Social Power in the Central Mesa Verde Region, A.D. 1150-1290

WILLIAM D. LIPE

ocial power ( cf. Mann 1986) refers to the ability of individuals or groups to control or direct the actions of other individuals or groups. This can be ac­ complished by actual or threatened physical coercion, by providing or with­ holding things of value, or by simple persuasion. The "things of value" often involved in the exercise or acceptance of social power differentials can include economic goods and services, mates, ideological approval, religious benefac­ tion, and protection in wartime. Social power differentials are often legiti­ mated in secular or religious rituals; the display and manipulation of potent and generally accepted symbols and rituals are regular aspects of the exercise of power (Kertzer 1988). In all but the most despotic of societies the exercise of power requires some compliance on the part of those affected by it. However, the inequalities fostered by power differentials may promote efforts to resist and undermine powerful individuals and groups. And competition for power often leads to the presence of multiple loci of power in communities, societies, or regions. The power aspect of a society thus constitutes a dynamic field with multiple actors employirlg multiple strategies within parameters set by ac­ cepted norms, which themselves are affected by the dynamics of the field at the same time they give structure to it. Archaeologists must base their inferences about how power was distributed and exercised on the material evidence of power differentials and of behavioral and synibolic strategies for acquirirlg, maintaining, or resisting power. In American archaeology the analysis of social power typically has been subordinated to the assessment of the overall social complexity of the society in question, using familiar "neoevolutionary'' scales as a frame of reference (e.g., Lightfoot 1984; Upham 1982; Upham and Plog 1986). This has required assessing whether social status is based on egalitarian, rank, or class principles (cf. Wason 1994); whether political leadership is centralized or is diffused among different groups or statuses; what the scale of political integration

203 204 WILLIAM D. LIP£

might be; and, ultimately, whether the society as a whole can be considered a band, tribe, chiefdom, or state (Service 1971). Recognition that various aspects of sociopolitical development do not necessarily march in lockstep has led to approaches that assess variability along multiple dimensions, such as demo­ graphic scale, division oflabor, economic intensification, and vertical differen­ tiation (e.g., Blanton et al.1981; Lipe 1992a, 1992b ), as alternatives to typological assignment. Research guided by neoevolutionary assumptions has been effective in capturing major patterns of cross-cultural variation among societies both syn­ chronically and through time. On the other hand, this comparative approach is not as useful for analyzing differences and similarities among societies of ap­ proximately the same neoevolutionary type. Attempts to apply neoevolution­ ary typologies to southwestern societies that are "mid-level" or "middle range" in complexity (Feinman and Neitzel 1984; Lightfoot and Upham 1989b) have been particularly frustrating. Furthermore, neoevolutionary theory, with its emphasis on cross-culturally applicable typologies, may not be the most ap­ propriate framework for understanding the dynamics of social power in par­ ticular societies. It is clear that substantial power differentials may be present even in the ab­ sence of the ostentatious displays of individual political status that have most often been assumed to indicate the presence of a sociopolitical hierarchy. Fein­ man and Blanton (Blanton et al.1996; Feinman 1995, 2000; Feinman et al. 2000) have recently broadened the frame of reference for analyzing social power differentials by proposing that the transition from egalitarian to hierarchical society may be accomplished through a variety of strategies of political­ economic behavior. These strategies occupy a continuum from network/ exclusionary to corporate-based (Feinman 2000). The corporate mode "em­ phasizes staple food production, communal ritual, public construction, shared power, large cooperative labor tasks, social segments that are woven together through broad integrative ritual and ideological means, and suppressed eco­ nomic differentiation. Despite the presence of large architectural spaces, indi­ vidualleaders in such polities are relatively 'faceless' and 'anonymous' when it comes to representational art" (Feinman 2000:213- 214). In contrast, polities characterized by the network/exclusionary mode place "greatest significance on personal prestige, wealth exchange, individualized power accumulation, elite aggrandizement, lineal patterns of inheritance and descent (e.g., patri­ archy), particularizing ideologies, personal networks, princely burials, and specialized (frequently attached) manufacture of status-related goods" (Fein­ man 2000:214). Although these strategies may coexist in particular societies, they are to some extent antagonistic, so "in many situations one strategy or the other will have a tendency to predominate" (Feinman 2000:216). Feinman and Blanton's "dual-processual" approach of course risks replac­ ing one kind of typological analysis with another. However, this approach fo­ cuses on strategies by which individuals or groups acquire and exercise social SOCIAL POWER IN THE CEN'l'RAL MESA VERDB REGION 205 power rather than just on the structural outcomes. It also recognizes that both network and corporate strategies can operate at widely varying levels of hier­ archy, from tribes to archaic states. The emphasis on social strategies encour­ ages the archaeological researcher to explore the dynamics of how social power was distributed, implemented, and represented in particular societies. Having done this, the researcher can still make an overall assessment of sociopolitical complexity, but en route he or she should have gained valuable insights into how the society in question worked. Considering social power as something that can be obtained and wielded in a variety of ways by a variety of individuals and groups also frees us from a top-down view that considers the "social system" as primary, with constituent groups and individuals passively playing well-scripted roles. Instead, a more dynamic view can be adopted, one i o which "agency" is a property of individu­ als and groups who may be able in some cases to widen or to undermine exist­ ing power differentials and who work within a framework of social norms that sometimes may be changed or subverted by their own actions. The challenge for archaeologists is to identify and understand ways in which power relation­ ships are represented by artifacts, architecture, settlement patterns, and other material traces of past life. These material expressions may themselves have been active parts of strategies for establishing, maintaining, or challenging so­ cial power- as in the construction of monuments or in competitive displays of wealth-or they may be more indi rect results of power relationships--as in the differential composition of refuse among households. The archaeological record of early Puebloan societies in the central Mesa Verde region has great potential for the analysis of power relationships in mid­ dle-range societies. Here I will attempt to make a small contribution toward this ambitious agenda by examining a few lines of evidence regarding changes in the manifestations of social power in the period A.D. 115o-1290 ( III) in the central Mesa Verde region of southwestern and southeastern . The first perspective is regional. I'll sketch large-scale settlement and demographic patterns and then ask (1) are populations at the regional and community levels large enough to have supported some level of formal socio­ political hierarchy; (2) can we make inferences about political relationships among settlements from their spatial distributions and rank-size profiles; and (3) does the character and distribution of public architecture provide evidence of political leadership strategies? The analysis is focused on large(> 50 struc­ tures) sites from the central Mesa Verde region, from two periods- early Pueblo III (A.D. 115o-1225) and late Pueblo III (A.D. 1225- 1290) (Figures 10.1 and 10.2; Tables 10.1 and 10.2). The "structure" estimates include both and surface rooms. Information is predominantly from a database oflarge central Mesa Verde region settlements assembled by Mark Varien (also see Varien 1999; Varien et al. 1996) from published sources, site survey records, and informa­ tion provided by colleagues. 206 WILLIAM D. LJPE

