hagstrum 2001

8/10/2019 Hagstrum 2001

1/10

Society for merican rchaeology

Household Production in Chaco Canyon SocietyAuthor(s): Melissa HagstrumSource: American Antiquity, Vol. 66, No. 1 (Jan., 2001), pp. 47-55Published by: Society for American ArchaeologyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2694317.

Accessed: 02/11/2014 23:51

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Society for American Archaeologyis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

American Antiquity.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.118.88.48 on Sun, 2 Nov 2014 23:51:14 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=samhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2694317?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2694317?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sam

8/10/2019 Hagstrum 2001

2/10

8/10/2019 Hagstrum 2001

3/10

8/10/2019 Hagstrum 2001

4/10

Hagstrum] HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTION

IN

CHACO CANYON SOCIETY

49

Household

Scheduling

Over

theshortandlonghaul in riskyenvironments,

farmer-artisans-by

definition-must spread

hem-

selves so thin o meetbasic

subsistence equirements

thatchalkingup obligations n a regular asisrequir-

ing repayment

t some future

andpossibly inconve-

nient time is to thwart

their own scheduling

autonomy

and their ability to complete tasks

effi-

ciently.This

aversionmay explainwhy farmer-arti-

sans seek

assistance irst

from relativeswith whom

they are

in an everydaygive-and-take elationship.

Beyond

that,they customarily oin forces

with oth-

ers to accomplish

some task (such as mining clay)

in which

everyone benefits at the same

time

(Hagstrum1989). In fact, Andean farmer-artisans

fulfill theircommunity bligations,

uch as cleaning

ditches

or

maintaining ublic

buildings,

n muchthe

same way, by scheduling

hese activities

at a

mutu-

ally convenient

time for everyone.

It

is precisely

those reciprocal

arrangements hat claim

a future

obligation,

possibly jeopardizing

household

auton-

omy

and

lexibility,

hat armer-artisans

eek to avoid

(see

Belote and

Belote

1977;

Mitchell 1991).

It is

critical to note that communal scheduling of,

for

example, building, maintenance,and repair must

accommodate

ousehold

asks,particularly

he

agri-

cultural

nes thatarecentral

n the domesticsubsis-

tence economy.

Farmer-artisan

ouseholdsare

almostcompletely

self-reliant

n

supplying

he labor

hey

need

for

their

agricultural

nd craftactivities.

They

are certain o

engage

in

more

formal

reciprocal

abor

exchanges,

however,

for such tasks as roofing

a new

couple's

house,

whichareendowedwithsocial

affectand hat

reinforcethe family's social ties and establishits

social capital.

Nevertheless,

householders

seek to

minimize

outside

obligations

and

claims

on

their

labor esources, xceptas

theymust ulfill

ribute nd

corvee

abor

equirements-although,

s

I

am

attempt-

ing to show,these

demandsarechartedat

times that

do not hinder

domestic

farming

asks.

Farmer-artisan

ouseholdsare

largely

self-suffi-

cient

in

the sense of

supplying

heir

own

labor,

but

they

are not self-sufficient

in

provisioning

all

the

goods they need. For these households,craftpro-

duction

may

be

an

important

upplement

o

agricul-

tural

production.

Oftenartisans

arter heirwares or

food

andother tems.

Exchange

n

goods, therefore,

enables armer-artisans

o

supply

heir

amilies

with

the

dietarystaples they may

be unable

to

grow

on

theirown because

of distinct cologicalconditions-

their ields being situated

above the altitudinal imit

for growing

maize, for example, or the

vagariesof

weather patterns as in the

Southwest. Although

farmer-artisanouseholdsare ess likelyto establish

outsidesocial

relationshipshrough abor

exchange,

they do maintain rading

relationships

ear to year

withfamilies

romother ettlementswith

whomthey

exchange

crafts for

produce,usually

after

the

har-

vest is in (Ford 1972). These

relationshipsmay be

understood

as insurance or families

who are less

than

self-sufficient

n

food

production.

