The Sociopolitical Structure Of Prehistoric Southwestern Societies

Steadman Upham, Kent G Lightfoot, Roberta A. Jewett

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN:
  9780367295868
• eBook ISBN:
  9781000305555
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Anthropology
• Index: Social Sciences

This book examines current archaeological approaches for studying the organizational structure of prehistoric societies in the American Southwest. It presents the historical background of the divergent theoretical models that have been used to interpret Southwestern socio-political organizations.

Section 1
Introduction

1
Complex Societies in the Prehistoric American Southwest: A Consideration of the Controversy

Kent G. Lightfoot and Steadman Upham

During the past decade there has been considerable controversy about interpretations that posit the development of complex societies in the prehistoric American Southwest. Although such controversy is not new -- it spans back to the early days of Southwestern archaeology -- the arguments have taken on new life in recent years. The axes of the debate involve a variety of arguments about the degree to which Southwestern societies manifested various trappings of sociopolitical complexity. These arguments pertain to the development of hierarchical decision-making organizations, the presence of status differentiation, and the rise of inequality that limited access to economic resources and ritual information.

The nature and passion of the debate differs among scholars of Hohokam and Pueblo societies. Although most scholars agree that hierarchical decision-making organizations and centralized leadership existed among the Hohokam, there is considerable debate about how such organizations evolved in the desert Southwest. Much of this discussion concerns spatial and temporal variation in the occurrence of sociopolitical organizations, and the extent of centralization in large-scale decision-making hierarchies (Doyel 1979, 1980/Upham and Rice 1980; Wilcox and Sternberg 1983).

It is among the scholars of Pueblo societies of the Mogollon Rim and Colorado Plateau, however, that the issue has received greatest attention, with terse and fervid exchanges occurring among researchers concerning the very existence of hierarchical decision-making organizations. In fact, there is little consensus about the organizational parameters of Pueblo societies, and scholars are sharply divided about whether the archaeological record exhibits evidence of sociopolitical complexity.

One group of scholars maintains that Pueblo societies were simple, acephalous, and nonhierarchically organized throughout prehistoric and historic times. According to this view, major political decisions were arrived at by consensus and no one person, family, or group asserted control over the larger community in such matters as land tenure, food production, craft production, or regional trade networks. Relying extensively on ethnographic analogy, these scholars assume that the fundamental organization of Pueblo societies has remained relatively unchanged for the last 700 years or more. They argue simply that complex societies staffed by leaders did not evolve among groups occupying the Colorado Plateaus and the Mogollon Rim regions (Graves 1984:19–20; Graves, Longacre, and Holbrook 1982:205; Graves and Reid 1984; Gumerman 1984:v; Kent 1985; Reid 1985; Whittlesey 1984, 1986).

Another body of scholars offers a different interpretation of prehistoric Pueblo societies. They suggest that a diverse range of organizational forms was experimented with and adopted, depending upon local and regional demographic, environmental, and economic conditions. Some of these societies may have been characterized by simple, consensus based decision-making sociopolitical organizations, while others may have evolved into complex polities where a restricted segment of the society controlled access to land, nonlocal goods, and ritual information (Clark 1969; Cordell and Plog 1979; Eddy 1966; Grebinger 1973; Griffin 1967; Kelley and Kelley 1975; Lightfoot and Feinman 1982; F. Plog 1981; Riley and Hedrick, eds. 1978; Upham 1982; Upham and Plog 1986). These scholars argue that the study of Pueblo societies provides an unparalleled data base for examining the evolution of a variety of nonstate sociopolitical organizations.

At the core of the debate is how one interprets the archaeological record. Significantly, archaeologists have supported interpretations of both simple, egalitarian groups and complex polities using the same or very similar data bases (see Reid 1985/Upham and Plog 1986). This dilemma raises many questions about archaeologists’ ability to interpret archaeological remains accurately. For example, how does one differentiate simple consensus based decision-making organizations from hierarchically structured ones? Can one measure different levels of sociopolitical complexity using archaeological information on regional settlement hierarchies, nonrandom spatial patterns of artifacts, or variation in the size and elaboration of architectural features? How does one evaluate alternative models concerning the sociopolitical organization of Southwestern societies?