KEY • Ocwe Creek N • 50·150 s11uc1ures T 0 I • 151·250 structur..., 0 <> • ..... • e > 250 structures . ~ , • - • • • ' ., 0, ~, " •3 • ' •, • • • ' • • • n I" •c• -• •. • • • • • f)ok)res • • • • • .a· Cot10.1

• c rtt#lr Blutt • • n '(... > • 0 10 20 0 Kotometers :l; • •~ UTAH COlORADO ·-··- ·- - -· -~- ... ------··- AA1ZOOA ---- ••

Figure 10.1. Distribution oflarge sites .in the central Mesa Verde regio n dating between A.D. U50 and 1225, showing the follow­ ing site clusters: (A) Battleship Rock cluster; (B) Sand locality cluster; (C) Upper Hovenweep cluster; (D) Lowry cluster; and (E) cluster. Courtesy of the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center.

The second approach is to consider social power at the community level. Here I will focus on evidence from excavations at Sand Canyon Pueblo and other thirteenth-century sites in the Sand Canyon locality, exploring possible expressions of social power in the character and distribution of public and do­ mestic architecture, ceramic vessel size, wealth items, burials, and subsistence. Information is from the numerous reports and publications on work in the Sand Canyon locality by archaeologists from the Crow Canyon Center (see es­ pecially Varien and Wilshusen, this volume and Ortman and Bradley, this vol­ ume).

REGIONAL PERSPECTIVES A BriefSettlement History

The following sketch of settlement in the Pueblo II and III periods (A.D. 900- 1300) is based largely on research done by staff archaeologists and re­ search associates of the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center (see review in Varien and Wilshusen, this volume). Throughout Pueblo II and III the occu­ pants of the central Mesa Verde region were thoroughly dependent on dry­ farming maize, predominantly on upland loess soils at elevations over 6,ooo ft. Modeling of soil quality and precipitation by Van West ( 1994; also see Van West and Dean 2000 and Varien et al. 2000) indicates that populations in the tens of SOCIAL POWER IN THE CENTRAL M ESA V ERDE REGION 207

0 0 - "'0 KEY - : Dove Crook N • 50·150 suucturas T I • 15 1-250 structures e > 250 structures "0, • • • ·~ • • • • f .. ·~ • c • I ....- ,. • • i_:e • • • o· • .. 'c• •- •• • . I• • e\ • M~lil"'o C 1 " ... Stull

Ute • I • Mounta:n . • ~ . 0 • ' ""-a· ·II. • A •" 0 10 -• Ktlometars ~ • . -·-- .. UTAH NEWME)QCO w•

Figure 10.2. Distribution of large sites in the central Mesa Verde region dating between A.D. 1225 and 1290, showing the fol­ lowing site dusters: (A) Chapin Mesa cluster; (B) Wetherill Mesa cluster; (C) Yellow Jacket Canyon cluster; (D) Lower Hov­ enweep cluster; (E) Upper Hovenweep duster; (F) Ruin Canyon/Cow Canyon cluster; (G) Lower Squaw Canyon cluster; (H) Upper Squaw Canyon cluster; (I) Cottonwood Wash cluster. Courtesy of the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center. thousands could have been supported on these soils even in drought years. The archaeological record indicates, however, that regional populations remained well below agricultural carrying capacity, although it may have been ap­ proached in some particular localities (Duff and Wilshusen 2000; Van West 1994; Wilshusen, this volume). In the A.D. woos and noos the predominant community pattern was widely dispersed small settlements consisting of one or two "unit type pueb­ los" (Prudden 1903). These habitation units became increasingly aggregated into large between A.D. 1150 and the 1270s. Both large and small settle· ments appear to have had relatively short use lives (20 to 40 years), but com­ munities appear to have stayed in the same general locations for many generations (Adler 1990, 1996; Adler and Varien 1994; Varien 1999; Varien, this volume). Architecturally, each habitation unit consists of a round, semisubterranean and a small block of 5 to 10 surface living and storage rooms. Surface tooms are typically to the north or northwest of the kiva, and a midden area is to the south or southeast. The uniform association of storage structures with the habitation unit reinforces the notion that households were economically self-sufficient. The kivas have architectural features that appear symbolic of important religious beliefs (for example, the emergence ofpeople from worlds below), and they undoubtedly were the locus of certain types of rituals carried 208 WILLIAM D. LIPE

Table 10.1. Large Sites and Site Clusters, A.D. 1150-1225

Number of Structures Cluster and Si te Names (Site and Site Clusters} Principal Public Architecture

Yellow Jacket Pueblo 700 Alkali Ridge Cluster 465 Ten-Acre Ruin 350 Plaza Brew's Site I 115 Lancaster/Phaw Ruin 410 Herren Farms 300 Plaza Nancy Patterson Pueblo 285 Upper Hovenweep Cluster 225 Kristie'.s Ruin 115 Great Kiva Head ofHovemveep Ruin 60 Carol's Ruin 50 Great Kiva (?) Kearns Site 200 Mud Springs 180 Tri-wall Bass Complex 180 Bi-wall. (?) Hedley Middle Ruin 180 Montezuma Village II 175 Griffey Site 170 Mitchell Springs 150 Carvell Ruin ISO Great Kiva Battleship Rock Cluster 145 Battieship Rock Complex 90 Site 34 55 Lowry Cluster 145 Pigg Site 90 Finley!CI1arnei!Ray 55 Large Tower Five-Acre Ruin 140 Sand Canyon Locality Cluster 120 Shields Pueblo 60 Nearby isolated Great Kiva Casa Negra 60 Jackson's Montezuma No. 2 115 Woods Canyon Pueblo 110 Kiva Point 100 2 Great Kivas, Bi-wall1bwer Parker Site 95 Lower Squaw Mesa Vtllage 90 Gravel Pit Site 85 Decker Ruin 70 Hoy House 65 Mockingbird Mesa-Top Ruin 65 Brewer Mesa Pueblo 65 Aneth Archaeological Complex 65 Far View Ruin 55 Lion House 55 Rich's Ruin 50 Great Kiva (?) Tsitah Wash Complex 50 Greasewood Flat Ruin 50 Great Kiva Black Mesa Quartzite Pueblo 50 Great Kiva Red Knobs Site 50 Great Kiva (?) Mouth of Mule Canyon Complex 50 Great Kiva

