Culture and Ecology of Chaco Canyon and the San Juan Basin

216 Chaco Project Synthesishigher than that at small house sites (H. Toll 1984,1985; H. Toll and McKenna 1987, 1992, 1997). Thenumber of families was estimated for each site, aswere the percentages of the sites that were excavated,ceramics recovered, projected totals, number of yearsof use, and calculated number of pots used per familyper year (H. Toll 1984:Table 8). The numbers for thePueblo Alto trash mound during the Gallup ceramicperiod were estimated to be at least five times higherthan they are for its Red Mesa ceramic period or formaterials recovered from small house sites. Toll'sexceedingly higher number of ceramics per householdin the Pueblo Alto trash mound formed the basis forinferences that the discarded pots may have resultedfrom periodic visits and feasting at this great house(R. Toll 1985; Windes 1984, 1987[11]).Wills (2001) has challenged Toll's suggested interpretationof events that created the trash mound atPueblo Alto (see Chapter 5), which has become thefoundation for interpretations of Chaco as a pilgrimageceremonial center with ritual landscapes (amongothers, Judge 1989; Lekson 1984a; Stein and Lekson1992,1994). Wills (2001:447) prefers to think of thetrash mounds as developing in conjunction with greathouse construction intensity, site location, and occupationalduration. In one set of calculations, which isfraught with assumptions, H. Toll (1985:177-201)assumed that 2.2 percent of the trash mound dating tothis period had been excavated. But he (R. Toll 1984:130, 1985) also indicated that an upper limit of 10percent of the trash mound may be represented bythese excavations. If so, then there would be 33,130vessels represented instead of 150,590. H. Toll didnot recalculate the use per household per annum on thelower figure. If he had, the result would have been27.6 vessels per family per annum, much closer to the28.4 calculated for 29SJ627 (Table 6.11). Instead, the125.5 pots per annum per family were interpreted aspossible evidence for either periodic gatherings ofnonresidents in which, perhaps, the disposal of itemsoccurred at the conclusion (Toll 1984: 130, 1985: 190-201).For lithic materials, there were some periodsduring which there was probably differential access toimported materials. Between A.D. 920 and 1020, thiswas only slight; but from A.D. 1040 to 1100 therewas an increase in Narbona (Washington) Pass chert.Much more of this chert was recovered from PuebloAlto than from 29SJ627 (Cameron 1997b:Table 3.15,553), the small site with which it was compared. YetCameron was not certain the proveniences at the twosites are truly contemporaneous. Examination ofsurface material from other small sites dating to theClassic Bonito phase (Bc 362 or 29SJ827, and29SJ839) indicates higher percentages (23 and 15 percent,respectively) and suggests there may have beensimilar amounts present on both small sites and greathouses (Cameron 1997b:602). This ambiguous evidencemay indicate that Narbona Pass chert was morefrequent during the Classic Bonito phase at all sites,and that our excavation sample is the source of thedifferences seen in the Chaco Project results.Consumption of copper bells, macaws,turquoise, shell, and rare ceramic forms (e.g.,cylinder jars, effigy forms), however, does suggestthat the bulk of exotic material is found in greathouses (Mathien 1981a; H. Toll 1991). Akins's(1986) evaluation of grave goods indicatesoverwhelmingly that the burials recovered in greathouses have many times more goods than those insmall sites. This dichotomy led to the inference thatelite members of the society used the large structures(Akins 1986; Akins and Schel berg 1984) and contrastssomewhat with the following interpretation:There have been suggestions that theprehistoric pueblos were differentiated tothe extent that there were big men (Lekson1984a:265), ranked societies (Schelberg1982[a)), self-serving elites (Sebastian1992); oligarchies (Upham 1982:20,199),and military polities and a Chaco state(Wilcox 1993). Although Lynne Sebastianunderstands me differently, I acknowledgethat some individuals must have hadgreater access to knowledge and controlover distribution of resources. I also continueto think that the ethnographic recordsuggests and the archaeological recordsupports the idea that these "leaders" weremeant to be heard but not seen. Wilcoxdiscusses individualizing and grouporiented chiefdoms. Group-oriented organizationsinclude difficult-to-identifyleaders, part-time specialists, periodiccommunal redistribution, impressive groupmonuments, and emphasis on group