Thus, the nature

of householdautonomy enders

the

domestic

unit highly adaptable.Scheduling

is

chartedaround armingresponsibilities, nd group

efforts

are

arranged

when the

agricultural

askshave

been

taken

careof.

The

Chacoan

householdwas the

core of the staple finance system (see

Earle, this

issue), providinggoods

and abor o thefunctioning

of

the chiefdom

in

ways

that were consonant

with

the

running

of the household. Agricultural

asks

wouldhave

defined heschedulingnot only

of house-

hold

chores,

ncluding

craft

making,

butalso house-

hold contributions

to

the

overarching

corporate

structure.

The Domestic

Character of

Chacoan

Craft Activity

To understand

he

Chacoan

craft

economy requires

that

we

investigate

he character f suites of

crafts.

My

work

in Andean

households

has

inspired

deas

about the

organization

f the craft

economy

that I

call

complementary

and

intersecting echnologies

(Hagstrum

001).

Recent

ethnographic

esearchhas

highlighted or me how analyticallycompartmen-

talizing

craftscan hinderour

nquiries.

As I watched

farmer-potters

move easily and opportunistically

between

agricultural

ndartisanal

asks,

I

wondered

about

the

economic

complementarity

f different

crafts

n

terms

of

scheduling,

abor

allocation,

ech-

nical

knowledge,

and skill.

One

way

of

thinking

about

the

organization

f the

traditional raftecon-

omy

centers on

scheduling, labor,

and

farming

responsibilities.

use theterm

complementary

ech-

nologies to referto the ways differentcraftsmay

complement

each other and

agricultural

ctivities

daily

and/or seasonally.

On

a

daily

basis, pottery

may

be made

during

he heatof the

day,

say,

for

dry-

ing purposes

whereas

basketry

or

spinningmay

be

interstitial

rafts,easily

pickedup

and

put

down

ear-

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

8/10/2019 Hagstrum 2001

5/10

50

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

[Vol. 66,

No. 1,

2001

lier or

later n the day. Here

potteryand textiles

can

be called

complementary

echnologies.

On a sea-

sonal

basis in the Andes, pottery

s usuallymade

in

dry

weatherduring

he lull between

harvestingand

planting,whereas extileconstructionmay be under-

taken n

wet weather,picked

up andput

down piece-

meal fashion in

between tillingand

weeding. Here

pottery

nd extilesarecomplementary

echnologies

again,

but

we

see

also how these artisanal

ctivities

complement

agricultural

ctivities.

Anotherway of conceptualizing

raft organiza-

tion

I refer to as intersecting

echnologies.

This

term uggests

he differentways crafts

may share or

intersect at) technical

knowledge, resources,

and

labor.Forexample,knowledgeof clayandmud and

their drying properties

characterizes

he interface

between potterymaking

andjacal for

architecture.

Likewise,

the knowledge of

fire characterizes

he

interface

between potterymaking

and

the

produc-

tion

of lime

plaster

or architecture.

ottery

making

and these

architectural

asks,

both

using

earth

prod-

ucts

in different

capacities,

are intersecting

tech-

nologies

as they share

technical

knowledge

and

resources. Pottery

and cooking, moreover,

are

pyrotechnologies,

ntersectingat the

knowledgeof

fire. Similarly,

knowledge

of

chipping

stone imple-

ments may

intersect with, for

instance, preparing

blanks and drilling turquoise

beads

(Earle

1994;

Feinman and

Nicholas

1993).

Finally,

an

under-

standing

of

the

properties

of stone

underlies

the

masonryconstruction

f the Chacoangreat

houses.

These

intersecting

echnologiesmay

share aborat

the

evel

of

the

artisan,

where emale

pottersmay

con-

struct

acal

structures,

s is known

n the

Southwest,

and

male

knappers

may

make

turquoise

beads,

as

Peregrine uggests

in this issue.

