Culture and Ecology of Chaco Canyon and the San Juan Basin

Explaining Pueblo Social Organization 269(1980, 1983, 1985, 1998) thought that only a fewitems could indicate a Mesoamerican presence. Heconsidered adapted forms made from local materialsrepresentative of a Mesoamerican presence; e.g.,cylindrical jars with personalized markings (Pepper1920: 121; Washburn 1980); incense burners identifiedas shallow ladles with handles; effigies with specificthree-looped sandal ties (Washburn 1978); the dot-inthe-squaremotif used in the royal cloak of the Toltecand Aztec that appears on a human effigy (Judd 1954:Figure 60); and a textile from Room 32 (Pepper 1920:138) indicative of similar practices. Frisbie associatedone turquoise with matrix fashioned as a iabret ornose-plug from Pueblo Bonito (as illustrated by Judd1954:95, Figure 17) and a ceramic head with a piercednose (Judd 1954:225-226, Figure 62d) as further evidenceof foreign items and practices at this site (seealso Reyman 1995). Holien (1975) confirmed that apiece of pseudo-cloisonne recovered from PuebloBonito (Pepper 1920:Figure 13) was imported, possiblyfrom the Hohokam area or from West Mexico.Frisbie (1985) proposed that because there were nobeasts of burden, the foreigners would have broughtwith them only religious items and knowledge. Veryfew items that accompanied these foreigners to ChacoCanyon would remain in the archaeological record ifthe foreigners took their prized possessions with themwhen they left (Frisbie 1985).During the Chaco Project, Lister (1978) wouldnot deny that certain artifacts-e.g., copper bells,marine shell, and macaws-must have been imported.Other traits, however, such as architectural features,similarities in pottery designs and decorative techniques,use of certain types of wooden objects,turquoise, water control devices, communicationsystems, and astronomical observations, "do notnecessarily reflect actual influences or contacts"(Lister 1978:240). Hayes (1981:62-68) acknowledgedthat the Chaco population was largely indigenous, butthat a small number of foreigners may have beenpresent. Although difficult to see, the presence of afew "administrator-trader-priests contributing engineeringknow-how, astronomical knowledge for thecontrol of the solstice and the equinox, and an insidetrack to the ears of the gods in exchange for labor,could explain the new, alien forms adapted toindigenous patterns and executed with local materials"if they minimally disrupted the old ways, for example,by adapting kivas and great kivas for their own pur-poses (Hayes 1981:62). Local potters could make newforms using their traditional pastes, slips, and painteddesigns; e.g., cylindrical vases and squatting humaneffigies similar to Mexican forms (Pepper 1906). TheBonito phase system of roads, irrigation systems,shrines, isolated great kivas, and clusters of independentfamily groups was accepted as a unifiedsystem, which, if the result of foreign interlopers,must be of Mexican origin.Hayes (1981:63) was unsure whether trade orpolitics was the cause for northern expansion.Aithough a few imported elite items and a benevolentauthority might be sufficient to satisfy the Chacoans,there were few items to take south. Turquoise was noteasily obtained in the Toltec area of Mexico; theSouthwestern U.S. had many more sources. Yet thenearest source to Chaco-the Cerrillos Hills south ofSanta Fe-is over 160 km distant. Hayes (1981:63)found no evidence that turquoise was stored or workedlocally in quantity and available for export. Maizewas an even less likely export, because there wouldhave been little surplus, if any, grown in Chaco; someoutlying Chacoan sites might have been sources ofimported foodstuffs for the canyon popUlations.Hayes thought that friction and stress over control ofimported com may have led to the turmoil and warfareseen during Pueblo III in the Mesa Verde area, wherecannibalism of a ritualistic nature may have beenpracticed by those influenced by Mesoamericans. IfPueblo Bonito was the central place where the Mesoamericanpopulation resided, Hayes saw no evidenceto support the presence of captives for sacrifice.Several investigators addressed architecturalsimilarities. In a preliminary comparison of Chacoancore-and-veneer architecture with that in West Mexicoand Mesoamerica, Wills (1977) concluded that thereis no good evidence for the Chacoan origins of thistechnique in Mesoamerica. What appears to be similarconstruction in Mesoamerica differs in at least twofunctions from its Chaco counterpart: first, its functionas a retaining wall for a mass that has little loadbearingquality; and second, its use mostly in monumentalor religious architecture. Wills assumed thatlarge pueblos in Chaco were constructed as residences,and proposed that the wide cores were needed tosupport upper stories in multistoried houses. Lekson(1983a; 1984a) concluded that in both Mesoamericaand Chaco Canyon, the construction oflarge buildings~~~~~~~--- --