This chapter explores the basic issues underlying the “complexity” controversy. While the chapter focuses primarily on interpretations of Pueblo societies, much of the discussion pertains to Hohokam archaeology as well. We begin with a brief historical overview that provides a temporal dimension to the divergent interpretations of prehistoric Pueblo societies. We then consider a variety of theoretical and methodological issues that underlie the current controversy. These issues include (1) the use and abuse of ethnographic data, (2) the ambiguity of current sociopolitical concepts, and (3) the models and methods used to interpret the archaeological record. The latter will involve discussions of settlement hierarchies, mortuary data, hierarchical exchange networks, and surplus production.

Historical Perspective

To be fully appreciated, the debate concerning sociopolitical complexity in the American Southwest must be contextualized; it has an historical basis founded in more than a century of research.

1880 ot 1900: The Early Years

The early researchers were general anthropologists who viewed archaeology as simply “ethnography projected back into the past” (Longacre 1970b:2). Most assumed that modern Pueblo groups provided a realistic analog for interpreting the past. This assumption was based on Pueblo oral tradition and the close similarity between past and present Pueblo architecture and artifacts (Fewkes 1896:159; V. Mindeleff 1891:225). However, they also recognized that contact with non-Native American populations had a major impact on recent Pueblo people. These scholars suggested that the Southwest was originally settled by a uniform and homogeneous culture that became diluted and fragmented into many separate groups by historic times (Cushing 1888; Fewkes 1896:159; V. Mindeleff 1891:225). While recognizing that some changes took place over time, most researchers believed that the fundamental social unit of the past was the clan organization of the present (Cushing 1896; Fewkes 1900; C. Mindeleff 1900). Much of their work involved tracing the migration of historic clans back into the past on the basis of myths and archaeological remains. A few investigators, such as C. Mindeleff (1900:647), also interpreted the rebuilding patterns of Pueblo remains as evidence of clans aggregating into major sites over time.

Some of the early field workers argued that evidence of status differences and leadership development existed in the archaeological record. Significantly, these interpretations were based on mortuary data and settlement patterns. Hough (1903:290), for example, reported a raised acropolis at Tundastusa Ruin in Forestdale Valley that represented the work of skilled masons and required a significant labor investment to build. He further described a cemetery at Canyon Butte (Ruin 1) in the Petrified Forest that exhibited signs of status differentiation.

The distribution of interments in the cemetery brings out the fact that the area at the end of the mound due northeast of the pueblo contained the remains of the well-to-do members of the tribe placed deep in the ground and surrounded with valuable things, while on the outskirts the poor were buried in shallow earth without slabs and with only a broken vessel or a fragment beside them, the part standing for the whole. An interment in the favored spot may be described as typical of a burial of the better class (Hough 1903:311).

He then continued to define the burials of the “better class” in some detail.

Cushing (1888) also argued that status differentiation characterized some prehistoric populations. Interestingly, this interpretation was largely based on his ethnographic observations of the hereditary priesthood at Zuni and his understanding of the myths and oral tradition of the Zuni people. His excavations at Los Muertos in the Salt River Valley of southern Arizona revealed mortuary patterns and domestic architecture that suggested class differences, as well as the existence of substantial public architecture (platform mounds and temples). He speculated that the temples were used by hereditary priests who were ancestral to the priests he observed at Zuni (1888:162–175).

Chronology And Culture History: 1910–1950

During this period there was little concern with the social organization of prehistoric people. Research undertaken prior to 1910 was viewed as too speculative, in large part because the oral traditions and migration myths of contemporary Pueblos were found to be contradictory and inaccurate (Steward 1955b:155). Furthermore, the archaeological methods employed by the early researchers left much to be desired (e.g., Brew 1946:27–39), and their archaeological interpretations remain suspect.