Varien, Mark. Seeking The Center Place. Salt Lake City, US: University of Utah Press, 2002. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 11 May 2016. Copyright © 2002. University of Utah Press. All rights reserved. SOCIAL POWER IN THE CENTRAL MESA \fER DE REGION 209

Table 10.1. Large Sites and Site Clusters, A.D. 1150-1225 continued

Number of Structures Cluster and Site Names (Site and Site Clusters) Principal Public Architecture

Total sites 43 In 5 dusters 11 Total structures 5,650 Tn clusters 1,100 Average structures/site 131 Average structures/duster 220 Average structures/site in cluster 100 Average structures/isolated site 142

out by or on behalf of members of the household. There also is abundant evi­ dence that the kiva functioned as the primary domestic space for a household consisting of a nuclear or small extended family (Lipe 1989; Lipe and Varien 1999a:283-284). Household-based habitation units occurred singly as settle­ ments in dispersed communities but are also found grouped into clusters or contiguous room blocks in larger settlements ranging from hamlets to villages having several hundred rooms. After an apparent low point in the A.D. 90os (Lipe and Varien 1999a; Varien et al.1996; Wilshusen and Wilson 1995) population built up in the central Mesa Verde region during the A.D. tooos (Duff and Wilshusen 2000; Lipe and Varien 1999a; Wilshusen, this volume). The communities of dispersed small habita­ tions often had a great kiva (many times the size of the small domestic kivas), which probably was used in ceremonies that drew participants and spectators from across the whole community and perhaps from other communities as well. In the late 1000s and early uoos Chacoan-type great houses appear in a substantial fraction of central Mesa Verde dispersed communities. The size, layout and formality of these great houses contrasts strongly with the ordinary habitations. The great houses ostentatiously give the message that their inhab­ itants were specially favored and the keepers of powerful religious ceremonies (Sebastian 1992). The middle noos saw the most prolonged and severe drought of the entire Puebloan sequence in the northern San Juan (Dean and Van West, this volume; Van West and Dean 2000); the years from about 1150 to n8o are very poorly known archaeologically. Chacoan-style great houses were no longer con­ structed after the late 1130s or early 1140s, and population may have declined in the following several decades, although this is disputable (Duff and Wilshusen 2000; Lipe and Varien 1999b ). Regional population clearly was high from the very late A.D. u oos through most of the 1200s. Population probably peaked prior to A.D. 1250 and declined rapidly during the 1270s to full depopulation, almost certainly by A.D. 1285 or 1290 (Lipe 1995; Lipe and Varien 1999b ). Settlement aggregation increased in the late uoos, and this trend continued 210 WILLIAM D. LIPE

Table 10.2. Large Sites and Site Clusters, A.D. 1225-1290

Number of Structures Cluster and Site Names (Site and Site Clusters) Principal Nondomestic Architecture

Yellow Jacket Pueblo 700 Great Tower Complex Goodman Point-Shields Pueblo 651 Circular Tri-wall, Great Kiva, Plaza, Room-dominated Block Upper Hovenweep Cluster 610 Gardner .Ruin 290 Great Kiva Miller Pueblo 105 D-shaped Structure, Plaza Thompson Site 85 McVicker Homestead Site 75 Fuller Ruin 55 House 600 Great Kiva(s), Walled Plaza Wetherill Mesa Cluster 585 Long House 170 Great Kiva Mug House 105 Double House 80 Kodak House 70 Ruin 16 55 Spring House 55 Site 20.5 50 Sand Canyon Pueblo 530 D-shaped Structure, Great Kiva, Plaza, Room-dominated Block Hedley Main Ruin 515 O-sha ped Structure, Plaza, Remodeled Great House Chapin Mesa Cluster 505 Cliff Palace 245 Associated D-shaped Structure; Room-dominated Block (?) Spruce Tree House 120 Square Tower House 80 Oak Tree House 60 Upper Squaw Canyon Cluster 496 Bob Hampton Ruin 251 Brewer Canyon Pueblo 245 Bea.rtooth Ruin 350 Little Cow Canyon Pueblo 230 D-shaped Structure, Plaza Yellow Jacket Canyon Oltster 228 Stevenson Site 120 D-shaped Structure Rohn's No. 84 108 Seven Towers Pueblo 220 D-shaped Structures, Great Kiva (?), Plaza, Room-dominated Block (?) Lower Hovenweep Cluster 215 Hibbetts Pueblo 115 Big Spring Pueblo 100 Ruin Canyon/Cow Canyon Cluster 215 Ruin Canyon Rim Pueblo 100 Plaza Cow Mesa No. 40 60 Cottonwood Ruin 55 SOCIAL POWER IN THE CENTRAL MESA VERDE REGTON 211

Table 10.2. Large Sites and Site Clusters, A.D. 1225- 1290 continued

Number of Structures Cluster and Site Names (Site and Site Clusters) Principal Nondomestic Architecture

Woods Canyon Pueblo 200 D-shaped Stwcture, Plaza Lower Squaw Canyon Cluster 195 Brewer Well Site 75 Papoose Canyon Talus Site 60 Spook Point Pueblo 60 Cannonball Ruins 175 D-shaped Structure, Plaza Horseshoe/Hackberry Complex 175 D-shaped Structure Moqui Spring Pueblo 170 Great Kiva, Bi-wall(?), Plaza Cottonwood Wash Cluster 165 Ruin Spring Ruin 85 Radon Spring Ruin 80 Coalbed Village 151 Bradford Canyonhead Ruin IS! Easter Ruin 145 Plaza Bowman's Pueblo 115 Morley-Kidder 110 Great Kiva(?) Lew Matis Village 105 Hovenweep Square Tower 100 D-shaped Structure Deadman's Canyonhead Ruin 100 Rohn's No. 150 90 Ute Gravel Pit Site 75 Castle Rock Pueblo 70 D-shapcd Structure, Plaza Yellow Jacket Mesita 55 Hovenweep Cajon Ruin 55 D-shaped Structure Ruin 50 Bi-wall, Plaza latJCaster/Pharo Ruin 50 Pedro Point Ruin 50 Wetherill Chimney Rock Site 50 Arch Canyon Site 50 Total sites 60 In 9 dusters 30 Total structures 9,302 In clusters 3,214 Average structures/site 155 A'•erage structures/duster 357 Average structures/site in clusters 107 Average structures/isolated site 203 through the 12oos. In the early12oos, communities were often centered on a vil­ lage-sized aggregate of 50 or more structures, usually with multiple room blocks, each containing several contiguous habitation units. The central vil­ lages were surrounded by dispersed homesteads and hamlets, each consisting of one or a few habitation units. Great kivas continued to be bujlt, although they do not appear to be as common as prior to A.D. 1150 (Churchill et al. 1998 ). In some of the nuclear villages there were multistoried room blocks that in a general way resemble the earlier great houses, although they are neither as 212 WILLIAM D. LTPE

