Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-24T07:32:54.969Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Household Production in Chaco Canyon Society

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Melissa Hagstrum
Melissa Hagstrum*
Affiliation:
Museum of New Mexico, Office of Archaeological Studies, P.O. Box 2087, Santa Fe, NM 87504
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The household is the most basic and flexible component of human social organization. It is through the household that we can understand the Chaco phenomenon from the point of view of agriculture and craft production. Households strive for autonomy and self-sufficiency and they spread themselves thin to meet basic subsistence requirements. As a result, scheduling of agricultural and craft activities is critical to the success of the household. Craft technologies must be complementary with agricultural activities; for example, pottery may be made during the heat of the day when agricultural tasks are at a lull. The concept of intersecting technologies suggests that technical knowledge, resources, and labor may be shared among crafts and other activities. Chacoan households probably specialized in the production of different crafts including pottery, jewelry, basketry, and other woven goods. Within the context of the Chaco regional system the mobilization of labor would have been through obligatory work assignments that complemented domestic autonomy in agricultural production and, as a result, would have been organized seasonally.

Résumé

Résumé

El establecimiento doméstico es el componente más básico y adaptable de la organización social de los humanos. Por medio de análisis del hogar podemos comprender el Fenómeno Chaqueño desde el punto de vista de la producción agrícola y artesanal. Los hogares se esfuerzan por ser autónomos, y se dedican a muchas actividades para satisfacer los requisitos básicos del sustento. Por esta rasón la programación de las actividades asociadas con la agrucultura y la artesanía es crítica al éxito del hogar. La tecnologías artesanales tienen que ser complementarias con las actividades agrícolas; por ejemplo, cerámica puede serfabricada durante el mediodía cuando el trabajo agrario sepausa. El concepto de tecnologías enlazadas nos sugiere que el conocimientos técnico, recursos, y mano de obra pueden ser compartido entre la producción de artesanía y otras actividades. Es probable que los hogares chaquehos especializaron en la producción de varias artesanías, que incluyen cerámica, joyas, cestería, y otros artículos tejidos. Dentro del sistema regional de Chaco, la movilización de la mano de obra hubiera sido por medio de asignaciones corvées que funcionaban a un lado de la producción agrícola y, por eso, hubiera sido organizado por temporadas.

Type
Special Section
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 66 , Issue 1 , January 2001 , pp. 47 - 55
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References Cited

