Introduction

During the ninth century AD, a vast portion of the southern Colorado Plateau comprised the Ancestral Pueblo world and was home to sedentary villages whose inhabitants practiced a combination of rain-fed maize agriculture and hunting and gathering. In the tenth century, Chaco Canyon communities began to form a regional network of unprecedented size and scope that was sustained for nearly three hundred years. While rooted in preexisting Pueblo patterns, Chaco stands out from its contemporaries in many ways. Large, multistory, room-block structures or Great Houses, constructed meticulously with sandstone masonry and massive quantities of pine beams harvested from forests eighty kilometers distant required substantial planning, skill, and labor. Long-distance importation of exotic goods, such as turquoise, seashell, ceramics, chipped stone, cacao, and scarlet macaws, and ties to communities throughout the San Juan Basin, reflect the unparalleled magnitude of Chacoan influence. Explanation of the social, political, and economic developments in the rise and fall of the Chaco system is critical to understanding the long-term cultural evolution of social formations in the prehistoric American Southwest, and has great potential for resolving questions of societal evolution globally.

The Classic Bonito subphase (AD 1040–1100), during which Chacoan building efforts and exchange of exotic goods reached a crescendo, provides the best evidence for centralized decision-making. The late eleventh and early twelfth century transition to the Late Bonito subphase (AD 1100–1150) witnessed the proliferation of new and architecturally distinct Great House forms, an apparent expansion of Great House construction into regions north of Chaco, and a steady decline in the importation of exotics. In view of these periods of dynamic growth and structural change, what political strategies were brought to bear to mobilize labor, facilitate exchange, or integrate migrants?

The role of periodic pilgrimage fairs and large-scale communal events figures prominently in several influential models of eleventh-century Chacoan sociopolitical dynamics (Toll 1985:396, 400–404; Van Dyke 2007a, 2008; Windes 1987:561–667). One recent study cites evidence for the elaboration of ritual and feasting during the early twelfth century as a reflection of demographic change and ethnic heterogeneity in Chaco Canyon (Wills 2009:298–302). Such interpretations are based largely on the presence of distinctive architectural features such as public roasting pits or upon ceramic and material signatures that may indicate commensal feasting in Great House settings. However, the possibility of similar practices in non–Great House settings has not been systematically examined. This study presents the preliminary results of an analysis of the animal remains from two Chacoan small-house sites (Bc 57 and Bc 58) located near South Gap, in close proximity to the large ceremonial structure, Casa Rinconada.

The majority of previous faunal analyses completed on Chaco Canyon assemblages were conducted under the auspices of the Chaco Project and focused on two Great Houses and a cluster of small-house sites in the Fajada Gap area of the canyon five kilometers east of South Gap (see Figure 7.1) (Akins 1985; Gillespie 1991, 1993). The faunal remains from Bc 57 and Bc 58 afford, for the first time, a glimpse of faunal use spanning the Classic (AD 1040–1100) and Late Bonito (AD 1100–1140) subphases among the cluster of small sites commonly referred to as the “Bc Sites” that are nestled among the Great Houses of “Downtown Chaco.”

Figure 7.1. Chaco Canyon with locations of several Great Houses and the Casa Rinconada study area; the inset depicts the location of Chaco Canyon within the greater American Southwest.

Background

How can we detect food sharing in the archaeological record? Feasts vary widely in form, purpose, and scale and these parameters in turn influence the patterns visible archaeologically (Adams 2004; Hayden 2001; Twiss 2008). For heuristic purposes, Hayden’s (2001) typology of feasts can be distilled to two broad classes, hereafter referred to as distinctive and solidarity feasts. The former, encompassing competitive, tribute, and promotional/alliance/work feasts, are frequently large in scale and entail visible departures from domestic patterns of consumption both in terms of the species consumed and the display of “prestige items.” In contrast, solidarity feasts are frequently “potluck” style and are events that advance unity at the household, village, or intervillage scale. The provisioning of food is communal and consistent with domestic consumption, akin to a family meal (Adams 2004:61; Hayden 2001:38, 55–58). Distinctive feasts may be more easily identified archaeologically, whereas behaviors associated with solidarity feasts are often difficult to differentiate from accretions of daily household refuse. I explore these correlates in more detail below.