spatially nor as architecturally differentiated from surrounding residences (Lipe and Ortman 2000 ). "Multiwalled" structures, most of them circular with one or two tiers of small rooms surrounding a small central open space, appear in a few community centers (Churchill et al.1998). fJ1 the late Pueblo III period (A.D. 1225-1290) aggregation contilmed, and communities increasingly shifted to canyon locales. Community centers were relocated to canyon heads or canyon rims close to good sprmgs; peripheral smaller settlements were also located in the (Lipe and Ortman 2000 ). Although the degree of community aggregation varied (Mahoney et al. 2000), by the late 1200s a majority of the people m the central Mesa Verde region were probably livmg in settlements of 50 or more structures. The canyon-oriented centers display distmctive patterns of settlement layout and public architec­ ture. Some of these features occur in earlier periods, but the complex is dis­ tinctive to the middle and late A.D. 12oos in the central Mesa Verde area (Lipe and Lekson 2001; Lipe and Ortman 2000 ). It includes (1) close association with reliable springs; (2) construction of low enclosmg walls around all or a portion of the village; (3) bilateral but usually asymmetrical settlement layout, with the two parts often separated by an ephemeral drainage; (4) clustering of public architecture in particular areas of the site and sometimes in walled precincts; (5) increased numbers of towers, frequently not in association with particular habitation units; (6) multiwalled buildmgs with a D-shaped ground plan; (7) blocks of multiple small rooms lacking kivas that may be storage complexes not associated with single households; and (8) more frequent appearance of plazas, either defined by walls or by spaces left open among residential room blocks (Lipe and Ortman 2000). Great kivas occur in association with some centers but are rare (Churchill et al. 1998). Kivas maintain a north-south orien­ tation, and many villages do as well; the overall settlement layout is "front-ori­ ented" (Reed 1956) rather than inwardly oriented toward a central plaza, as in later settlements m the Rio Grande area (Lipe and Lekson 2001). In the A.D. uoos warfare appears to have been a fact of life in the central Mesa Verde region and the area in general (Kuckelman et al. 2ooo; LeBlanc 1999). Kuckelman and others (Kuckelman, this volume; Kuckel­ man et al. 2002) present convincing evidence that the population of Castle Rock Pueblo-a small community center in the Sand Canyon locality-was massacred in the A.D. 1270s. Although skeletal evidence of violence m the cen­ tral Mesa Verde area is by no means confined to the A.D. 1200s (Kuckelman et al. 2000), it seems likely that an illcreased concern for defense was partly or largely responsible for the move to canyon and canyon-rim locations and the increasmg aggregation of the population into larger settlements during that century. The construction of enclosing walls (Kenzie 1993, 1997) and, perhaps, the proliferation of towers may also be indicators of defensive needs. Climates of the late 1200s posed adaptive problems for the central Mesa Verde region , as summarized by Dean and Van West (this volume). Even so, Van West's (1994) reconstruction of potential maize productivity in SOCIAL POWER IN THE CENTRAL MESA VERDE REGION 213 part of the central Mesa Verde region indicates that substantial amounts of maize could have been produced even in bad years. The complete depopula­ tion of the area during the late A.D. 12oos evidently included emigration to regions farther south, although there may also have been local population de­ cline from decreased fertility and/or increased mortality. Although emigration may have started in the early uoos (Duff and Wilshusen 2000), the final de­ population probably resulted from the complex interactjon of"push" factors such as climatic problems, the prevalence of warfare, and perhaps declining confidence in existing social and religious institutions, with "pull" factors such as the growth of Puebloan communities to the south and, perhaps, the attrac­ tion of the different social and religious systems present in those communities (Lipe 1995; Lipe and Lekson 2001).

Regional Population and Community Size On the basis of an extensive cross-cultural survey Kosse (1990, 1996) sug­ gests that multisettlement polities that integrate 3,000 or more people always have well-developed, formal, political hierarchies based on ascribed status. These "regionally integrated societies ... are centrally organized under a single individual or council and integrate several local groups within a single polity" (Kosse 1996:87 ). Regional integration may be present at lower population sizes as well, but it becomes relatively less frequent, and the associated political lead­ ership increasingly weak, as population numbers decrease. Kosse (1996:87) contrasts regionally integrated societies with "groups integrated at the local level. .. that are politicaUy independent and autonomous and characteristicaUy contain 'multiple clan or lineage segments that either live together in a village or are dispersed throughout the well-defined territory of the group' (Johnson and Earle 1987:20, 194]." Although there may be pronounced status differences in locally integrated societies, they are more egalitarian than those having re­ gional integration. In her cross-cultural sample, polities having populations below 500 always show local integration, and the majority of polities with pop­ ulations below 2,ooo show this form of integration (Kosse 1996:Figure n.6). Kosse's conclusions should not be read as establishing a "magic number threshold" above which societies show formal political hierarchies and below which they do not. Rather, her data indicate that such hierarchies become more probable as population size increases. Although estimating the total population of the central Mesa Verde region is a difficult problem, it seems clear that the regional population was large enough to have supported a regionally integrated polity with formal hierar­ chies during the two periods of interest here. Rohn (1989) suggests a maximum population of 30,000 for the A.D. 12oos in the central part of the northern San Juan (approximately the same area considered here), but he appears to asswne a greater number ofpeople per kiva and greater site longevity than do more re­ cent estimates (e.g., Duff and Wilshusen 2ooo; Mahoney et al. 2000). Recent 214 WILLIAM D. LJPE