Holusehold

Cr-afts

The level

of technical

complexity

of the Chacoan

crafts

ndicates hat

pottery,

ithics,textiles,

and

bas-

ketry

would have been made

n

household

contexts,

albeit

by specialists Mathien

1997; Peregrine,

his

issue;

Toll and

McKenna

1997). Though

they

are

ingenious,

there

is

nothing complex

about these

industries

n

terms

of

materials,

oolkit,

or technical

knowledge to suggest that they would have been

organized

above

the domestic

level;

the

degree

of

skill, moreover,

vident

n

Chacoan

material ulture

appears

omewhat

uneven

see

Cameron

1997;

Toll

and

McKenna

1997),

and ikewise

suggests

a domes-

tic organization

f production.

We should note

that

fine craftsmanship

s not contrary o

household pe-

cialization

see Cameron,

his issue, for a discussion

of

well-craftedprojectilepoints).

In fact, given the

character nd schedulingrequirements f different

crafts

n the

economy,

t is probable

hathouseholds

engaged

in a number of crafts

simultaneously.

Althoughthis point

is controversial,

suggest

that

the architecture

f the

great

houses may

have been

produced y the

handsof household

aborersn oblig-

atory

aborassignments,

directedby specialists.

Long ago,

Anna Shepard

Kidderand

Shepard

1936) dispelled

the notionthat each

Southwestern

household

produced ts own

pottery, ndmore

recent

work Hagstrum 995;Mills andCrown1995) llus-

trates

hat

pottery

was made

by

householdspecial-

ists usually

aggregatedby

community.

n fact, the

relatively high degree

of

exchange

in

pottery

throughout

he Southwest

points to

householdspe-

cialization (Shepard 1956).

The

pottery

found

in

canyon

ontexts, houghappealing

esthetically,

oes

not

exhibit complicated

manufacturing r

painting

techniques.

The

famouscylinder ars,

mostly

ocated

in

a single

cache in Pueblo

Bonito (Judd 1954;

Toll

1990),

are

a simple form to construct,

and

skill in

theirdecoration s not uniform.

These pots,

though

ritually important,were

not made by specialists

attached

o ceremonial

ersonnel

utrather

y

house-

hold

potterswho may also

have been ritual

pecial-

ists (see

Spielmann

1998).

Holusehold Specializationi

Craft

specialization

omes

in

many configurations,

from

household o workshop Costin 1991)

and

rom

independent

o attached Brumfiel

and

Earle

1986;

Earle

1981).Specialization

n Chacoan

craftmanu-

facture

certainly

existed

(Mathien 1997;

Toll and

McKenna1997),

but

t

wasundertaken

n

household

settings by

independent specialists-those

who

worked to support

themselves rather

han having

been

supported

by

elite

individuals

or institutional

patrons

s we see in

the

Andes.

Whilehousehold

elf-

sufficiency

is a

goal among agriculturalists-and

may

seem to contradict

he factof specialization

hat

integrates

membersof a

society-households

can

never achieve complete autonomy,so the goal of

self-sufficiency

andthe

practice

of

specialization

o

coexist

in

traditional ocieties.

Whatdoes household pecialization

ook like'?

t

is a

form of craft

production

hattakes

the

rhythms


8/10/2019 Hagstrum 2001

6/10

Haqstruml

HOUSEHOLD

PRODUCTION IN CHACO CANYON

SOCIETY

51

of domesticactivity;

t

fits

in with farming, ooking,

childcare,weaving

and spinning,and all the chores

that keep a house running.

Unlike workshopcraft

specialization

hereproducers pendall of their

ime

at workon theirmetier, n thehousehold,craftspe-

cialization s

only a partof what hehouseholder

rti-

sandoes.Archaeologically, ousehold

pecialization

must be inferred rom the entire

assemblage

of a

givencraft CostinandHagstrum

995).Take eram-

ics for example:

household ceramics can be

stan-

dardized n

form and decorationand they may

lack

intensive abor

n eitherconstruction r decoration,

because household

specialists are self-supporting

(Hagstrum1985), workshop

ceramics can also be

standardizedn form and decoration,but they are

more ikely

to be labor ntensive

n construction nd

decoration,

because these

specialists

are supported

by elite or

bureaucratic atrons

(Hagstrum1986).

