Aggregation and Social Identity in Salinas: Landscape Formation from A.D. 1100-1300
Matthew A. Chamberlin
Arizona State University Department of Anthropology
Introduction
The origins of social differentiation in small-scale societies remain a central problem in archaeology. A number of studies argue that population aggregation creates conditions for differentiation. However, researchers continue to grapple with the social dynamics involved in this process. Actor-oriented approaches suggest that transformations of social identity and power underpin social differentiation (Giddens 1984; Jones 1997). The outcome of this process is evident in the strong identities and power differences in many aggregated groups, but the kinds of identity and power that characterize earlier, smaller dispersed groups are poorly understood (Bender 1985; Wiessner 2002).
Current research in the Salinas Pueblo District, New Mexico is aimed at understanding the origins of social differentiation during the early phases of aggregation in the Coalition and Early Classic Periods (AD 1100-1300). Late prehistoric and historic aggregated Pueblo communities in Salinas exhibit social hierarchy and differentiated group identities, evident in public and ritual architecture, ritual feasting refuse, and community specialization in certain areas of production and exchange. However, archaeologists do not know to what extent earlier, smaller, dispersed communities were differentiated, or how pre-existing power relations and identities were reconfigured after aggregation. Do dispersed groups share a broad, undifferentiated social identity, or are group identities already defined in some ways prior to aggregation? Are power differences present at a lesser scale, or do groups start on a "level playing field?" The portion of this question addressed here deals with differential access to social and material resources as a basis of social advantage and identity, focused in part on the elaboration of ritual systems in local, village-level landscapes. Ritual knowledge was a primary source of power in the late prehistoric Pueblo world; less is known about potential social oppositions and differences within and between groups before aggregation. My research project assessed inter-community differences in several areas, including site size, degree of aggregation, intra-site layout, topographic position, proximity to water, and ritual landscapes in the Chupadero Mesa locale of Salinas. A fellowship from ARI helped fund archaeological survey and analysis in 2001.
Aggregated communities initially formed in the Salinas Pueblo District in Central New Mexico during the 13th century. The results of recent fieldwork suggest unanticipated variability among communities prior to and after the appearance of the first "early masonry" pueblos in the late A.D. 1200's. This variability suggests that the formation of social group identity during aggregation involved the maintenance of important social differences between communities.
My primary focus is the Chupadero Mesa area in the western periphery of Salinas. This mesa forms a natural boundary between groups along the Rio Grande to the West and Central Salinas populations in the vicinity of the later site of Gran Quivira to the East (Marshall and Walt 1984; Mera 1940). Occupation of the Chupadero Mesa began in the 9th century AD and culminated in a series of aggregated masonry pueblos of approximately 100 rooms in the late AD 1200’s (Caperton 1981; Montgomery and Bowman 1989; Spielmann 1996). These pueblos were abandoned some 50 years later in the early 14th century. They thus have been viewed as a brief experiment in aggregation prior to the rise of nucleated centers many times larger, including Gran Quivira, Pueblo Pardo, and Abo.
Previous Research
Previous research in the Chupadero Mesa area has been limited. Thomas Caperton (1981) conducted the only survey in the area in the nineteen sixties. A self-described "fast-moving and wide-ranging reconnaissance" - primarily by vehicle - used information from local ranchers and followed looter's roads to find masonry pueblos. In addition to the highly visible masonry pueblos, Caperton identified smaller, dispersed jacal structures composed of variable amounts of stone and adobe. He proposed a chronological sequence based on this variability, starting with jacal structures with upright slab foundations, changing to a transitional form of jacal structure with more substantial masonry content, and then to large pueblos of entirely stone construction. Caperton found that the transitional jacal structures, those with greater amounts of masonry, have greater room counts, usually 10 or more. This chronological sequence has been useful; Caperton was conservative in his estimates and the sequencing he proposed is likely correct. However, Caperton did not discuss variability among the jacal communities or among the masonry pueblos, his site-level information consists only of broad summaries, and he collected no data.
