Ritual Fauna and Social Organization at Pueblo Bonito, Chaco Canyon^†

† Recipient of the 2018 Julian D. Hayden student paper award

Abstract

Chaco Canyon served as a regional center for the Northern U.S. Southwest from AD 850–1130. Reconstructions of the social organization of great houses within the canyon have varied, with models alternately drawing on ethnographically described “Eastern” (predominantly moiety-based) or “Western” (predominantly clan-based) Pueblo organizational systems. Ethnographic research demonstrates the significance of animals in Pueblo social and ritual life, and associations between social groups and certain animals remain important today. Whole animals, skulls, and claws are heavily involved in ritual practice, the organization of which is intricately intertwined with social organization. In this paper, we examine spatial and contextual patterns in the deposition of these remains to understand social organization at the best-studied Chaco great house, Pueblo Bonito. Two central patterns emerge: distinctions in the taxa deposited within the eastern and western halves of the pueblo, and the long-term significance and restricted use of macaws in the foundational northern arc.

El cañón del Chaco funcionó como un centro regional para el área norte del suroeste estadounidense de 800 a 1130 d.C. Las reconstrucciones de la organización social de las casas grandes dentro del cañón han variado, con modelos basados en sistemas organizacionales descritos desde la etnografía como sistemas Pueblo organizacionales “Este” (predominantemente basados en moeieties) y “Oeste” (predominantemente basados en clanes). La investigación etnográfica demuestra la importancia de los animales en la vida social y ritual Pueblo, y asociaciones entre grupos sociales y ciertos animales son aún importantes. Animales enteros, cráneos, y garras forman parte de la práctica ritual, cuya organización está intrincadamente unida a la organización social. En este artículo, examinamos los patrones contextuales y espaciales en la deposición de estos restos para entender la organización social de la gran casa de Chaco mejor estudiada, Pueblo Bonito. Dos patrones emergen: distinciones en las taxa depositadas en la mitades este y oeste del pueblo, y la importancia de larga duración y el uso restringido de guacamayos en el arco fundacional del norte.

KEYWORDS:

• Chaco Canyon
• Pueblo Bonito
• Pueblo Southwest
• Southwest United States
• Ritual
• Fauna
• Social organization
• Ceremonial organization

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank the multiple individuals that have helped shape this paper: Greg Schachner, Stephen Plog, and Alan Farahani for reading drafts and providing feedback, Adam Watson for his immense knowledge on the faunal remains of Pueblo Bonito, and Andrew Duff and Lisa LeCount for providing comments on the original conference version of this paper at the annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology. Thank you to Victor Castillo for graciously translating the abstract into Spanish. We also wish to thank the researchers and staff at the National Museum of Natural History and the American Museum of Natural History who facilitated the collection of a portion of the data presented here: Torrey Rick, Melinda Zeder, Dave Rosenthal, Jim Krakker, Teresa Hsu, David H. Thomas, Paul Beelitz, and Adam Watson.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

† Recipient of the 2018 Julian D. Hayden student paper award

1 Various researchers made taxonomic identifications. Mammal remains excavated by Neil Judd were identified by George S. Miller, while avifaunal remains were identified by Alexander Wetmore, both of the Smithsonian Institution (Judd 1954:xi). Lyndon L. Hargrave later reanalyzed these avifaunal remains; his identifications are relied upon where available. Pepper does not specify who made identifications of material excavated by the Hyde Exploring Expedition.

2 Most values are given as Number of Identified Specimens, articulated skeletons are presented as Minimum Number of Individuals (MNI), and all taxa are presented at the lowest taxonomic level possible.

3 Crown (2016:333) recently discussed concerns with distinguishing osteologically between different species of macaw, especially scarlet and military. We acknowledge this issue, but accept the species identifications made by other researchers.

4 These three birds appear to have been deposited as fully or partially articulated skeletons, as the elements found represent both the upper and lower portions of the skeleton, and many of the elements represented are contiguous in the body. An original note found with these specimens at NMNH identifies one military macaw, one scarlet macaw, and a third Ara sp. A note added later by Lyndon Hargrave in 1967 specifies that two are scarlet macaws. Here, two are considered to be scarlet macaws, while the third is a possible military macaw.

5 The dating of room 306 is somewhat ambiguous (Lekson 1984:114; Windes 2003:20–27). We group this room with the earlier construction period based on the use of Type I masonry.

6 In the case of skulls, available records were not detailed enough to indicate whether these were complete and fully articulated, or whether they were fragmented and partial. The term “skull” likely implies that a substantial portion of the cranium was present.