Ceramic specialization,

unlike weaving

or

stonework,

s

seasonal,

and this means

that

during

thepottery

eason,pottery-makingominates

ouse-

hold activity.

Scheduling

Revisited

Comprehendinghe organization f Chacoancraft

production

equires onsideration f

theseasonality

of craft

scheduling.

Worldwide,

he

bulk

of

pottery

produced

during he year is undertaken uring

he

warm season (Arnold 1985),

althoughpots may

be

made occasionally throughout

he year and stock-

piled

for

firing

when the weather is auspicious

(Hagstrum

989). Textilesandbasketry

xhibitsea-

sonality

only insofar

as

procuring

lantresources

s

concerned,

and lithic manufacture acks seasonal

considerations

ltogether, xceptperhaps

n the

pro-

curement

process.

Stone

was likely gathered ppor-

tunistically

as part of otheractivities-during

the

hunt,

he

gathering

f clays

for

pottery

and

plants

or

basketry,

r the trip o visit family

andfriendsresid-

ing

elsewhere.

In the

Southwest,

he

pottery

roduction

equence

is

generally

undertaken uring

he

growing

season

between May

and

September(Blinman, personal

communication).

side fromthe concern

about

dry-

ing pots,

wood would be driest

n

May,

before the

onset of

the monsoon season.

This

scheduling

ssue

means that

therewas

probably

a

gendered

division

of labor

n

settlements

f

potters

wherewomen

were

the

potters

and men the

farmers,primarily.

n the

Andes,by

contrast,

othmen andwomen

make

pot-

tery because there

are no co-occurring

agricultural

responsibilities

during he warm,

dry season

from

June hrough

heendof September Hagstrum

989).

Despite

he sexualdivisionof

labor n theSouthwest,

potterymakingusually nvolves other amily mem-

bers n ancillary

asks-mining

andmixingclay,car-

ryingpots in andout

of the sun to dry,and

gathering

fuel

for

firing (Wright

1991).

Lithics,on the

other hand,

were probablypro-

duced

household by household

to fulfill domestic

demandfor everyday

mplements, ncluding

ham-

mers,

knives,scrapers, braders,

millingequipment,

projectile

points

for the hunt, farming

hoes, and

buildingaxes

andsaws (Judd1954). Sourcing

ndi-

cates that proportionally here was an enormous

amountof high-quality

chert

imported

nto Chaco

fromthe Chuska

Mountains,probably

brought

n

as

part

of the communal gatherings

held

in

Chaco

Canyon

Cameron,

his

issue).

In

households,

ithic

tool production

epresentsa complementary

ech-

nology,

freely picked

up and put down,

barring he

loss of rhythm

n knapping,drilling,or

abrading.

Textiles and basketryare, by

contrast

o

pottery

and

ithics,

extraordinarily

ime-intensive,

nd hese

craftswere undertaken y each household o fulfill

its own

needs and the requirements

of

obligatory

contributions, articularly

f burden

basketsused

in

architectural

onstruction

Wills 2000).

Like

lithics,

weaving

andbasket

making

are

complementary

ech-

nologies,

worked as household

chores

and

respon-

sibilities

permitted.

In

conceiving

Chacoan

craft

manufacture,

t

is

wise to consider

both the household

context

of

pro-

duction and

the character

of

complementary

and

intersecting echnologies,

ncluding

arming,cook-

ing,

and domestic

architecture.Agricultural

asks,

though

seasonal,

represent

he central scheduling

issue around

which he other echnologies

wereorga-

nized

n

complementary

ays.

It

was

household

pro-

ducers who formed

the basis

of the

Chacoan

corporate

strategy,providing

the

goods

and labor

thatwere

the cornerstone f

the

phenomenon

as we

know it.