In more recent research Alison Rautman (1990, 2000) has excavated two early masonry pueblos to the East of the Chupadero Mesa, and argues that the plaza-oriented layout of these sites represents the development of a standardized "public culture" emphasizing group integration and social control in mundane, as well as ritual activities. Such a public culture would have functioned as a critical element of a pan-Salinas social identity emerging in the early fourteenth century A.D.
Salinas Research Project 2001
We know a great deal about the large centers of the 14th and 15th centuries, such as Abo and Gran Quivira. However, Salinas aggregation in the 13th century remains poorly understood (Rautman 2000; Spielmann 1996; Stuart and Gauthier 1981). Here I discuss the results of a pilot survey that explored several masonry pueblos and their surrounding landscapes. I argue that masonry pueblos arose from earlier jacal communities that differed markedly in location, scale, organization, and degree of aggregation. Social differences and advantages between communities were evident in this early period. Masonry pueblo layout is standardized with the advent of enclosed plazas, but sharp differences in ritual landscapes mark social boundaries between communities, enhancing differences formed in the preceding jacal period. These differences suggest that change in social group identity during aggregation involved the maintenance of boundaries and potential inequalities in access to social and ritual resources.
Current Survey:
In 2001, I looked at six pueblos, and surveyed blocks around each one from a quarter square mile to nearly a square mile in size. I found that aggregated masonry pueblos were built in the centers of very large jacal communities, of sizes equal to or greater than the number of rooms in the masonry pueblos. Jacal communities consist of jacal structures built with upright slabs as well as jacal structures with large amounts of masonry.
Location:
Access to arable land and water was an important factor in the location of jacal communities. Valleys and drainages are close to all the communities. Most are located in proximity to sand dune areas which retain moisture and would have been the most favorable agricultural locales in the area. While a common concern with productive resources is reflected by the locations of all communities, the defensibility of these locations differs significantly. All are located on high ground, but three communities are situated on ridgetop sites with clear viewsheds, steep slopes, and obvious defensive potential.
Jacal groups also differ greatly in terms of scale, measured by the total numbers of structures and rooms. Each group contains between 15 and 43 structures. Two jacal groups, LA 9016 and LA 197, are clearly the largest, whereas at LA 9029 no jacals were found. Differences in scale are pronounced when total room counts are considered: at 250 to 300 rooms. LA 9016 and LA 197 are double the size of the communities at LA 9032 and LA 9014.
One attractive interpretation for these differences in scale is that they reflect differences in length of occupation, with greater numbers of structures in older communities. In fact, when only considering the larger jacal-masonry or transitional structures at each site, differences in size do appear smaller. However, significant differences in scale remain noticeable, suggesting that groups of variable size occupied these communities.
When focusing closely on the transitional jacal-masonry structures, sharp differences in the degree of aggregation and the layout of jacal groups are visible. Overall, the transitional structures are more concentrated spatially than the dispersed early structures, suggesting a significant degree of aggregation prior to the construction of early masonry pueblos. However, jacal-masonry structures in two communities, LA 9016 and LA 9026, are clearly more aggregated and arranged in more formal patterns than the other jacal-masonry communities.
Near LA 9016, a discrete group of large jacal-masonry structures is arranged in a distinctive linear pattern. Each structure consists of a large linear roomblock with the long axis oriented North-South, with extensions to the East. Plaza spaces are evident to the immediate East of these structures. At LA 9026, Jacal-masonry roomblocks are arranged in a rectangle to form an internal plaza.