Due in part to the large scale of distinctive feasts, preparation may require the use of public food-preparation facilities and specialized structures such as roasting pits. Material remains of feasts may be spatially associated with communal rather than household space (Hayden 2001:57–58; Muir 1999:113; Potter 2000:483). In this context, faunal remains often exhibit evidence of roasting, less-intensive breakage, an abundance of species conducive to communal procurement and consumption, and greater representation of meat-bearing skeletal elements, particularly among large mammals (Jackson and Scott 2003; Kelly 2001; Potter 2000:483). In addition, an abundance of large game and high rates of butchery waste such as articulated vertebral columns and intact axial remains including pelvises and scapulae have also been interpreted as indications of feasting (Grimstead and Bayham 2010:859; Jackson and Scott 2003; Kelly 2001).

Since the solidarity feast’s material signature may closely resemble that of deposits generated through quotidian behavior, its presence or absence is best determined through converging lines of evidence. These feasts, likely occurring at regular intervals, would be provisioned through the gradual accumulation of resources such as food staples and stored meat. Refuse generated by butchery and processing of animals would thus be indistinguishable from other domestic refuse. Such subsistence intensification on an ad hoc basis in support of smaller-scale feasts is well-documented ethnohistorically (Spielmann 2002:197).

This study addresses two central questions: (1) to what extent do patterns of faunal procurement and consumption reflect distinctive or solidarity feasting behavior at Bc 57 and Bc 58; and (2) what are the implications of feasting behavior for the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries at Chaco? The location of these two small sites amid the densest concentration of Great Houses in the San Juan Basin and their position directly adjacent to an isolated Great Kiva makes them ideal test cases for an investigation of the roles feasting may have played in the eleventh-century political centralization and twelfth-century cultural transition that ushered in the McElmo phase.

The Sites

These two small house sites, excavated between 1942 and 1947 by the University of New Mexico and School of American Research field school under the direction of Paul Reiter, are located on the south side of Chaco Canyon, situated atop a narrow hill that stretches roughly 150 meters northeast from Casa Rinconada (Figures 7.1 and 7.2). Bc 57 consists of ten rooms and four kivas whereas Bc 58 consists of thirteen rooms and two kivas dating to the late eleventh through early twelfth centuries AD. Although archaeomagnetic dating points to the earliest kiva construction at Bc 57 in the mid- to late eleventh century (Doyel and Eighmy 1994; Truell 1986:479), radiocarbon dates and ceramic assemblages from the site’s refuse-filled rooms suggest that activity at and around the site spans the late Basketmaker II through Pueblo III periods (AD 400–1200). Temporal control of the assemblages from these two sites relies on radiocarbon dates and mean ceramic dates based on a preliminary analysis of the ceramics.

Figure 7.2. Aerial photograph of the Casa Rinconada area indicating the locations of Bc 57 and Bc 58 in proximity to the Great Kiva. (Courtesy Chaco Culture NHP Museum Collection [1964], University of New Mexico and the Chaco Research Archive, University of Virginia.)

The faunal assemblages derive primarily from room-fill contexts where refuse accumulation likely relates either to behavior by the sites’ inhabitants or to activities occurring in the sites’ immediate vicinities. The majority of radiocarbon dates and mean ceramic dates from room-fill deposits at Bc 57 are indicative of the Classic (AD 1040–1100) and Late Bonito (AD 1100–1140) subphases. Radiocarbon dates from room-fill contexts in Rooms 3 and 4 at Bc 57 also represent Early Bonito (AD 850–1040) deposits. Based on radiocarbon dates and mean ceramic dates, room-fill deposits at Bc 58 date to the latter half of the eleventh century, corresponding to the Classic Bonito subphase.