The Mobilization

of Household

Goods and Labor

If

Chaco

had

been a

corporate

chiefdom,

as

pro-

posed by

Earle

and

Peregrine this

issue),

then the

mobilization

of

goods

and labor

to

support

nstitu-

tional

specialists

and

activities-including

elaborate


8/10/2019 Hagstrum 2001

7/10

52 AMERICAN

ANTIQUITY [Vol. 66, No. 1, 2001

constructions ndceremonies, mongother hings-

would have been centralto the functioningof the

Chacoan

hiefdom

Earle,

his

ssue).

Thehousehold

of the ChacoHalo may have born he bruntof this

support.The leadersof Chaco,however,wouldhave

assessed their demands of the household around

issues

of

domestic autonomy

in

agricultural

pro-

duction.Thus, t seemsplausible o suggest hat here

was markedseasonality o

the

household's

contri-

bution, in obligatory abor and materialcontribu-

tions, to Chaco'spoliticalcore. This centralcore of

Chacoan

decision-making

ad to be

extraordinarily

sensitive o the rhythmsof householdcrop andcraft

production.

Surplus

Production

That he hierarchical

henomenon

f

ChacoCanyon

may have occurredduringan environmentalmaxi-

mum

points

to the

ability

of leaders o extracta sur-

plus from

the

general populace (Sebastian

1992).

The favorable

cological

conditions ndicate hat he

householdcould have generated ot only morefood

than t needed o ensure ts

survival,

but

also that he

domestic

unit did not have

to strugglemightily

for

its existence, herebygrantingmore imeforthe craft

production equisite

or

underwriting

he

chiefdom.

As was truefor the InkaandAztec cases-empires

to be sure and

vastly

more

complex

than Chaco-

the householdwas the fundamental

nit of food

and

craft

production.

It follows that assessments for

obligatory

material

ontributionswere added o the

household'sproduction f its own subsistencebase.

In

complex sociopolitical ormulations,

ouseholds

workedharder

nd

onger

o

satisfy

heir

obligations

to the political economy.If there is discomfort n

comparing

Chaco

o theInkaand

heAztec,

one need

only

follow

Netting's see especially1989

and

1993)

workon

households

hat ndicates hat his social

unit

forms the basis of

support

or the

politicaleconomy

in both

simple

and

complex

societies

irrespective

f

time

frame.

Scheduling,

Once

More

Along

with

agriculture, otterymaking

was

largely

a seasonal

activity,

and in

many ways,

it is not sur-

prising

hat

only

about

50

percent

of the

pottery

was

made in the

canyonproper

or it would have com-

peted

with

farmingresponsibilities,

as mentioned

above. Lack

of

appropriate

wood

fuel for

firing

is

the oft-citedreason

for the level of ceramicmanu-

facture

n Chaco Canyon (e.g., Toll

and McKenna

1997),butpeople n the

canyonprobablywould

have

had to contribute

much, if not most,

of the staple

products

necessary o

maintain he political hierar-

chy. Stapleproductsarebulky,heavy,can spoil,and

do not travel far (D'Altroy

and Earle 1985).

The

onus of agricultural

upport, herefore,

ikely fell on

the shoulders

f bothmen andwomen

n the canyon,

while a

fair

contribution f the pottery

was funneled

into Chacofrom

furtherafield.

I

suspect

that basketrymanufacture,

ncluding

mats,

sandals,andcontainers

see Judd1954),

could

have

occupied

a substantial ortion

of thecanyon's

female residents'

ime.

Basket-making

asily

would

have fit into the intersticesof all the otherdomestic

activities. Political

demand for goods may

have

included he basketbearing

he staples,or the

con-

tributionof baskets

for

architectural

onstruction

could have been conjoined

with

obligatory

labor

assignments,

where each man was responsible

or

supplying

his own

burden

basket.

The makingof woven goods,

in addition o cloth

and

cordage

or rabbit-fur

nd

turkey-feather

lan-

kets,

wouldalsohavecomplemented

ousehold asks

dailyandseasonally,andmayhavebeenundertaken

by both

women and men, based

on the knowledge

we

gain

from ethnographic

studies (Judd 1954).