Arnold, D. E. 1985 Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Belote, J., and Belote, L. 1977 The Limitation of Obligation in Saraguro Kinship. In Andean Kinship and Marriage, edited by Bolton, R. and Mayer, E., pp. 106—116. American Anthropological Association Special Publication, No. 7. Washington, DC. Google Scholar
Bermann, M. 1994 Lukurmata : Household Archaeology in Prehispanic Bolivia. Princeton University Press, Princeton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brumfiel, E. M., and Earle, T. K. 1987 Specialization, Exchange, and Complex Societies : An Introduction. In Specialization, Exchange, and Complex Societies, edited by Brumfiel, E. M. and K, T.. Earle. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Cameron, C. 1997 The Chipped Stone of Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. In Ceramics, Lithics, and Ornaments of Chaco Canyon, edited by Mathien, J., pp. 531–658. Publications in Archaeology 18G Chaco Canyon Studies. National Park Service, Santa Fe.Google Scholar
Costin, C. L. 1991 Craft Specialization : Issues in Defining, Documenting, and Explaining the Organization of Production. In Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 3, edited by Schiffer, M. B., pp. 1–56. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Costin, C. L., and Hagstrum, M. B. 1995 Standardization, Labor Investment and the Organization of Ceramic Production in Late Pre-Hispanic Highland Peru. American Antiquity 60 : 619–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D'Altroy, T. N., and Earle, T. K. 1985 Staple Finance, Wealth Finance and Storage in the Inka Political Economy. Current Anthropology 26 : 187–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earle, T. K. 1981 Comment to P. M. Rice : Evolution of Specialized Pottery Production. Current Anthropology 22 : 230–231.Google Scholar
Earle, T. K. 1994 Wealth Finance in the Inka Empire : Evidence from the Calchaqui Valley, Argentina. American Antiquity 59 : 443–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feinman, G. M., and Nicholas, L. M. 1993 Shell-Omament Production in Ejutla : Implications for Highland-Coastal Interaction in Ancient Oaxaca. Ancient Mesoamerica 4 : 103–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, R. 1972 Barter, Gift, or Violence : An Analysis of Tewa Intertribal Exchange. In Social Exchange and Interaction, edited by Wilmsen, E., pp. 21–45. Anthropological Papers, No. 46. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Goody, J. 1972a The Evolution of the Family. In Household and Family in Past Time, edited by Laslett, P. and Wall, R., pp. 103–124. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goody, J. 1972b Domestic Groups. Modules in Anthropology 28. Addison- Wesley, Reading, MA.Google Scholar
Hagstrum, M. B. 1985 Measuring Prehistoric Ceramic Craft Specialization : A Test Case in the American Southwest. Journal of Field Archaeology 12(l) : 65–75.Google Scholar
Hagstrum, M. B. 1986 The Technology of Ceramic Production of Wanka and Inka Wares from the Yanamarca Valley, Peru. Occasional Publications of the Ceramic Technology Laboratory, Florida State Museum. Ceramic Notes 3 : 1–9.Google Scholar
Hagstrum, M. B. 1989 Technological Continuity and Change : Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology in the Peruvian Andes. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California-Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Hagstrum, M. B. 1995 Creativity and Craft : Household Pottery Traditions in the American Southwest. In The Organization of Ceramic Production in the American Southwest, edited by Mills, B. J. and Crown, P.L. pp. 281–300. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Hagstrum, M. B. 1999 The Goal of Domestic Autonomy among Highland Peruvian Farmer-Potters : Home Economics of Rural Craft Specialists. In Research in Economic Anthropology, vol. 20, edited by Isaac, B. L., pp. 265–298. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.Google Scholar
Hagstrum, M. B. 2000 Complementary and Intersecting Technologies of the Andean Hearth, Kiln and Forge. Ms. on file, Department of Anthropology, University of Washington, Seattle.Google Scholar
Halperin, R. H. 1990 The Livelihood of Kin : Making Ends Meet “The Kentucky Way'.’ University of Texas Press, Austin.Google Scholar
Johnson, A. W., and Earle, T. K. 1987 The Evolution of Human Societies : From Foraging Group to Agrarian State. Stanford University Press, Stanford.Google Scholar
Judd, N. M. 1954 The Material Culture of Pueblo Bonito. Publication 4172. The Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Google Scholar
Kidder, A. V, and Shepard, A. O. 1936 The Pottery of Pecos, vol. 2. Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
Lambert, B. 1977 Bilaterality in the Andes. In Andean Kinship and Marriage, edited by Bolton, R. and Mayer, E., pp. 1–27. American Anthropological Association Special Publication, No. 7. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Laslett, P., and Wall, R. (editors) 1972 Household and Family in Past Time. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacEachern, S., Archer, D. J. W., and Garvin, R. G. (editors) 1989 Households and Communities. Proceedings of the 21 st Annual Chacmool Conference. The Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, Calgary.Google Scholar
