Moorehead’s backdirt, plus Pepper’s excavations of intact deposits in Room 56 missed by Moorehead.
8 Room 365, contiguous to Rooms 320 and 326 and connected by doorways, remains unexcavated.
9 Excavations in the great kiva at Kin Nahasbas uncovered one pipe, ten manos, three metates, six black beads, 13 white beads, three turquoise beads, and one fossil shell (Luhrs Citation1935).
10 Cigar boxes were ubiquitous storage containers in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Most boxes from this era were made of nailed wood and served as lightweight but sturdy containers with use-lifespans much longer than the cigars that they contained. The most common cigar box in the 1860–1960 era was the Nailed Wood (NW) 50/13, which held fifty cigars. Other common box sizes include the NW 25/5 and the NW 25/13. The NW 25/5 was the most common 25-cigar box size from the 1830s to the late 1880s and measured 4”x3”x3”. Inside dimensions of a “typical” NW25/13 box are 7.5” x 4 3/8” x 1” with a range of up to 1.5” on the first two dimensions and .25” on latter (Tony Hyman, personal communication 2021). NW50/13 boxes were 1” taller than the NW25/13 boxes. Information on historic cigar boxes is drawn from the Cigar History Museum website (http://cigarhistory.info/Site/NCM_HOME.html) and consultations with the Museum Director, Tony Hyman.
To calculate the number of beads per box, we assume an average bead diameter and thickness of 4mm (Peregrine Citation2001:43). The volume of a single bead, calculated as a cylinder, is V = πr2h = 50.2 cubic mm. We assume a packing capacity of 50% (similar to the density of pennies or buttons in a jar). Finally, we assume that the cigar boxes were only filled three-quarters full to prevent spillage. The lowest turquoise bead estimate (for two NW25/13 boxes with dimensions of 6” x 2.875” x 1”) is about 4,200 beads. Two typical NW25/5 boxes would hold about 8,800 beads. Two average sized NW25/13 boxes would hold about 16,000 beads. Two average NW50/13 boxes would hold about 36,000 beads. Two of the largest NW50/13 boxes (measuring 9” x 6.875” x 2”) would hold about 60,000 beads. Two boxes of two dozen, no. 2 peach cans would hold an implausible total of 456,000 turquoise beads.
11 Two rooms dating to a late A.D. 900s component were exposed below the floors of later rooms. In keeping with our practice of counting everything within a “column” of rooms together, we do not add these rooms to the total of 11 that were excavated.
12 We do not include the rooms in the tri-wall complex in this total, considering them analogous to the “corner rooms” in blocked-in kivas, which primarily served as architectural support and show little signs of use. Including them in the total would only make the absence of exceptional deposits at Pueblo del Arroyo more striking.
13 It is possible that Hewett would not have commented on concentrations of more common objects such as fossil shell, manos and metates, and projectile points – objects that we include in our inventory of exceptional deposits.
14 Kiva L has a cutting date of 1072 (Chaco Research Archive Citation2022e), suggesting that Aztec West could have an earlier component contemporaneous with Salmon Ruin.
15 A case could be made to consider the “warrior” burial (no. 8070) in Room 178 of Aztec West as an exceptional deposit even though its contents do not meet the standards we set here. The individual was buried with a basketry shield, a wooden “sword”, two stone axes, and five ceramic vessels (Harrod Citation2012; Morris Citation1924). If this deposit was included as an exceptional deposit, Aztec West’s frequency of such deposits would be even higher than we report.
16 Morris’ statement notwithstanding, turquoise, shell, and jet objects are notably less common at Aztec West than at Pueblo Bonito. Turquoise in particular seems to be associated with early stages of Chaco Canyon (Plog Citation2018).
17 There are reasons to suspect that Pueblo Alto might contain buried exceptional deposits. First, an unusually large number of road segments converge at the site, suggesting a special function. Second, Pueblo Alto is repeatedly identified as the residence of The Gambler (a wealthy and powerful figure) in Diné oral histories (Weiner Citation2018).