It was broadly agreed that some components of prehistoric lifeways, such as religion and social organization, could not be interpreted well by archaeologists. As succinctly stated by Florence Hawley (1937:506), it was felt that clues of “ancient social organization” would come only from a consideration of modern people. Consequently, earlier interpretations concerning the social organization of Pueblo people were either ignored or reevaluated based on new information (see Cordell [Chapter 2] and Feinman [Chapter 3] this volume, for a more detailed exposition of these ideas). Haury’s (1945) study of Los Muertos, for example, indicated that Cushing’s interpretation of a hierarchical class structure, based on mortuary and architectural differences, was incorrect. Haury attributed these patterns to chronological differenees and to different occupational episodes at the site.

The Lineage Model: 1950–1970

A renewed interest in prehistoric social organization, which began as early as 1950, was in full swing by the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. The impetus for this resurgence was twofold. On the one hand was the rise of “new” archaeology and its explicit goal of reconstructing various social and economic components of past human society. On the other was the growing influence of Julian Steward, Fred Eggan, and other ethnographers whose models of Western Pueblo social organization provided detail that was previously lacking.

Both Steward (1937, 1955b) and Eggan (1950) employed contemporary ethnographic models of Pueblo social organization to interpret the archaeological record. They believed that the primordial social unit of the Western Pueblo was the lineage, an exogamous, land-owning group that traced its common ancestry along female lines. These unilineal descent groups practiced postmarital residence rules and recognized no major differences in the wealth, status, or property of their members. Viewed from this perspective, the genealogical relationships of people within the lineage structured their day-to-day interactions and helped maintain an egalitarian ethos (Eggan 1950: 28–36).

Within the lineage associated with one’s household are primary, super-ordinate, and cooperate relationships which are basic to the transmission of the social heritage and operation of daily life (Eggan 1950:36).

Steward (1955b: 161–170) and Eggan (1950:123–133) suggested that changes in the settlement patterns of prehistoric pueblos, from small house clusters to large villages, could be explained by reference to their lineage model. They postulated that the small dispersed Basketmaker III villages and Pueblo I house clusters represented the remains of localized lineages consisting of five to six families. This latter figure was based on the kiva/room ratio calculated by Steward (1955b:163–166). By Pueblo III and IV times many of these small sites were abandoned and replaced by fewer but larger Pueblo villages. Steward and Eggan interpreted this settlement shift as independent lineages aggregating into larger multilineage communities for protection from nomadic enemies and to take advantage of permanent water sources during droughts.

The integration of multiple lineages was handled through the creation of exogamous clans that linked together individual lineages into larger social units. The linkage was based on common rituals and the belief that members descended from common ancestors (see Steward 1955b:154). The segmentary lineage system provided rules, duties, and rights for individuals based on their genealogical relationship within the larger clan structure (Eggan 1950:109, 130). Essentially, the rules of matrilineal descent and matrilocal residence provided an egalitarian mechanism that allowed independent lineages to link harmoniously together into larger clan units (Eggan 1950: 130).

Much of the ensuing archaeological research conducted on Pueblo social organization followed this lineage/clan development model. A significant assumption of these studies was that the basic unit of Pueblo social organization -- the lineage -- had changed very little over the last 700 years (Dozier 1970a:204–205; Hill 1968:137). While lineage units were integrated into larger and larger communities over time, it was widely believed that the lineage building blocks were conservative, and remained exogamous, egalitarian, land-owning entities throughout Pueblo prehistory and history (see Ellis 1951:149).

Some archaeologists attempted to define family and lineage units on an intrasite level of analysis. This included Martin and Rinaldo’s (1950) study of metates and house structures in the Pine Lawn region, and Longacre’s (1970a) and Hill’s (1970a) classic case studies that defined lineage and clan units using pottery design elements. Dean (1970) also defined the social organization of Tsegi Canyon sites on the basis of architectural rebuilding episodes and tight chronological control.

Other archaeologists examined the ceremonial integration of multisite communities on a regional scale of analysis. Based largely on Steward’s (1937) pioneering analysis of kiva and secular room ratios, many of these studies examined the size and number of kivas in relation to sites of varying sizes. In some areas, large sites with Great Kivas were argued to have served as ceremonial centers for outlying sites that lacked religious architecture (Bluhm 1960; Longacre 1970a). Other archaeologists (e.g., Haury 1956; Wendorf 1956), suggested that increasing religious integration was associated with the aggregation of lineages into larger villages. This integration may have taken place at Great Kivas and plazas where the entire community could have assembled for ceremonies, dances, and communal meetings.