Machlachlan, M. (editor) 1987 Household Economies and their Transformations. Monographs in Economic Anthropology, No. 3. Society for Economic Anthropology. University Press of America, Lanham, MD.Google Scholar
Mathien, F. J. 1984 Social and Economic Implications of Jewelry Items of the Chaco Anasazi. In Recent Research on Chaco Prehistory, edited Judge, W J. and Schelberg, J. D., pp. 173-186, Reports of the Chaco Center, No. 8.Google Scholar
Mathien, F. J. 1997 Ornaments. In Ceramics, Lithics, and Ornaments of Chaco Canyon, edited Mathien, F. J., pp. 1119–1220. National Park Service, Santa Fe.Google Scholar
Mayer, E. 1977 Beyond the Nuclear Family. In Andean Kinship and Marriage, edited by Bolton, R. and Mayer, E., pp. 60–80. American Anthropological Association Special Publication, No. 7. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Mills, B. J., and Crown, P. L. (editors) 1995 The Organization of Ceramic Production in the American Southwest. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Mitchell, W P. 1991 Some Are More Equal than Others : Labor Supply, Reciprocity, and Redistribution in the Andes. In Research in Economic Anthropology, vol. 13, edited by Isaac, B. L., pp. 191–219. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.Google Scholar
Netting, R. McC. 1989 Smallholders, Householders, Freeholders : Why the Family Farm Works Well Worldwide. In The Household Economy : Reconsidering the Domestic Mode of Production, edited by Wilk, R. R., pp. 210–244. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.Google Scholar
Netting, R. McC. 1993 Smallholders, Householders : Farm Families and the Ecology of Intensive, Sustainable Agriculture. Stanford University Press, Stanford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Netting, R. McC., Wilk, R. R., and Arnould, E. (eds.) 1984 Households : Comparative and Historical Studies of the Domestic Group. University of California Press, Berkeley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orlove, B. S. 1974 Reciprocidad, Desigualdad, y Domination. In Reciprocidad e Intercambio en los Andes Peruanos, edited by Alberti, G. and Mayer, E., pp. 13–33. Instituto de Estudios Peruanos, Lima.Google Scholar
Ortiz de Ziiniga, I. 1967 Visita de la Provincia de Leon de Hudnuco en 1562, vol. 1. edited by Murra, J. V.. Universidad Hermilio Valdizan, Huanuco, Peru.Google Scholar
Ortiz de Ziiniga, I. 1972 Visita de la Provincia de Leon de Hudnuco en 1562, vol. 2. edited by Murra, J. V.. Universidad Hermilio Valdizan, Huanuco, Peru.Google Scholar
Santley, R. S., and Hirth, K. G. (editors) 1993 Prehispanic Domestic Units in Western Mesoamerica : Studies of the Household, Compound, and Residence. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
Sebastian, L. 1992 The Chaco Anasazi : Sociopolitical Evolution in the Prehistoric Southwest. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Shepard, A. O. 1956 Ceramics for the Archaeologist. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication 609, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Spielmann, K. 1998 Ritual Craft Specialists in Middle Range Societies. In Craft and Social Identity, edited by Costin, C. and Wright, R., pp. 153–159. Archaeological Papers No. 8. American Anthropological Association, Arlington, VA.Google Scholar
Stanish, C. 1989 Household Archaeology : Testing Models of Zonal Complementarity in the South Central Andes. American Anthropologist 91 : 7–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toll, H. W. 1984 Trends in Ceramic Import and Distribution in Chaco Canyon. In Recent Research on Chaco Prehistory, edited by Judge, W J. and Schelberg, J. D., pp. 115–135. Reports of the Chaco Center, No. 8. National Park Service, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Toll, H. W. 1990 The Reassessment of Chaco Cylinder Jars. In Clues to the Past : Papers in Honor of William Sundt, edited by Duran, M. S. and Kirkpatrick, D.T. pp. 273–305. Archaeological Society of New Mexico Papers, No. 16, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Toll, H. W, and McKenna, P. 1997 Chaco Ceramics. In Ceramics, Lithics and Ornaments of Chaco Canyon, edited by Mathien, F. J., pp. 17–530. Publications in Archaeology 18G Chaco Canyon Studies, National Park Service, Santa Fe.Google Scholar
Wilk, R. R., and Ashmore, W. (editors) 1988 Household and Community in the Mesoamerican Past. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Wilk, R. R., and Rathje, W. L. 1982 Household Archaeology. American Behavioral Scientist 25 : 617–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wills, WH. 1999 Political Leadership and the Construction of Chacoan Great Houses, A.D. 1020-1140. In Alternative Leadership Strategies in the Greater Southwest, edited by Mills, B. J., pp. 19–44. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Windes, T. C. 1992 Blue Notes : The Chacoan Turquoise Industry in the San Juan Basin. In Anasazi Regional Organization and the Chaco System, edited by Doyel, D. E., pp. 159–168. Anthropological Papers, No. 5. Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Wright, R. P. 1991 Women's Labor and Pottery Production in Prehistory. In Engendering Archaeology : Women and Prehistory, edited by Gero, J. M. and Conkey, M. W, pp. 194–223. Basil Blackwell, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar