A very informative book about the food insecurities of the ancestral pueblo peoples and their means to survive, moving from place to place and developing from hunters and gatherers to a more agricultural society. The book was a little tough to get through but the information invaluable in understanding the area, its history and the people. ( )

Picked up on a recent New Mexico geology trip. I’d previously read author David Stuart’s Anasazi America and thought I’d reviewed it here, but I can’t find it.


As implied by the title, the book focuses on the archaeology of Bandelier National Monument. The book covers the entire human history of the area, not just Tyuonyi ruin that’s the current centerpiece of the monument (and which is relatively late). Stuart starts with the Paleoindian period, noting that a few Clovis, Folsom and Scottsbluff “lance” points have been found on the plateau. (As a quick and dirty reference, Clovis people hunted mammoth; Folsom people hunted Bison antiquus, extinct giant bison; Scottsbluff people hunted Bison bison). Stuart notes the next period, the “Archaic”, is still not firmly nailed down as to dates. His chapter on the Archaic transition to farming is mostly an interesting discussion of human energy economics; it takes more human energy to be a farmer than a hunter-gatherer – but you get more back as well. Stuart notes that extant hunter-gatherer people are sensitive to population size and have a variety of cultural adaptations to limit it: delayed marriage, delayed weaning, female infanticide. In farming families, however, each new mouth quickly attains the age where its labor generates enough energy to feed it. The two lifestyles quickly found “niches” in the ecological sense; as one group of people farmed more, they hunted less, leading to less pressure on the remaining hunter-gatherers.


The Archaic, in turn, transitioned to “Basketmaker” characterized by (obviously) baskets – pottery was invented during this period, apparently about 300 CE or so – and pit houses. Pit houses were dug into the soil about three feet, then roofed over with logs and branches. Stuart notes a pit house is warm in the winter and cool in the summer, and seems just a little puzzled why there was a transition to masonry in the Pueblo I period, but makes an observation that never occurred to me but seems screamingly obvious once pointed out – the pit house is ancestral to the kiva. It wouldn’t be the first time in history a culture’s characteristic dwelling slowly converted to a house of worship, and there are some structures in the transition where it isn’t clear if something is a pit house or a kiva.


The next chapters take a theme of Jared Diamond and run with it – the development and “collapse” of the Chaco Culture. In the recently reviewed Puebloan Ruins of the Southwest it was noted that sometime between 1050 and 1300 CE the Puebloan peoples moved from their original heartland in the Four Corners region to new sites along the Little Colorado and Rio Grande rivers. Various theories have been proposed – climate change, warfare, economic collapse, and religious reasons. Stuart holds that the Chaco Culture – centered in Chaco Canyon – was a victim of its own success, with the elite taking a larger and larger share of resources until the society collapsed. And, of course, Stuart draws ominous parallels with the United States with the usually litany about “unbridled capitalism” (to be fair he also makes a comparison to the collapse of centrally planned economies like the Soviet Union, China, and Cuba. Once.) Stuart does marshal some plausible evidence that there was considerable economic inequality at Chaco. The central Chacoan area had “great houses”, the most famous of which is probably Pueblo Bonito, which are assumed to be supported by outlying farms. Based on burials, there was more infant mortality in the outliers than at the Great Houses, the average stature was smaller, and life expectancy was shorter. The Great Houses had exotic imported goods – macaws, rubber, marine shells – that are missing in the outliers. The ratio of storerooms to residential rooms is larger in the Great Houses, as is the ratio of kivas to dwelling spaces. There are roads traceable from the Great Houses; some go to other population centers and were thus presumably useful for trading but others apparently go nowhere, ending at cliff edges or prominent landmarks and therefore assumed to be “ritual”. The picture Stuart draws is a wealthy elite using political power to take food out of the mouths of poor farmers and increasing devoting resources to “ritual” (Stuart consistently uses this term instead of “religion”). Climate change caused this arrangement to collapse, and we’re invited – nay, directed - to read the handwriting on the wall. Well, that could well be, the data Stuart presents is fairly persuasive. However, a little googling discloses a number of alternate theories and I’m not knowledgeable enough to distinguish serious archeological debate from armwaving woowoo. A popular alternate theory is religion – the suggestion that a popular new religion caused people to migrate. It’s been known to happen elsewhere after all.


Well, after all that we finally get back to the Pajarito Plateau. Although there is evidence of small scale habitation before, refugees/migrants/pilgrims/whatever showed up in the Pajarito area during the “Upland” period, possible taking advantage of cooler and wetter temperatures to build small cliff houses cut into soft tuff (almost an oxymoron there); then moved downslope and downstream during the “Riverine” aka “Classic” period. Stuart notes that although the “Classic” period did not have the same “Great Houses” and widespread trade network as the Chaco culture, it was stable economically and innovative artistically. At least, until the Spanish showed up.


The book ends with a series of descriptions of the ruins accessible in Bandelier National Monument, including some that are off the regular tourist path and require some moderately strenuous hikes to reach. It’s ironic that the “tourist” ruins represent only a small and late part of the time period Stuart discusses but all the background he gives is necessary to understand why they are where they are.


The book is thought-provoking; I have a visceral reaction against some of Stuart’s economic arguments; that doesn’t mean that they are incorrect. The book is well referenced and illustrated; what it badly needs is some timelines and charts showing dates, pottery types, and cultural periods – even if the dates are relative. All these are noted in the text but a single chart would save a whole lot of flipping back and forth trying to keep track of things. ( )