Whereas cloth was

a

critical

tribute

good

for

the

Inka,

to clothe the military and to

cloak the para-

mounts

in

sumptuary

abrics,

t is less clear to

me

what the role

of

cloth as

obligatory

contribution

might

have been

during

Chacoan

imes. Neverthe-

less, given

the

ceremonies

and displays

that must

havebeen an

integral

part

of

the canyon's

social

cal-

endar see Earle,Renfrew,hisissue),we can be

sus-

picious hat

clothor

garments

may

havebeenexacted

of households.

The

production

f

ornaments-particularly

f

the

symbolic

and

prized turquoise

beads-was

likely

the

province

of

men who

probably

worked

he stone

when other

obligations ermitted.

eadmanufacture

utilized men's

intersecting

knowledge

of

chipping

stone, abrading

stone,

and

drilling

stone.

Though

turquoise

beads

were recovered

n limited

settings,

the

majority

of

them coming

from two

individual

burials,

heir

production

was diffuse (Mathien,

his

issue).

As Windes

(1992)

and

Peregrine this

issue)

suggest,

bead manufacture

was undertaken

nearly

universally

n

contexts throughout

he canyon,

in

kivas, pithouses,

rooms,

and

plazas (see

Mathien


8/10/2019 Hagstrum 2001

8/10

Hagstrum]

HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTION IN

CHACO CANYON SOCIETY

53

1984, 1997, his ssue).Theuniversal ontextsof pro-

ductionsuggestthat he technologyof

beadproduc-

tion was

relativelysimple and widely available.

Turning o themobilization f labor,

aborassign-

ments would have complemented the dictates of

domestic autonomy n agricultural

roduction,and

thus would have been organizedseasonally. The

household, itself, would have accommodated he

schedulingof laborrequirements nd

he absenceof

its members ulfilling their obligations o the

Cha-

coan

political economy.

In Peru

during

colonial

times,

and

presumablyduring

he

reign of

the

Inka,

men and women left theirhouses and

communities

to

fulfill their labor tasks as documented by the

Huanucovisita(inspection) Ortizde Zu'niiga967,

1972).

From

his report,

t

is clearthat

he

extended

family-grandparents,aunts,

and

uncles-took

over

the

running

of the

householdand he

minding

of the

children

when

the

potters,whether

he man

or

the

womanof the

household,

were

working

or the state

at

ceramic workshop nstallations.

n

the

Chacoan

case, Peregrine this issue) builds an

argument

or

matrilocalgroupscomprising he

foundationof

the

corporate oliticalstrategy uchthat

whenmen were

awayfrom hehouseholdor thecompound orhunt-

ing or for fulfilling labor

obligations, groups

of

women would have

kept

the domestic scene intact.

To

my mind,

the most

striking

vidence of labor

mobilization

s the

architecturalonstruction,

man-

ifested

archaeologically y Chaco

Canyon's

monu-

mental

great houses, exhibiting

thousands of

man-hours f work.This

masculine

aborwas

likely

suppliedby

householdsandcoordinated

y special-

ist architects nd

engineers.

Men would

have

had

he

intersectingechnological nowledgeof stonework-

ing from making heirtools, ornaments, nd build-

ing

theirown

houses.

Mobilizing

labor for architecturewould have

entailed

a

massive

schedulingoperation.

The scale

of

mobilization

uring

he

height

of Chacomust

have

been

impressive, oordinating

cores of households

throughout

he

canyon

and n the

supporting egion

beyond

the

canyon

as well.

All

scheduling hrough-

out Chacorevolvedaround

agricultural roduction,

and these

scheduling

considerations would

have

included abor mobilization

or

corporate

architec-

ture.

n

thiscase there

may

havebeen

a kindof house-

hold count that allowed leaders and architectural

specialists

to

organize

abor for

procuring imbers,

stone, water,earth,

and

plaster

and for

constructing

the

greathouses -and ivas themselves.

Another orm of

corvee

labor,cooking for cere-

monies and celebrations,was probably feminine.

Again, it was the household and family that would

have accommodated he absence of women fulfill-

ing

their

tributeobligations.

In

this case, who car-

ried out the work in corporatekitchens was likely

highly flexible, left to the extended amily to decide

so thatnursingmothersandwomen with smallchil-

drencouldremain n thehousehold.Earle this ssue)

suggests

hat

ceremonieswere grandpotluckevents,

and his scenario obviates the need

for

women

to

leave home to prepare or celebrations.Regardless,

requisite ookingresponsibilitiesell to the Chacoan

housewife.

Summary

The

household

s the

basic

unit of

social and eco-

nomic organization hroughwhich we can under-

stand he Chaco

phenomenon

n its

totality rom

the

point

of view

of agriculture

nd

craft. Because

the

householdwas the

unitof

agriculturalroduction nd

decision making, schedulingarose as the predomi-

nant

issue

managedby

the

household

as

it accom-

modated its farming, craft, and obligatory

responsibilitiesduring Chacoan times. Except for

the massive

scheduling

of labor coordination or

building

he

greathouses, greatkivas,

and

corporate

constructions,

he householdstrove or

autonomy

n

all its affairs.That it was unable to be

completely

self-sufficient s a fact of

life,

if

only

for

acquiring

mates

and

dealing

with

the

vicissitudes

of the

South-

western environment.

Still,

the

goal

of self

suffi-

ciency predominatedhough

t did not

preclude

he

organization f specialistproductionn craftmanu-

facture,particularly

f

pottery

or which economies

of

scale

operate.

Ritual

specialists

oo were house-

hold

artisans,

ut

hey

were also farmers nd

athers,

mothersandcooks-all

of the roles thathousehold-

ers

assumed n their

daily

lives to outfit their fami-

lies and to

run

their households. Chaco

operated

through

he idiom of the household

and ts functions

were

phrased

n

kinship

erms.

Acknowledgments. pecial

thanks

o

Cathy

Cameronand

Wolky

Toll

for

inviting

me

to

participate

n the

Organization

f Produc-

tion

Symposium

of

the

Chaco

SynthesisProject.

am

grateful

o

Cathy

and

Wolky

as

well

as

Tim

Earle,

Peter

Peregrine,

ColinRen-

frew,

Steve

Lekson,

Tom

Windes,

Peter

McKenna,

nd

Joan

Math-

ien for

enlightening

discussions.Thanks

are

due

Eric

Blinman,

CathyCameron,

Tim

Earle,WolkyToll,

andthe reviewers

of

my


8/10/2019 Hagstrum 2001

9/10

8/10/2019 Hagstrum 2001

10/10

Hagstrum]

HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTION IN

CHACO CANYON SOCIETY 55

EconomicAnthropology,

ol. 13, edited by B. L. Isaac,pp.

191-219. JAIPress, Greenwich,

CT.

Netting,R.

McC.

1989 Smallholders,Householders,

reeholders:

WhytheFam-

ily

FarmWorksWell Worldwide. n The HouseholdEcon-

omy:

Reconsidering the Domestic Mode

of Production,

edited by R. R. Wilk, pp.

210-244.

Westview

Press, Boul-

der,CO.

1993 Smallholders,

Householders:

FarmFamilies and the

Ecology

of Intensive,SustainableAgriculture.

tanfordUni-

versity

Press,

Stanford.

Netting,R. McC., R. R. Wilk,

andE. Arnould eds.)

1984 Households:

Comparative nd Historical

Studiesof the

Domestic Group.University

of CaliforniaPress, Berkeley.

Orlove,

B.

S.

1974

Reciprocidad,Desigualdad, Dominaci6n.

nRecipro-

cidad

e Intercambio

n

los

Andes

Peruanos,

edited by

G.