Masonry Pueblos:
When masonry pueblos are built in the midst of these large jacal communities, a suite of layout features are widely shared. Masonry pueblos are all roughly rectangular, and have roomblocks two rooms wide that enclose a central plaza space. Wall abutment patterns, when visible, indicate that the long axis of the roomblock was built prior to the construction of rooms on either side. This uniform layout illustrates the strong emphasis on group integration noted by Rautman (2001). However, significant differences carry over from the preceding jacal-masonry period. First, estimated room counts indicate that populations size differences continued, and that communities themselves changed little in size. I interpret this to mean that the social landscape was fully aggregated prior to the construction of masonry pueblos, during the jacal-masonry or "transitional" stage, and that differences formed at that time were cemented with the construction of early masonry pueblos. Pueblo Seco is the obvious exception to this pattern.
Second, differences in defensibility may have become a greater concern. This is indicated especially by the appearance of Pueblo Seco (LA 9029), a large masonry site located on a prominent, highly defensible ridgetop. The defensive posture of this site indicates a greater concern with defense not seen in earlier periods, and the pueblo contains several burned rooms.
Only two of the other pueblos, LA 9014 and LA 9016, occupy positions that could be easily defended. Defensive positions taken during the preceding jacal-masonry period appear to have become even more important. If defense were a major concern, differences in population size among these six communities may have taken new importance. Additionally, differences in pueblo layout were present that would have influenced defensibility. Pueblo Seco and both of the Turkey Ridge pueblos, LA 9016 and LA 9014, consisted of completely enclosed rectangular arrangements of roomblocks with particularly strong defensive capacities. Other pueblos, including LA 197 and LA 9026, retain openings between roomblocks and contain open or partially-enclosed secondary plazas that would have been much more difficult to defend.
Perhaps the most important difference among the early masonry pueblo communities, however, has to do with the formation of ritual landscapes. Discussions of ritual geography in the pueblo world and elsewhere increasingly recognize that ritual landscapes shape social and political relations within and between groups, and serve as markers of social group identity (Kolb and Snead 1997; Schaafsma 2000; Snead and Pruecel 1999). Ritual is also thought to represent a pathway to social power and prestige in the early Classic or Pueblo IV period (A.D. 1300-1350), perhaps based on differences in ritual knowledge and personnel (Spielmann 1998). Built ritual landscapes are highly variable among the communities considered here. Ritual features recorded on survey include kivas placed outside pueblo walls, cairns, and a variety of rock rings and U-shaped arrangements. These features are not elaborate or labor-intensive, but are highly visible, durable elements of the immediate village landscape nonetheless.
Only 3 sites, Pueblo Seco, LA 9016, and LA 9014, have ritual features in immediate proximity. Pueblo Seco contains by far the greatest number and the greatest diversity of ritual features. At least two external kivas were recorded, and a series of shrines, including cairns and rock rings, extends North from the Pueblo into the hills above. Near this pueblo, Caperton recorded the only rock art in the Chupadero Mesa area. The local landscapes of the villages at LA 9016 and LA 9014 also possess cairn shrines similar to those at Seco. Each of these two pueblos also has a large circular depression associated with a rock cairn. These three pueblos with visible ritual landscapes also occupy, between them, the most defensible topographic positions in the area. The dating evidence necessary to associated these features with the masonry pueblos, rather than the earlier jacals, is not available. However, I conclude that they are associated with the masonry pueblos for two reasons: isolated jacal villages that are not near masonry pueblos do not exhibit ritual features of any kind, and Pueblo Seco, which has the most elaborate ritual landscape, is not associated with any jacal structures. Furthermore, the external ritual features found by LA 9016 and LA 9014 are of the same construction and type as those at Pueblo Seco.
Conclusion
In conclusion, among the communities considered here, dispersed jacal settlements initially were placed in areas with excellent access to water and arable land. During the transitional jacal-masonry period, arrangements of structures vary in the degree of aggregation and the formality of community layout. Differences in group size do not change greatly between these jacal-masonry pueblos and the later early masonry pueblos, indicating that the consolidation of local populations had already occurred y the time of that transitional stage. These patterns suggest that significant differences in social resources were continued from the transitional period as groups aggregated in early masonry pueblos.
The plaza-oriented layout of masonry pueblos represents a standardization of social organization across the area (Rautman 2000) that may form a new level of social identity and cultural affiliation. However, marked differences persist among communities, and groups may have used aggregation to maintain and enhance or further solidify these differences. A greater concern with defense is suggested with the advent of early masonry pueblos, and unequal resources for defense are indicated by group size and topographic locations of pueblos. Those communities in the most defensible locations also exhibited greater access to ritual resources, indicated by differences in ritual features in surrounding village landscapes. In sum, marked differences in ritual landscapes and defensibility show that social boundaries were pronounced during the formation of early masonry pueblos in the thirteenth century, enhancing and solidifying differences formed earlier in the jacal period. The maintenance of social differences between communities may have been integral to changes in aggregated social group identity within Salinas during the Coalition-Classic period transition.
Postscript: Looting in Salinas
Destruction of cultural materials in and around the Salinas pueblos is pronounced. The great majority of structures visited in the course of the 2001 survey (almost 200 structures were recorded) had been excavated; in several cases the damage was extensive. To discourage further pothunting, the scales and spatial relationships depicted in the maps on this site have been adjusted, and no maps of ritual features are included. Persons with information on pothunting activities are encouraged to contact the New Mexico State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) (505-476-1275).
References Cited:
Caperton, T.
1981 An Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Gran Quivira Area. In Contributions to Gran Quivira Archaeology, edited by Hayes, A.C. Washington: National Park Service Publications in Archaeology No. 17.
Snead, J. and R. Pruecel
1999 The Ideology of Settlement: Ancestral Keres Landscapes in the Northern Rio Grande. In Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives, edited by W. Ashmore and A. B. Knapp, pp. 169-200. Blackwell, Malden.
Kolb, M. and J. Snead
1997 Its a Small World After All: Comparative Analyses of Community Organization in Archaeology. American Antiquity, 62(4): 609-628.
Marshall, M. P. and H. J. Walt
1984 Rio Abajo: Prehistory and History of a Rio Grande Province. New Mexico Historic Preservation Program, Santa Fe.
Mera, H.P.
1940 Population Changes in the Rio Grande Glaze-Paint Area. Laboratory of Anthropology Technical Series Bulletin, no.9, Santa Fe.
Montgomery, J. and K. Bowman
1989 Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Chupadera Arroyo Drainage, Central New Mexico. Agency for Conservation Archaeology Report. New Mexico Historic Preservation Office, Santa Fe.
Rautman, A.
1990 The Environmental Context of Decision-Making: Coping Strategies among Prehistoric Cultivators in Central New Mexico. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Rautman, A.
2000 Population Aggregation, Community Organization, and Plaza-Oriented Pueblos in the American Southwest. Journal of Field Archaeology, 27(3): 271-284.
Schaafsma, P.
2000 Warrior, Shield, and Star: Imagery and Ideology of Pueblo Warfare. Santa Fe, Western Edge Press.
Spielmann, Katherine
1996 Impressions of Pueblo III Settlement Trends among the Rio Abajo and Eastern Border Pueblos. In The Prehistoric Pueblo World AD 1150-1350, edited by M. Adler, pp. 177-187. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Spielmann, Katherine
1998 The PIV Period: History of Research. In Migration and Reorganization: The Pueblo IV Period in the American Southwest, edited by K. Spielmann, pp. 1-30.
Stuart, D. and R. Gauthier
1981 Prehistoric New Mexico: Background for Survey. Historic Preservation Bureau, Santa Fe.
ARI Graduate Fellowship Project by Matthew A. Chamberlin
Spring 2001
For more information, contact:
Matthew A. Chamberlin
Department of Anthropology
Arizona State University
Tempe, AZ 85287-2402
Matthew.Chamerlin@asu.edu
This site hosted by
Arizona State University