research (Duff and Wilshusen 2000; Wilshusen, this volume) provides esti­ mates of maximum regional population that range from about 4,500 to 11,500, depending on assumptions about rate of increase, date at which emigration of population out of the region began, and rate of emigration. My guess is that the population maximum for the central Mesa Verde region was reached in the early to middle A.D. 1200s and that it was somewhat in excess of 1o,ooo people but probably did not approach Rohn's estimate of 30,000. The evidence that the regional population was integrated into a single polity is weak, however, as discussed below. Were individual communities or clusters of commuruties large enough to support formal political hierarchies? Adler and Varien (1994:84) summarize cross-cultural data indicating that individual communities in politically non­ stratified societies don't become larger than approximately 1,500 people. They suggest that this "limit ... probably has to do with the constraints these societies face in integrating a large number of people in the absence of a strongly hierar­ chical social framework." This is consistent with Kosse's results; her "regionally integrated polities" can contain multiple communities. Together, the studies by Kosse and by Adler and Varien indicate that polities integrating between about 500 and 2,500-),ooo people can vary substantially in the degree to which social power differences are present. Cross-culturally, polities in the rruddle of this range, t,ooo-1,500 people, may be organized on either relatively egali­ tarian or relatively hierarchical principles but are unlikely to have "well­ developed, formal, political hierarchies based on ascribed status" (Kosse 1996). Estimating the sizes of individual communities is a less daunting task than estimating total regional population but still faces numerous problems. Here the starting point is the list of central Mesa Verde region settlements having more than 50 structures (surface rooms plus kivas) for the early and late Pueblo III periods (Figures 10.1 and 10.2; Tables 10.1 and 10.2). Although many of these sites had occupation in both periods, most sites are assigned to the pe­ riod when the site reached its greatest size. The exceptions are four sites that are assigned to both periods because we have good evidence they had more than 50 structures in both (Yellow Jacket, Woods Canyon, Shields, and Lancaster Pueblos). On the basis of several Lines of evidence these large sites can be considered the centers of first-order or "face-to-face" communities (Varien 1999; Varien, this volume). Survey evidence indicates that such sites were located near the center of settlement dusters of varying sizes, with some community members living outside the nuclear aggregate in small settlements consisting of one or a few habitation uruts. Given the overall trend toward community aggregation through time, the more dispersed communities of the A.D. u50-1225 period undoubtedly had a higher proportion of their population living outside the nucleated center than was the case in the A.D. 1225-1290 period. Plotting all or even very large numbers of the small peripheral settlements associated with SOCIAL POWER IN T HE CENTRAL MESA VERDE REGION 215 each community center cannot be done at present, given the spotty nature of survey coverage and the variable quality of survey records. Because the large central aggregates have high visibility and most have been resistant to com­ plete destruction by farming and looting, the "large site" database is probably a reasonably good representation of Pueblo III period communities in the cen­ tral Mesa Verde region, and especially of those in the late Pueblo III period (see further discussion in Varien et al. 1996). Various studies (see references and discussion in Mahoney et al. 2000:70, 86) indicate that for Pueblo II and Pueblo III Mesa Verde sites, structure count can serve as a reasonable rough approximation of the maximum number of people occupying a site (that is, so structures equals about 50 people). This in turn in1plies the presence of 5 to 10 households, each occupying a habitation unit consisting of a kiva and several associated surface storage and living rooms. Momentary populations (the number of people occupying the site at a particular point in time) were probably somewhat lower on average because all structures may not have been occupied throughout the site's history. Wilshusen (this volume) argues, however, that for community centers, total room count is a reasonably good estimate of average momentary population during the site's life span. All community centers were probably not occupied throughout the period in which they are placed, which introduces another uncertainty. Considering both large and small sites, a site use life of 20 to 40 years can be assumed for the Pueblo III period, probably with an increase in average use life through the pe­ riod (Mahoney eta!. 2000). Thus, if the 43 community centers assigned to the 74 years of early Pueblo III (A.D. nso-u25) had an average use life of 30 years, and they were uniformly distributed through time, only about 17 of them would have been occupied at any given time within the period. On the other hand, most of the large sites of this period probably date to the last half, or even last third, of the period (Wilshusen, this volume). Late Pueblo III (A.D. 1225- 129o) lasts a maximum of 65 years, and tree-ring evidence indicates that build­ ing began to decline rapidly in the late A. o. 1270s and effectively ceased around A.D. 1280. The late Pueblo III centers probably had an average use life of 40 years (Mahoney et al. 2000:70); hence, most would have been occupied con­ temporaneously during the 50-year span between A.D. 1225 and 1275· The 43large sites assigned to early Pueblo III have a combined total of 5,650 structures, for an average of 131 structures per site. This average rises to 155 structures for the 60 late Pueblo III sites. Because a higher proportion of com­ munity members lived in nearby small settlements in the earlier period, the in­ crease in the average size of the later centers does not necessarily mean that the community increased in size. The largest central Mesa Verde region community centers are several times the average size. Yellow Jacket Pueblo, located Ln the eastern portion of the cen­ tral Mesa Verde region, at the head of Yellow Jacket Canyon, has an estimated 216 WlLLTAM D. LIPE

700 structures in both early and late Pueblo III. If we make the liberal assump­ tion that Yellow Jacket Pueblo was occupied by 700 people, and the smaller set­ tlements in the immediate vicinity included an equal number, the community would still total only 1500. Although this seems like a reasonable "upper limit" estimate for Yellow Jacket Pueblo, the number of people occupying small dis­ persed homesteads and hamlets in the vicinity of this and the other centers re­ mains one of the largest uncertainties in estimating community sizes. This problem is greater for the earlier of the two periods being considered, when most communities were less aggregated. Vaden (1999, this volume; Varien et al. 2000) has assembled cross-cultural evidence that in horticultural societies the most intensively cultivated fields lie within a 2-km radius of the primary residence. Taking topography and hence travel time into account, he drew "2 km equivalent" catchments around each community center (Varien 1999). Using data from several fully surveyed areas within the central Mesa Verde region, Mahoney et al. (2000) estimated the 2-km catchment population size for several commw1ities (defined by clusters of residential sites and occurrences of public architecture). The results indi­ cated that community sizes generally increased between the two periods of in­ terest here. However, even if a 40-year use life is assumed for late Pueblo III, community sizes for that period ranged only between about 240 and 390 (Ma­ honey et al. 2000:77- 78). This is in the lower part of the range for historic east­ ern and western Pueblo villages. But what if spatial clusters of these residential (face-to-face) communities were in fact politically integrated? Clusters of community centers can be rec­ ognized by overlaps between their 2-km equivalent catchments (Varien 1999). Tables 10.1 and 10.2 show the results (also see Figures 10.1 and 10.2 for the loca­ tion of clusters). It seems likely that centers this close together would have had to come to a political accommodation with one another, especially because some of their members would be living in the spaces between the centers. In early Pueblo III 5 clusters contain n sites; the remaining 32 sites have 2-km equivalent catchments that do not overlap with those of other centers. The two centers in the Alkali Ridge c.luster have a total of 465 structures, still consider­ ably below the level of the largest "isolated" center, Yellow Jacket Pueblo, with 700 structures. The average number of structures per duster is 220, compared with 131 per individual center. When the list of 37 isolated community centers and clusters of centers is ranked by number of structures, the five dusters oc­ cupy positions 2, 6, 15, 16, and 18. Thus, the site clusters are well within the range of variability of the larger isolated community centers. Late Pueblo III community centers are both more numerous and more clustered than those in the previous period (cf. Varien 1999, this volume; Varien et al. 2000). Of the 60 centers listed, 30 are distributed among 9 clusters. The dusters average 357 structures, well above the 155 average for sites, when all 6o sites are considered. However, the two largest isolated sites-Yellow Jacket Pueblo and Goodman Point-Shields-have more structures than the largest SOCIAL POWER IN THE CENTRAL MESA VERDE REGION 217 cluster, Upper Hovenweep. When the list of 39 sites and site clusters is ranked by number ofstructures, the clusters occupy positions 3, 5, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, and 17. Although the site dusters are in the upper half of the distribution, they are still within the range of variation of the larger isolated centers. There appears to have been a greater potential for political integration among neighboring community centers in late Pueblo III, but the population sizes involved did not exceed the maximum of the previous period. Instead, more centers and clus­ ters occur at the upper end of the size range.