The nearby site of Casa Rinconada is an isolated Great Kiva that was constructed atop an elevated landform among the South Gap small-house site complex and also appears to have been constructed and used during the Classic, Late Bonito, and McElmo (AD 1040–1200) subphases (McLellan 1969:179; Vivian 1948; Vivian and Reiter 1960:7, 24–26). As with other isolated Great Kivas and those found within Classic-style Great Houses, interior features of this semisubterranean structure include a wide low bench, paired floor vaults, a roof supported by four masonry columns, and a stepped antechamber entryway (Vivian 1990:294). Despite the large number of Great Kivas, little is actually known about their use. Based on ethnographic parallels, prehistoric kivas are often interpreted as having served, at least partly, a ritual and integrative role at the corporate (lineage, clan, or kiva group) or community scale (Eggan 1950:299–300; Ortiz 1969:37). Several scholars have suggested that Great Kivas may have served as community focal points for resource redistribution, feasting, ceremonial exchange, and ritual dances (Lightfoot 1984:73; Plog 1974:127). Great Kivas are often distinguished from the smaller and more common corporate-group kivas on the basis of their immense size, a general lack of domestic features, and the presence of likely ritual features such as lateral floor vaults (Adler and Wilshusen 1990:141–142; Lekson et al. 2006:87–89; Wilshusen 1989:95–98). Although at 19.5 meters in diameter Casa Rinconada was a comparatively large ritual structure, Van Dyke (2007b:119) observes that no more than seventy-five spectators could have fit comfortably within the confines of the structure. With direct access to secretive ceremonies likely limited to some subset of the resident or visiting population, other activities such as exchange and feasting may have occurred in close proximity to the structure.

The Bc 57 faunal assemblage contains 10,196 specimens, of which 57 percent were identified to the genus level (Table 7.1). Analysis of the Bc 58 assemblage yielded 1,266 specimens, of which 45 percent were identified to genus; the majority of the assemblage derives from the mid-eleventh century fill from Room 10 (Table 7.2). The excavation records from the 1940s excavations make no mention of recovery procedures but the presence of the remains of small rodents and reptiles as well as eggshell across multiple contexts at both sites is indicative of careful collection practices.

Results

Turning now to the results of this analysis, I begin with an evaluation of the evidence for spatial patterning and cooking facilities. The rooms at Bc 57 and 58 that accumulated refuse are not public depositional contexts; they do not constitute open plaza or midden areas. However, these likely abandoned structures in proximity to Rinconada might nonetheless have held a place in the community’s collective memory and might thereby have been regarded as shared or public space. Field notes for Bc 58 include a description of four “large” firepits in Room 11. One slab-lined firepit (38 × 28 cm) was built into an earlier kiva pilaster and was apparently used during the site’s occupation. The other three firepits (roughly 40 × 50 cm) were found in post-abandonment fill (Cornett n.d.; Reiter n.d.). Although these firepits do not approach the size of the roasting pits found at the Great House of Pueblo Alto (100–130 cm × 71–99 cm), the repeated use and formality of at least one pit and the possibility that these sites constituted public space implies some degree of public food preparation and is thus consistent with feasting behavior (Windes 1987:410–436, 410–436).

Another potential correlate of distinctive feasts is an emphasis on species unlikely to be consumed on a daily basis and that are capable of feeding a large number of people. This test criterion presumes an understanding of what constitutes daily consumption. The local availability of leporids, prairie dogs, and turkey, and their relative frequency in the faunal record, indicates the principal sources of animal protein. (These species consistently account for more than 40 percent, at times approaching 90 percent, of the Chacoan faunal consumption.)

When compared with faunal trends within Chaco and across the broader Southwest, the patterns at Bc 57 and Bc 58 are noteworthy for their heavy reliance on artiodactyls, in particular pronghorn antelope, and jackrabbits. The Artiodactyl Index (AI) (Szuter and Bayham 1989), calculated as the sum of artiodactyls and large mammals divided by the sum of artiodactyls, large mammals, and lagomorphs, measures the importance of large game (deer, pronghorn, and bighorn) relative to small game (jackrabbit and cottontail). High AI values signify greater reliance on artiodactyls. Figure 7.3 depicts the results of recent research by Badenhorst and Driver (2009) in which they observed a general trend toward decreasing artiodactyl exploitation through the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth centuries as indicated by the AI. Artiodactyl Index values for Bc 57 and Bc 58 conform to the prevailing Pueblo II and Pueblo III temporal trend, as artiodactyl consumption decreases at Bc 57 from AD 1040–1150, from an AI value of 0.49 to 0.33.

Figure 7.3. Artiodactyl Index over time in the American Southwest with Bc 57 and Bc 58 values shown for comparison (top); Lagomorph Index over time in the American Southwest with Bc 57 and Bc 58 values shown for comparison (bottom). (Partially based on Badenhorst and Driver 2009.)

