Culture and Ecology of Chaco Canyon and the San Juan Basin

Explaining Pueblo Social Organization 271Chaco was probably indirect rather than representativeof Chacoan control over the resource.Production of turquoise objects did take place inChaco Canyon (Mathien 1984, 1997), but it is unlikelythat jewelers were full-time craft specialists. Itis probable that the wealth of turquoise items found inChaco Canyon represent local use rather than procurementand production for trade. Many objectswere either deposited with burials in great houses,especially Pueblo Bonito (Akins 1986, 2001, 2003;Akins and Schelberg 1984), or used as religiousofferings during construction, especially during theClassic Bonito phase (A.D. 1050 to 1l00)(Judd 1954;Mathien 1981a, 1997, 2001b, 2003a).Mathien (1981a, 1983, 1986) examined thepochteca model from an e.conowic perspective; Whenthe available data were evaluated against 12 propositionsthat were derived to evaluate the fit ofWallerstein's (1974) world-system model, she (likeGwinn Vivian 1970b) could not find support for aforeign elite in Chaco Canyon or even full-time craftspecialists who could provide them with the desiredexports. She concluded it was unlikely that Chacowas the farthest node in a highly developed tradenetwork controlled by a Mesoamerican center. Instead,some form of down-the-line trade could haveeasily passed goods among Uto-Aztecan-speakingneighboring societies that bordered the Chaco Worldand extended to the heartland of Mesoamerica, whichin Aztec times formed its core (Mathien 1981a,1993a). Other scholars reached similar conclusions;McGuire (1980) interpreted the evidence to suggest aprestige trade network. Nelson (2005) discussed howindependent centers stretching from central Mexicointo the Southwest adopted some, but not all, symbolsand practices through time. He suggested a correlationbetween religious sanctification and socialpower.Reyman (1971) proposed that Southwesternceremonialism was influenced by Mesoamericanpractices. He used ethnohistoric and archaeologicaldata to test 11 hypotheses relating to astronomicalalignments of ceremonial architecture, religious andcosmological concepts expressed in architecture, andartifact complexes and their distribution, includingcolor-direction symbolism, and ceremonial contexts.Although his study was not definitive, it did suggestsupport for the hypothesis. There seemed to be acorrelation between changes in Southwestern cultureand events in Mesoamerican cultures during threedistinct periods: ca. A.D. 700 (the first significantcontact, followed by flux in central Mesoamericancultures); ca. A.D. 900 to 1200, which correlated withthe existence of the Toltec empire; and during the latefourteenth century, in connection with the rise of theTlaloc cult. Reyman (1971:326) recognized that hispreliminary study needed much more work andcontinued research (Reyman 1975, 1976, 1978c,1979, 1982) to confirm that knowledge of an astronorrIicalnat-ure was probably wielded by priests \vhocontrolled the ceremonial and other events withinChacoan society (Reyman 1987).Frisbie (1983) and Schaafsma (1999) evaluatedreligious concepts from Mesoamerica that are presentin Southwestern societies. Frisbie (1983) correlatedthe appearance of different symbols for members ofthe Mesoamerican pantheon, and suggested differenttimings for their appearances in the Southwest.Schaafsma (1999) concluded that the Tlaloc andkatsina symbols appear in both areas and probablyrepresent a shared deeper meaning, but they do notnecessarily represent a Mesoamerican presence.Regional networks of communication of a political andreligious nature would have been conduits for ideas;yet each region would have been independent, muchlike modem Christian states that share an overarchingbelief system. These studies support Kelley andKelley's (1975) proposal that shared ideas and practiceswere enduring over a long period of time, but asSchaafsma (1999) points out, they may not representdirect contact by members of these distinct cultureareas.In conclusion, the direct Mesoamerican influencemodel is inadequate to explain the development ofChaco Canyon. Most imported items may reflectcontacts during the middle A.D. 1000s, which suggeststhe ability of leaders (whether religious,economic, or political) to obtain objects of foreignorigin to enhance their positions of leadership. Theseitems most likely represent symbols of informationand perhaps prestige-item exchange. This interpretationdoes not preclude the appearance of one or morepeople from Mesoamerica or north or west Mexico inthe canyon or the Southwest, but to date all analysesof skeletal material suggest that the burials in Chaco