Settlement Pattern Structure Although there are more centers in late Pueblo III than previously, the number in southeastern Utah declines, and those at lower elevations in the Montezuma Creek and San Juan valleys drop out. Although the Alkali Ridge site group was the largest cluster in early Pueblo Ill, the only Utah cluster in late Pueblo III is Cottonwood Wash, and it is the smallest of the 11 clusters of that period. The only individual late Pueblo III center in Utah that exceeds 250 structures is Hedley Main Ruin, located just west of the Colorado border. By contrast, there is a substantial "packing'' of centers and clusters of centers in southwestern Colorado (Figures 10.1 and 10.2; also see Varien 1999:Figures 7.8 and 7.9). This process of central Mesa Verde region settlement concentration may have begun earlier, as the northern San Juan drainages east of the Mesa Verde were depopulated by the end of the A.D. 105o-1150 period, opening up a gap between the settlements of the central Mesa Verde region and the Mesa Verdean settlements clustered around Aztec Ruin in the San Juan Valley (Lipe and Varien 1999b). One possible explanation for this process of consolidation is the develop­ ment of chronic warfare between major groups of communities in the Four Corners region. This might have resulted in the pulling together of the central Mesa Verde group of communities and the creation of unpopulated or thinly populated hinterlands separating them from major groups of communities in the Kayenta area (as suggested by Haas and Creamer 199P37) or from the To­ tab region communities clustered around Aztec in the San Juan Valley. In late Pueblo III, however, low-density populations using Mesa Verde tradition pot­ tery continued to occupy southeastern Utah (Mahoney et al. 2000; Matson et al. 1988; Varien et al. 1996), and in the -Red Rock Plateau area, they were in apparently peaceful contact with populations using Kayenta tra­ dition (Lipe 1970; Lipe and Huntington 1969). Rather than interre­ gional warfare, processes internal to the central Mesa Verde region were probably driving both population concentration and settlement aggregation. Lightfoot (1984) describes competition among emerging leaders as a pro­ cess that can promote community growth and aggregation, as well as the accu­ mulation of social power by individuals or groups. One of the primary ways that leaders can increase their power is by recruiting followers; this can result 218 WILLIAM D. LIPE

~ ------~ 000

400 Q) IV -E i w 200 g~ .... -(/) ~ 100 1- 80

6P

40 1 2 6 8 10 20

Site Size Rcrk: A. D. 115().1225 Sites

000.------, 000 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ~ 100 figure 10.3. The rank­ 1- 80 size distribution {log-log scale) for large sites dat­ 60 ing to the A.D. 115o-1225 (top) and 1225-1290 40 ~------~----~--~~~------~----~--~ (bottom) periods. Cour­ 1 2 6 8 10 20 60 tesy of the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center. Site Size Rank: A.D. 1225-1290 Sites

in larger settlements and ultimately in higher local and regional population densities. Lightfoot's (1984) model focuses on processes that result in power differentials in relatively egalitarian societies. Renfrew (1986), working with more complex societies, describes ways in which "peer-polity interaction" may promote sociopolitical elaboration and change. In both cases competition among neighboring polities can result in a kind of"arms- race" leading to pop­ ulation growth and more complex sociopolitical systems. It is possible that in the Pueblo III period leaders in the increasingly crowded and competitive social landscape of southwestern Colorado were actively recruiting followers from communities on the peripheries. SOCIAL POWER IN THE CENTRAL MESA VERDE REGIO N 219

Rank-size analysis (Figure 10.3) provides a way to assess political and eco­ nomic competition among communities, although its applicability to middle­ range societies may be questioned. Johnson (1977, 1980) argues, however, that this type of analysis can be useful in detecting changes in regional-level rela­ tionships at a wide range of sociopolitical and demographic scales. In Figure 10.3 the rank-size distributions of all early and late Pueblo III community cen­ ters are compared; site clusters are excluded. Conventional interpretation of the rank-size rule is that a logarithmic plot of both settlement size and rank will be log-normal-that is, will follow the di­ agonal-if the settlement system is well integrated, with a developed hierarchy of political or economic functions assigned to settlements of different size. Johnson (1977:496-497) also cites studies in which it is argued that a log­ normal distribution can be characteristic of regional systems in either the early or the late stages of economic development and that stochastic variation in factors affecting sizes of centers may also result in this type of distribution. Presence of a concave-upward rank-size distribution suggests dominance by a single "primate" settlement, whereas a convex-upward distribution suggests a poorly integrated system, with settlement size responding to a number of fac­ tors, frequently including the presence of several competitive systems (John­ son 1977, 1980). The rank-size distribution of all sites for early Pueblo III is dearly log­ normal, whereas the later plot shows a shift toward convexity, implying the presence of multiple competitive settlement systems. With regard to the log­ normal distribution for the early period, there is little other evidence to sup­ port the inference of a single well-integrated political and/or economic system for the entire region. Evidence is lacking that settlements of different size rep­ resent a hierarchy of different political or economic functions. This leaves us to attribute the log-normal distribution to "stochastic factors" and/or an "early stage of economic development" as default interpretations. Tables 10.1 and 10.2 include data on site clusters, as well as on spatially iso­ lated sites. It is apparent that if the site clusters (instead of their component sites) were included in the rank-size plots, the one for early Pueblo III would be shifted somewhat in the direction of convexity, and the one for late Pueblo III would be much more convex. The main point to be drawn from these compar­ isons is that they indicate increasing independence (and probably competi­ tion) among communities and community clusters through time. The data on site sizes in Tables 10.1 and 10.2 also show some interesting differences between community centers that are in the proposed clusters and those that stand alone. In general, the sites that comprise the dusters are smaller than the mean for all sites, and this difference increases from early to late Pueblo III. For example, in A.D. 1150- 1225, the average number of struc­ tures in a site cluster is 220, as opposed to 131 for the average number of struc­ tures per site, when all sites are considered. Yet the individual sites that are in clusters average 100 structures, whereas the isolated centers that are outside 220 WILLIAM D. UPE

clusters average 142. In late Pueblo III the average center has 155 structures, whereas the average cluster has more than twice as many, at 357- However, iso­ lated centers are almost twice as large- 203 structures on average~than those occurring within clusters, which average 107. These data indicate that the largest community centers are not surrounded by groups of nearby smaller centers. The clusters, on the other hand, tend to be composed of smaller-than-average centers that are closely spaced. Thus there appear to be two modes of aggregation. In late Pueblo III both the largest indi­ vidual centers and the largest clusters "top out" at about the same size- be­ tween about 500 and 700 structures. Table 10.2 shows there are five isolated centers in this group, and four site dusters; collectively, these nine aggregates account for about 56 percent of the total number of structures for this period. There is a substantial size gap of nearly 150 structures between these nine ag­ gregates and the rest of the size distribution. A reasonable hypothesis is that the nine large centers and dusters of centers constituted the principal polities of the region in late Pueblo Ill. This does not imply that they must have had strongly hierarchical political institutions, although power differentials are likely to have been present. Even if each member of this group of"large" cen­ ters and clusters of centers were associated with dispersed habitations that doubled its number of structures, none would have had populations over the level of 1,500 that Adler and Varien (1994) report as a cross-cultural maximum for community size in nonstratified societies. There remain 30 small isolated centers and small site dusters in the lower part of the late Pueblo III size distribution. Some are on the western periphery of the central concentration, where settlement patterns are grading from ag­ gregated to dispersed. The others are perhaps associated with one of the nine large centers or clusters noted above, or they may represent independent small polities. It also is possible that some of the settlement clusters should be broken apart. A glance at the size structure of the dusters listed in Table 10.2 indicates that several include one "dominant" site more than twice as large as the others (that is, a hypothetical sociopolitical center for the duster), whereas the others do not. As noted above, however, the communities in these clusters are so closely spaced that some form of sociopolitical integration seems probable, and the numbers of people involved do not indicate that such integration would have had to be very centralized or hierarchical. I can only suggest here that a number of additional studies of settlement structure could be done and that these might provide better insights into the sociopolitical landscape of the central Mesa Verde region.