Chacoan faunal procurement during the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries reflects a heavy emphasis on hunting artiodactyls, suggesting that Pueblo II and Pueblo III hunting practices at Chacoan sites were somewhat atypical of the pattern seen elsewhere in the Southwest (Figure 7.4) (see also Vivian et al. 2006:455). AI values at Bc 57 and Bc 58 are among the highest in Chaco, comparable to those of the Alto Great House and the twelfth-century component at the contemporaneous small site 29SJ627. Thus the levels of artiodactyl consumption at Bc 57 and Bc 58, high even by Chacoan standards, were sustained throughout the Classic and Late Bonito subphases.

Figure 7.4. Artiodactyl Index by site over time for Bc 57, Bc 58, 29SJ627, and Pueblo Alto. (Pueblo Alto data are based on Durand and Durand 2008:100.)

Closer examination of artiodactyl procurement among sites within Chaco Canyon reveals that early-twelfth-century hunting strategies differed measurably between the Fajada Gap site cluster, Pueblo Alto, and Bc 58 on one hand and Bc 57 on the other (Figure 7.5). Although the Late Pueblo I–Pueblo II occupation at Site 1360 in Fajada Gap exhibits a pronounced emphasis on pronghorn antelope (13 percent of the identified assemblage), subsequent levels of pronghorn among the neighboring sites (627, 629, and 633) remain low (3 percent or less). Thus the upsurge in pronghorn at Bc 57 during the Classic and Late Bonito subphases (approaching 9 percent) contrasts with the broader canyonwide trend. Deer consumption at these three Fajada Gap sites hovers around 10 percent for the Late Pueblo II–Pueblo III periods. Although Bc 58 (AD 1040–1100) exhibits a similar dependence on deer, Bc 57 has a relatively low emphasis on deer.

Figure 7.5. Artiodactyl Percent NISP over time for Chaco Canyon sites. (Data for Chaco Project excavated sites based on Akins 1985.)

The overall pattern at Bc 57 is therefore consistent with the broader canyon trend of increasing artiodactyl procurement but differs in the apparent focus on pronghorn. The presence of species such as pronghorn that are best procured through cooperative hunting can be indicative of large-scale provisioning. The question remains whether hunting of other species reflects communal hunting.

Several species in the Chaco region are well-suited for procurement through large-scale collaborative hunting. According to ethnohistoric accounts, pronghorn were frequently hunted using cooperative corral-drive tactics (Hill 1982; Parsons 1936:277–278). Communal hunting of local jackrabbit, cottontail, and coyote populations was often organized in conjunction with communal ritual and has been observed at several pueblos including Hopi, Santa Clara, and Jemez (Hill 1982; Parsons 1925:94–95, 1936:277–278; Titiev 1944:144, 185, 188–192).

Shifting focus to the hunting of leporids (cottontail and jackrabbit), use of the Lagomorph Index (LI) offers another valuable means of assessing intersite variability in faunal procurement. The LI is calculated by dividing the number of cottontail specimens by the sum of all cottontail and jackrabbit specimens; following Driver and Woiderski (2008:6–7), loose teeth were excluded from NISP counts. Research has shown that environment, specifically the amount of vegetative cover, impacts natural ratios of cottontail and jackrabbit (Szuter and Gillespie 1994). As a result, the ratios observed archaeologically in the southern Southwest tend to be biased toward jackrabbits, whereas cottontail tends to predominate among assemblages from Chaco and other sites on the Colorado Plateau (Szuter and Gillespie 1994:70–71).

Although Szuter and Bayham (1989) have argued convincingly that increasing density and duration of human occupation results in lower cottontail:jackrabbit ratios at sites in the southern Southwest, the reverse has been found for Pueblo sites of the northern Southwest (Driver 2002:157; Driver and Woiderski 2008:8–9). Data from the Colorado Plateau indicate that cottontail:jackrabbit ratios vary in direct relationship with the density of human settlement and intensity of agriculture: cottontail frequencies increase with population growth and greater area under cultivation. Driver and Woiderski (2008) suggest several possible reasons for this pattern during the Pueblo III period, principal among them being possible anthropogenic changes to the local landscape around villages and agricultural fields that may promote cottontail survival while diminishing jackrabbit reproductive success. Further complicating interpretations, high rates of jackrabbit procurement found archaeologically have been linked to communal hunting (Driver and Woiderski 2008:8; Schmidt 1999).

