Aztec Ruins Administrative History

EAST RUIN

Located about 150 yards northeast of the West Ruin, the architectural remains called the East Ruin are two adjacent mounds 16 feet high in places and more than 300 feet from east to west. After abandonment, the easternmost house slumped into a mound that was formerly thought to have been cut into along its eastern slope by an ancient channel of the Animas River but may have been mined for building stones by late nineteenth-century settlers. Otherwise, the heap of consolidated rubble lies virtually undisturbed under a shroud of rocky soil and thorny vegetation.

When first visited by valley settlers, the larger western mound was similarly densely covered with sage, greasewood, and saltbush. However, irregular sandstone masonry and cobblestone walls, some two stories, jutted through the mound's hardened shell at what appeared to be the northwest corner of a rectangular building. A series of long, weathered beams projected in a line from the north wall of the building at what seemed to have been a second story level (see Figure 1.3). Morris called this a balcony. The presence of subterranean chambers was indicated by sunken depressions in open plaza areas between the building's wings. It was a site inviting exploration, which apparently began in the 1880s.

In 1915, when Morris and Nelson scouted the area for a suitable site in which to excavate, they passed over the East Ruin. It already was potholed, particularly in some buried rooms with intact original ceilings. Morris himself did a little digging there that spring. As Vivian later noted, "...holes had been broken through walls in every direction in the hopes of finding further underground rooms, pits dug in the floors, and savinos [secondary beams] cut off for souvenirs." [17] Moreover, the men thought the settlement was not as large as that just to the west, nor was what was seen of its masonry of as high a caliber. To them, the East Ruin was of lesser importance.

During the years when American Museum of Natural History excavations were under way, Morris often engaged in after-hours probing elsewhere, which included the East Ruin. Once the title to Tract 2, encompassing the site, was acquired, Morris put a small crew to work to systematically clear some deposits to learn more definitely how they compared to those in the West Ruin. In all, 10 roofless rooms in the northwest corner were explored by the end of 1927, but no field notes survive.

Once the site was incorporated into the monument in 1928, there was no further digging in it for 30 years. Although the public may have been interested in an overview of an unexcavated pueblo of this magnitude, monument managers considered it too hazardous for visitation. Unstable walls and a number of depressions posed possible dangers to persons scrambling through the site. In 1946, some parts were backfilled to halt further deterioration.

After World War II when the stabilization Mobile Unit was reestablished, Room 24 of the westernmost mound of the East Ruin was opened so that access could be gained to a series of nine first-story rooms in a block (see Figure 9.3). All had intact aboriginal ceilings much like those in the sister site. Weak timbers in these rooms were braced by new uprights. In 1957, the heavy overburden on top of the ceilings was removed, protective roofs were installed over nine rooms, and the interior fill of 14 rooms was excavated and hauled off. An inventory of 1965 listed 24 excavated and partly excavated roofed rooms in the East Ruin, one of which is a partially exposed kiva.

Figure 9.3. The East Ruin, Aztec Ruins National Monument.
(After Richert, 1957, with additions).
(click on image for larger size)

On the basis of inferior construction as compared to parts of the West Ruin and a high proportion of Mesa Verde pottery recovered, Morris was convinced that the East Ruin represented a community of the thirteenth century when, according to his reconstruction of past events, Mesa Verdians flooded into the valley to reoccupy abandoned Chaco domain. There was no research done at the time contradicting this view. Morris's professional stature was such that a generation of National Park Service staff accepted this accounting without question. Roland Richert saw his finds of Mesa Verde ceramics in deposits cramming some rooms to a depth of many feet as further confirmation of Morris's interpretation. He regarded 10 cutting dates of dendrochronological samples ranging from A.D. 1115 to 1125, or exactly contemporaneous with the West Ruin, as reused wood. He believed three dates in the 1230s were actual construction dates for the East Ruin as a whole. [18] Five recently obtained 1200s dates from wood recovered in three rooms proves that at least parts of the structure were built during the final occupation. [19]

Nevertheless, questions about earlier judgments have been raised from time to time by the scientific community, no more so than now with the recent research at Chaco Canyon. The quality of the masonry of the East Ruin notwithstanding, it generally was done in the core-and-veneer Chaco method rather than the dimpled, double-block Mesa Verde style lacking a rubble hearting. The East Ruin appears to be of a size comparable to the West Ruin. Mappers recently preparing a preliminary ground plan of the former were able to discern approximately 122 rooms and 10 kivas in the western houseblock and 56 rooms and five kivas in the eastern houseblock. One of these latter kivas may have a Mesa Verde-style southern recess. Another four clan kivas were identified in the plaza (see Figure 9.4). Both the East and West ruins have a multistoried north tier of rooms, wings of room blocks at right angles to it incorporating a courtyard with a Great Kiva having encircling surface rooms, and an orientation to the south. Several possible features unique to the East Ruin are an earthen platform, walkway, and ramp. If similar constructions originally were present in the West Ruin, they were not recognized during excavations and may have been destroyed. The town plans of these two sites can be duplicated in a number of settlements in Chaco Canyon but not on the Mesa Verde. Perhaps the differences in construction can be explained by differences in personal abilities or standards. As to pottery, Mesa Verde wares were similarly more plentiful at the West Ruin. In both cases, that might be explained by longer Mesa Verdian tenancy, larger population, and perhaps burial customs. Only controlled excavations can answer the many questions about the East Ruin and how it interacted with its neighbor.

Figure 9.4. Map of East Ruin and Earl Morris Ruin, based upon interpretations of a
National Park Service concept plan, May 1989, by Andrae, Ford, McKenna, and Stein.
(click on image for larger size)