Complexity Revisited: 1970–1987

The use of the lineage model to interpret the social organization of Pueblo societies was in decline by the early 1970’s. This trend resulted primarily from multiple critiques (e.g., Friedrich 1970; S. Plog 1978; Stanislowski 1973) of the methods employed to define prehistoric lineage units. The reanalyses of Longacre’s (1970a) and Hill’s (1970a) seminal studies resulted in questions concerning their assumptions, data, and statistical techniques (see S. Plog 1978 for an excellent overview). One result of such close scrutiny was a general conclusion that lineage units, as defined by Eggan and others, were very difficult if not impossible to detect using archaeological data (Allen and Richardson 1971; Roe 1980:47).

At the same time the lineage model was being evaluated, some archaeologists were again beginning to question the egalitarian nature of prehistoric Southwestern societies. The reconsideration of complex Pueblo societies was based, in large part, on the recognition of major discontinuities in the archaeological record. Scholars working in some areas were delineating regional settlement patterns, intrasite settlement structures, and status hierarchies in cemeteries that did not fit the expectations of simple, egalitarian societies.

Some of the earliest studies to reconsider sociopolitical complexity include Eddy’s (1966) analysis of Sambrito Village in the Navajo Reservoir, and Griffin’s (1967) and Clark’s (1969) analyses of mortuary remains at Grasshopper Ruin. Eddy (1966:378) suggested that Sambrito Village served as a religious and trade center for outlying satellite sites. Based on richly endowed graves containing multiple interments and dog sacrifices, and the presence of a large kiva, he argued that high status priests directed multisite ceremonies and regional economic functions (trade fairs) from Sambrito. Griffin’s (1967) and Clark’s (1969) studies identified high status individuals at Grasshopper who were differentially treated in death. Specifically, Clark (1969:82) identified high status individuals associated with the Great Kiva/plaza area, and suggested that these represented ascribed members of a ranked lineage.

By the 1970’s and continuing through the 1980’s, studies were undertaken at Chaco Canyon (Akins and Schelberg 1984; Grebinger 1973; Schelberg 1984), Nuvakwewtaqa (Upham 1982, 1983), Tonto Basin (Jewett 1986; Wood and McAllister 1984), the Dolores River region (Kane and Wilshusen 1985), and the Little Colorado region (Lightfoot 1984a; F. Plog 1981) that suggested the existence of hierarchical decision-making and sociopolitical complexity. Most of these studies based their interpretations on the definition of settlement hierarchies, the distribution of nonlocal goods, the presence of ceremonial/public architecture, and the spatial patterning of mortuary goods. Research was also undertaken on the sociopolitical organization of Hohokam societies in the Salt and Gila River Valleys (Doyel 1979, 1980; Upham and Rice 1980; Wilcox 1979a; Wilcox, McGuire and Sternberg 1981; Wilcox and Sternberg 1983). These studies began to reevaluate seriously Haury’s (1945) rejection of sociopolitical complexity among the Hohokam. Furthermore, studies of the Greater American Southwest strongly supported the development of complex societies in the southern deserts of the Sonoran region (Riley 1985) and at Casas Grandes (DiPeso 1974), as well as related regions further south (Kelley 1986; Weigand 1978).

In addition to identifying the archaeological evidence of hierarchical decision-making organizations, scholars have also attempted to explain the evolution of such institutions in the American Southwest. A variety of factors have been identified as potentially playing a role in shaping Southwestern sociopolitical systems. These factors include environmental change (Judge 1979), access to fertile land (Grebinger 1973), access to regional exchange networks (Lightfoot and Feinman 1982; Upham 1982), and competition for leadership positions (Lightfoot 1984a). However, one of the most common yet contr...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Page
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Tables and Figures
• List of Appendixes
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• Contributors
• SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
• SECTION 2: HISTORICAL FOUNDATIONS AND THEORETICAL APPROACHES
• SECTION 3: EXCHANGE AND SOCIOPOLITICAL RELATIONS
• SECTION 4: SOUTHWESTERN CASE STUDIES
• SECTION 5: CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
• Bibliography