Leporid hunting likely took place within the canyon bottom and adjacent areas such as the Gallo Wash, Fajada Gap, and South Gap. In contrast to the northern San Juan areas examined by Driver (2002), the canyon generally lacks piñon-juniper woodland vegetation outside of the higher elevation areas of Chacra Mesa (Cully and Cully 1985:53) and is more akin to the southern Arizona desert scrub biomes studied by Szuter and Bayham (1989) that support a range of grasses, forbs, and shrubs. Within Chaco canyon, the areas around villages and farmsteads and swathes cleared for farming would have encouraged the growth of jackrabbit populations. Following land clearing or field abandonment, the slow rate of recovery of perennial shrubs on which cottontails rely for cover would have favored jackrabbit survival (Driver and Woiderski 2008:8–9). If the anthropogenic environment–leporid dynamic in Chaco can be expected to follow the southern Arizona pattern, increases in cottontail:jackrabbit ratios are expected to indicate lower population densities and decreasing amounts of land under cultivation.

The greater Southwest pattern is characterized by an upward trend in LI values over time, indicating increasing reliance on cottontail (Badenhorst and Driver 2009:1835), and Bc 57 conforms to this trend (Figure 7.3). Classic–Late Bonito LI values for Bc 57 (0.74) are by far the highest observed for Chaco, with the next closest being Pueblo Alto at 0.49. However, deposits from Bc 58 dating to the Classic Bonito subphase exhibit one of the lowest LI values recorded (0.20) but are quite comparable to that seen at the contemporaneous site 29SJ 627 (0.22).

Unlike the high frequency of pronghorn observed for Bc 57, the high cottontail frequency is not consistent with communal hunts. Instead, the Fajada Gap sites and Bc 58 appear as the more likely candidates for communal hunting of jackrabbit. That the Bc 57 LI stands in such contrast to that of other contemporaneous sites including Great Houses implies an alternative procurement strategy. If rabbit hunts by the inhabitants of these other sites occurred in more disturbed areas such as agricultural fields, one would expect other indications of hunting forays in and around agricultural areas. Prairie dogs, ground squirrels, and pocket gophers, likely trapped as field pests, are one useful proxy measure of “garden hunting” behavior (Neusius 2008:305–306). In fact, the combined percent NISP for these species is low for Bc 57 (9.5 percent) compared with contemporaneous assemblages from Pueblo Alto (12.8 percent), 629 (21.3 percent), 627 (31.2 percent), and Bc 58 (13 percent). Thus garden hunting is unlikely to have resulted in the patterns observed in the Bc 57 deposits. Although the low LI value for Bc 58 is congruous with mass procurement, the high frequency of cottontails at Bc 57 highlights yet another anomalous attribute of the Bc 57 assemblage.

The relative distance of hunting forays appears to have had little impact on artiodactyl skeletal-part representation, as the whole range of skeletal elements is represented for each species of artiodactyl at both sites (Figure 7.6). Presumably pronghorn would have been procured on a local basis on nearby grasslands while deer and bighorn would have required greater travel to upland areas along the margins of the San Juan Basin (a distance of 50 to 80 km). While prey captured at greater distances might be expected to be more heavily butchered at the kill-site if transport costs were a consideration (Perkins and Daly 1968), this does not appear to have been the case for the Bc 57 and Bc 58 fauna. Although future analysis will be directed at more detailed application of transport indices, whole carcasses of deer, pronghorn, and at times bighorn, appear to have been returned to the site for processing.

Figure 7.6. Skeletal-element representation (percent MAU) for Room 4, Bc 57: pronghorn antelope (left), mule deer (middle), bighorn sheep (right).

