Culture and Ecology of Chaco Canyon and the San Juan Basin

Explaining Pueblo Social Organization 281distinct patterns in the late Archaic and followed thesetrajectories through time.Although Lekson (1984a) and Windes (1987[1])proposed that great houses contained suites of roomsthat were devoted to special functions between A.D.1050 and 1100, Gwinn Vivian (1990) considered greathouses to be mainly habitation units, in which thecooking and heating facilities would have been on theupper stories, much like Historic Pueblo units. Thesegreat house habitation sites were used by a number oflineages belonging to the Chaco-San Juan traditionthat shared leadership roles via dual social divisions.He cited the two wings in Pueblo Bonito as beingrepresentative of housing for two groups, with thecentral section as a place for mediation. Based onstudies of Tewa social organization (Ortiz 1965,1969), a group, or groups, with membership thatcross-cuts the dual organization would be able tomediate affairs, maintain social cohesion, and avoidfission. If this system existed, it would not provide apermanent elite class.The relationships between Chaco Canyon andSan Juan Basin communities are also affected bydifferent premises. Gwinn Vivian (1990) is hesitantto accept ceramic dates as evidence for the initiation ofgreat house construction. Because excavated greathouses in the San Juan Basin have tree-ring constructionin the eleventh century, Vivian viewedChaco Canyon as the central node in a local systemaround A.D. 800 that expanded outward only in theA.D. 1000s. The unusual physiographic location ofChaco Canyon led early on to a higher level of socialcomplexity, with expansion into the surrounding areasonly when out-migration was necessary to cope withchanging rainfall patterns and population growth.This contrasts with the in-migration for exchange orceremonial festivals proposed by Judge (1989) and H.Toll (1985; Toll and McKenna 1997).Another contrast is the projection of twodifferent traditions onto great houses and small housesites; one would expect them to differ in layout andmaterials recovered rather than simply in size. Yetarchitectural studies by Lekson (1984a) and McKennaand Truell (1986) documented similarities in roomsuite patterns prior to about A.D. 1050, whichsuggests differences in scale rather than tradition.Although the quantity of imports from excavated sitesis proportionately larger at great houses, the analysisof ceramic (H. Toll and McKenna 1997) and lithic(Cameron 1997b) artifacts, as well as faunal remains(Akins 1985), indicates that inhabitants of small sitesand great houses all obtained imported goods fromseveral different areas of the San Juan Basin andbeyond through time. The unusual numbers of gravegoods that accompanied the burials in great houses canalso be interpreted as being differences in scale orgreater wealth for some members of a single society,rather than as two different societies who use the sameTI1aterials (Akins 1986). Although Akins's sample ofhuman crania from the small house sites was verylimited, she found a few that could be linked to thosein Pueblo Bonito. It is difficult, therefore, to supportthe division of Gwinn Vivian's Chaco-San Juanpopulation in the great houses with a Cibolan traditionin small sites. The rotating simultaneous hierarchyproposed by Vivian could represent dual responsibilitiesshared by two different genetic groups usingthe same great house. Vivian's reasoning for thebeginnings of dual social organization during theArchaic provides a fruitful approach that needs furtherinvestigation.In summary, the early Pueblo peoples are acknowledgedas master farmers who were able toconstruct great houses, build roads, and importnumerous items from long distances during a period oflong-term favorable climatic conditions between A.D.900 and 1150. Yet, short-term climatic fluctuationsaffected crop production, and may have facilitatedchanges in social organization, especially during themid-twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Although theproposal that Chaco Canyon functioned as a redistributioncenter was not substantiated and a ritual orceremonial center model was proposed (Judge 1989),there is a lack of agreement on the type of socialorganization that existed during the Classic period.Some scholars (Akins 1986; Akins and Schelberg1984; Schelberg 1982a) thought the evidence fromburials and differences in sizes of great housesindicated a ranked or hierarchical society. Sebastian(1988; 1992) provided a model for how leadershipcould arise and how it might have been institutionalized.In contrast, H. Toll (1985, H. Toll andMcKenna 1997) and Gwinn Vivian (1990) favored acommunity-oriented society (see also Wills 2000).