AlbertiandE. Mayer,pp. 13-33.

Institutode Estudios

Peru-

anos,

Lima.

Ortizde Znfiiga,

.

1967 Visitade la ProvinciadeLe6ndeHuanucoen1562,vol.

1.

Edited

by

J. V.

Murra.

Universidad

Hermilio

Valdizan,

Huanuco,

Peru.

1972 Visita

de la Provinciade

Le6nde

Huanuco

en

1562,

vol.

2. Edited by J. V. Murra.Universidad

Hermiio Valdizan,

Huanuco,

Peru.

Santley,

R.

S.,

and K. G.

Hirth

editors)

1993 PrehispanicDomestic

Units in WesternMesoamerica:

Studies

of

the

Household,Compound,

nd Residence.

CRC

Press, Boca Raton,

FL.

Sebastian,

L.

1992

The

ChacoAnasazi:

SociopoliticalEvolution

n thePre-

historicSouthwest.

Cambridge niversity

ress,Cambridge.

Shepard,

A. 0.

1956 Ceramics or theArchaeologist.Carnegie nstitution f

Washington,

Publication

09, Washington,

DC.

Spielmann,

K.

1998

Ritual CraftSpecialists

n Middle Range Societies.

In

Craft

and Social

Identity,

dited

by

C. CostinandR.

Wright,

pp.

153-159. Archaeological Papers

No. 8. American

Anthropological

Association,Arlington,

VA.

Stanish,

C.

1989 HouseholdArchaeology: esting

Modelsof Zonal

Com-

plementarity

n the

South

CentralAndes.AmericanAnthro-

pologist 91:7-24.

Toll, H. W.

1984 Trends n CeramicImport

and Distribution n Chaco

Canyon.

nRecentResearch n ChacoPrehistory,

ditedby

W. J.

Judge

andJ. D. Schelberg,pp. 115-135. Reports

of the

Chaco Center,No.

8.

NationalParkService,Albuquerque.

1990 The Reassessmentof ChacoCylinderJars.In Clues to

the

Past:

Papers

n

Honor

of

WilliamSundt, dited

by M.

S.

DuranandD. T. Kirkpatrick,p. 273-305. Archaeological

Society

of

New Mexico Papers,

No. 16, Albuquerque.

Toll, H. W., and

P. McKenna

1997 Chaco

Ceramics. n Ceramics,Lithics and Ornaments

of

Chaco Canyon,editedby

F. J.

Mathien,pp.

17-530.

Pub-

lications

in

Archaeology 18G

Chaco

Canyon

Studies,

NationalPark

Service, Santa

Fe.

Wilk,

R.

R.,

andW. Ashmore

editors)

1988 Household

and Communityn the Mesoamerican

Past.

University

of

New Mexico Press,Albuquerque.

Wilk, R. R.,

andW. L. Rathje

1982 HouseholdArchaeology.AmericanBehavioralScientist

25:617-639.

Wills,

W. H.

1999

Political

Leadership

and the Construction

f Chacoan

GreatHouses, A.D. 1020-1140. In

AlternativeLeadership

Strategies

n the GreaterSouthwest,

edited

by

B. J. Mills,

pp. 19-44.

Universityof ArizonaPress,Tucson.

Windes,T. C.

1992

Blue Notes:The ChacoanTurquoise ndustry

n

the San

JuanBasin. nAnasaziRegional

Organization

nd theChaco

System,

edited

by

D. E.

Doyel,

pp. 159-168. Anthropolog-

ical

Papers,

No.5. MaxwellMuseum

ofAnthropology,Albu-

querque.

Wright,

R.

P.

1991 Women'sLabor andPotteryProductionn Prehistory.

InEngenderingArchaeology:

Women

ndPrehistory,

dited

by

J. M.

GeroandM. W.

Conkey,pp.

194-223.

Basil Black-

well,

Cambridge,

MA.

Received

August 10, 1999; Accepted

December

16,

1999;

Revised

April

14,

2000

hagstrum 2001

Documents