The intensity of butchery at Bc 57 is several orders of magnitude greater than that observed at Pueblo Alto and the Fajada Gap small site 627. The frequency of butchery marks is markedly higher for Bc 57: approximately 19 percent of pronghorn, mule deer, and bighorn remains exhibited some form of butchery, compared to 4 percent at Pueblo Alto and 2 percent at 627. Further, I suggest that these butchery patterns, particularly multiple partial strings of articulating artiodactyl thoracic and lumbar vertebrae with evidence of filleting cut-marks, coupled with splitting at regular intervals, reflects the apportionment of carcasses into smaller parts that were then processed for meat removal. Such intensive butchery is indicative of on-site processing and, potentially, food distribution and consumption. Finally, the presence of the whole range of skeletal elements is not consistent with the existence of socially prescribed rules governing differential access to meat-rich body portions.

Conclusions

The patterns that have emerged provide tantalizing evidence for distinctive feasting in Chaco. Although the Bc 57 and Bc 58 test cases yielded only equivocal spatial evidence for communal deposition or on-site cooking, the faunal data reveal a strategy directed at procurement of high-ranked fauna throughout the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries. This pattern contrasts with that seen in much of the greater Southwest and signals that the Classic and Late Bonito subphases in Chaco entailed patterns of faunal resource utilization that differed from surrounding regions. The increase in pronghorn consumption at Bc 57 is uncharacteristic of other contemporaneous Chacoan faunal assemblages and, coupled with the low Lagomorph Index at Bc 58, points to the importance of communal hunting at both sites.

For comparison, an example from the Mississippian region provides a useful perspective on the implications of the Bc 57 and Bc 58 assemblages. Although conspicuously lacking in the densities of exotic, sumptuary material remains recovered from the sub-Mound 51 borrow pit at Cahokia, the faunal remains from Bc 57 and Bc 58 exhibit a few notable parallels to the Cahokian assemblage that Kelly (2001:347–348) interpreted as indicative of elite feasting. Specifically, the regular co-occurrence of unfused artiodactyl long bones and their epiphyses, the relative completeness of elements of lower structural density such as vertebrae, pelvises, and scapulae, the low degree of long-bone fragmentation, and strings of articulating vertebrae, are qualities common to both assemblages. Carnivores, raptors, an unusually high frequency of raven remains, and even fish are represented in the Bc 57 assemblage, suggesting access to and in some cases ritual use of more “exotic” and “dangerous” species (Jackson and Scott 2003:554).

The Bc 57 and Bc 58 assemblages have thus far yielded no clear evidence of the kinds of preferential access to body parts seen at Cahokia and elsewhere in the Mississippian area where the presence of primary butchery waste is often associated with non-elite contexts (Jackson and Scott 1995:107). Whereas provisioning of elites by attached hunters or non-elites may have been a characteristic of prehistoric political dynamics in the fertile American Bottom, sustained access to large, calorie-rich game may have been a privilege of the elite and could have served to reaffirm existing political inequalities in Chaco (Helms 1993:74, 162–163, 1998:129). The presence of such dense concentrations of artiodactyls may speak to the status and prestige of those provisioning, distributing, and consuming food, and the energy invested in hauling complete carcasses back to Chaco from hunting grounds near and far may have served as an important social display.

Saitta (2000:16) writes that the deterioration of environments and disruption of trade routes in the late-eleventh and early-twelfth centuries may have precipitated “elite experimentation with new strategies of control but also countervailing strategies of producer resistance” (Saitta 2000:161). It seems plausible that the sharing and consumption of larger game as seen at Bc 57 and Bc 58 in the shadow of the adjacent Great Kiva may have served such a purpose. Redistribution of food would have engendered solidarity at the village or intervillage scale and perhaps illustrated the repeated success of a select few in orchestrating communal pronghorn hunts or securing access to distant hunting grounds. These patterns of faunal use denote a perceptible shift in food production and distribution visible throughout Chaco during the Classic and Late Bonito subphases, and the area around Casa Rinconada may represent one of the principal foci of this reorganization.

Acknowledgments. I am especially grateful to Benjamin Arbuckle and Sue Ann McCarty for the opportunity to participate in the symposium from which this volume developed. Special thanks to Melinda Zeder of the Smithsonian Institution National Museum of Natural History, David Phillips of the Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, and Wendy Bustard of the Chaco Canyon National Historical Park Museum Collections for facilitating this analysis, and to Edward Triplett for drafting Figure 7.1. This study benefitted greatly from discussions with Charlotte Sunseri and an anonymous reviewer who provided valuable feedback on an earlier version of this chapter.