Types and Distribution ofPublic Architecture The phrase public architecture is somewhat misleading because some of the buildings referred to undoubtedly were built to limit who could participate in SOCIAL POWER IN THE CENTRAL MESA VERDE REGION 221 the activities that went on inside. The term is used here to refer to structures (or their intended absence, in the case of plazas) that differ from ordinary do­ mestic structures. Mobilizing the effort to construct public architecture and establishing control over how it is used imply the exercise of social power by individuals or groups. Most of the data on public architecture in the central Mesa Verde region are from surface observations of varying comprehensive­ ness and quality, so it is likely that only the strongest patterns will emerge in a regional overview of this sort. Nonetheless, this is a potentially important source of evidence about the scale of social power and the modes by which it was exercised. Churchill et al. (1998) have recently attempted a broad overview of great ki­ vas and multiwalled structures in the central Mesa Verde region, using approx­ imately the same database employed here for the Pueblo III period; they also survey several earlier periods. Great kivas declined in frequency from 18 in late Pueblo II ( A.D. 1050-1150) ton in early Pueblo III and 8 in late Pueblo III. Dur­ ing these same three periods the ratio of great kivas to community centers dropped from 1:2 to q . Pueblo II and III great kivas are often completely or partially surrounded by what appear to be storage rooms, although there are examples where these are absent. Multiwalled structures, on the other hand, increased from 1 to 4 to 12 in these three periods, with occurrence per center in­ creasing from 1 in 36 in late Pueblo II to 1 in 5 in late Pueblo III. The category "multiwalled structure" itself includes considerable variability. Most such structures from late Pueblo II and early Pueblo III have circular floor plans with either one or two sets of rooms surrounding a small central open space. Most from late Pueblo Ill are D-shaped buildings with a single row of rooms surrounding one or two interior courtyards. In some cases the interior space has one or two structures with circular floor plans, some of which appear to be kivas, whereas others are aboveground. In other cases the enclosed interior courtyard(s) are open or contain one or n.vo aboveground circular structures. The trends documented by Churchill et al. (1998) indicate a shift from ar­ chitectural types that are more inclusive (that is, great kivas, which can hold large numbers of people, although access to the associated storage rooms must have been restricted) to the D-shaped multiwalled structures, which can be ac­ cessed by relatively few people at a time. However, plazas also appear to have become more common in the later period. These range from quite accessible open areas bounded only by surrounding room blocks to somewhat less acces­ sible areas enclosed by walls and usually associated with other types of public architecture (cf. Lipe and Ortman2ooo). In general, public architecture is considerably more common and more types are present in late as opposed to early Pueblo HI. Centers dating to the A.D. 1150-1225 period appear to consist predominantly of room blocks of ordi­ nary habitation units, with the occasional great kiva as the primary type of nondomestic structure. By contrast, late Pueblo III centers fairly often have D­ shaped structures and/or plazas; in addition, low walls enclosing aU or parts of W/LLTAM D. LIP£ sites are quite common in this period, as are towers and tower complexes not associated with particular domestic units. At a few of the late centers there are blocks of small rooms that appear to lack kivas and that may represent storage facilities not associated with a specific household (Lipe and Ortman 2000) . These are often difficult to identify from surface evidence, and some Hsted in Table 10.2 are questionable. On the other hand, the quality of data from the majority of late Pueblo Il r centers does not allow either presence or absence to be ruled out; there may be more examples than those listed. Roads or possible roads are associated with a few early and late Pueblo Ill centers, but these are hard to date; some may be from the A.D. 1050-1150 pe­ riod. They do indicate either sequential or contemporaneous relationships be­ tween nearby centers, although most are too poorly preserved to indicate more than association with a particular center. Also, Chacoan-style great houses were built in the region in the late A.D. 1000s and early noos, and a few of these occur close to or even within Pueblo III centers. lt is possible that these great houses continued to have some functions in Pueblo Ill, but this is difficult to determine from surface observations. Tables 10.1 and 10.2 show the distribution of some types of public architec­ ture, based primarily on data assembled by Varien (Lipe and Varien 1999a, 1999b) and by Kelley (1996). Little if any patterning can be observed in the dis­ tribution of early Pueblo III public architecture. In particular, great kivas seem more likely to be associated with the smaller centers than with the larger ones. Perhaps this is because they were more often built in communities with rela­ tively large dispersed populations and relatively small nuclear centers, but that is just a guess. Because of their size, great kivas require significant labor to build and then to maintain (Lightfoot 1988). If food was stored in the peripheral rooms, its acquisition, protection, and distribution must have been managed by an individual or small group. Rituals or olher activities that took place in these structures would also have required organization. Even though these are large structures, most would probably not have held the entire population of the associated community, so some type of control was probably exerted over access and/or participation in rituals. Thus, the construction and use of great kivas implies the exercise of social power. For the late Pueblo III period the larger centers and dusters are more likely to have public architecture than are the smaller ones; of the 44 examples of such architecture listed in Table 10.2, 20 occur in the eight largest sites and clus­ ters. On the other hand, nearly half the total structures occur in these eight sites and clusters, indicating that overall, the occurrence of public architecture is proportional to the occurrence of domestic structures. The largest isolated centers are somewhat more likely to have multiple types of public architecture than are equal-sized dusters, and unique examples of public architecture such as the Yellow Jacket Pueblo "great tower complex" occur only at the largest iso­ lated centers. In late Pueblo III, great kivas are relatively rare and tend to occur in the SOCIAL POWER IN THE CENTRAL MESA VERDE REGION 223 largest sites and structures, but there are exceptions. Room-dominated blocks (presumably nondomestic storage complexes) have been recognized at only a few large sites, most of which are not in clusters. Yellow Jacket Pueblo, the re­ gion's largest site during this period, has the distinctive "Great Tower complex" that consists of an oversized (5 m diameter) kiva surrounded by two-story rooms (Ortman et al. 2000). The second-largest individual center (Goodman Point- Shields) also has a distinctive building-a large circular bi- or tri-wall structure with four enclosed courtyards that may house small kivas. Yucca House, the third-largest isolated center, has a large rectangular walled plaza with a two-story row of rooms on the north side and a great kiva in the center (Glowacki 2001). D-shaped structures are found in both large and small centers and clusters in late Pueblo III but vary substantially in size and complex:ity. My impression is that the larger, more complex examples are more likely to occur in the larger centers or clusters. Plazas are found at both small and large sites and site dus­ ters; their apparent distribution may be more affected by lack of consistent cri­ teria for recognizing and recording them than is the case for most other types of public architecture. Bilateral spatial layout, presence of public or "civic" precincts where public architecture is grouped, and use of enclosing walls to surround all or parts of sites are features that occur, although not universally, at both large and small centers in late but not early Pueblo HI. These features imply some level of planning and control of the location of both domestic and public architecture (cf. Bradley 1992a, 1993). The greater frequency and diversity of public architecture in late Pueblo III suggests more active mobilization and display of social power than in the pre­ vious period. The great kivas and walled plazas of this period imply some re­ strictions on access but can accommodate relatively large numbers of people. Some of the late Pueblo III great kivas apparently were unroofed and hence were more accessible than those of earlier periods (but an estimate by Ortman and Bradley [this volume] of the number of spectators that could have been accommodated at the unroofed great kiva at Sand Canyon Pueblo is substan­ tially less than the probable population of the community). The D-shaped structures are highly visible but appear designed to restrict access to a relatively few people at a time. Occurrence of ordinary-sized kivas in some of the D­ shaped structures indicates these buildings were also residences (Ortman and Bradley, this volume). Because these are architecturally distinctive buildings that were often built in prominent locations such as on the edge of cliffs, they would draw attention to whoever lived there. On the other hand, many D­ shaped buildings do not appear to have contained kivas or other structures that could have been used as residences. The occurrence of storage rooms as part of great kivas and D-shaped structures, as well as in room-dominated blocks and in the three unique complexes noted above, implies a significant ca­ pacity for extracting and distributing surplus food, at least at the largest late Pueblo III centers. The existence of multiple types of storage facilities and 224 WILLIAM D. LIP£

multiple types ofpublic architecture may indicate multiple loci of social power within centers and clusters of centers. The somewhat greater concentration of public architecture at the largest isolated community centers suggests that these sites were more active arenas for the exercise of social power than were the centers that occur within large clusters. The higher potential for social conflict in the densely settled large sin­ gle aggregates may have provided motivation and opportunities for individu­ als or groups to organize rituals, feasts, and other activities that would promote intracommunity harmony. The wide occurrence of D-shaped structures and some other forms of public architecture in small as well as large centers and clusters suggests that the display of social power was not monopolized by the largest polities. Within the clusters of community centers the distribution nei­ ther of site sizes nor of public architecture provides clear evidence for a hierar­ chy of centers within each d uster. These results do not indicate we are dealing with strongly hierarchical soci­ eties, but they do provide a variety of evidence that at least in late Pueblo III, individuals or groups had an increased ability to control the use of community space, mobilize fairly large construction efforts, accumulate and distribute stored food or other goods, and organize group rituals and assemblies.

PERSPECTIVES FROM THE SAND CANYON LOCALITY As described byVarien and Wilshusen (this volume), the Crow Canyon Ar­ chaeological Center conducted surveys, testing, and intensive excavations in the Sand Canyon locality over a number of field seasons in the 198os and 1990s. Ortman and Bradley (this volume) and Bradley (1992a, 1993) describe excava­ tions at Sand Canyon Pueblo, a large (estimated 530 structures) late Pueblo III center. The other community center in the locality that was the subject of in­ tensive excavations is Castle Rock Pueblo, a late Pueblo III site of about 65 structures located 8 km southwest of Sand Canyon Pueblo (Kuckelman, ed. 2000). It is not part of a cluster. Varien (ed. 1999) reports test excavations at small sites in the vicinity of Sand Canyon Pueblo, and Huber (1993; Huber and Lipe 1992) describes intensive excavations of part of a small mid-Pueblo 1II hamlet-Green Lizard-located in Sand Canyon between Sand Canyon Pueblo and Castle Rock Pueblo.

Archit·ecture Sand Canyon Pueblo is a classic late Pueblo III south-facing canyon-rim site, bisected by an ephemeral drainage (Kelley 1996; Lipe and Ortman 2000 ). Although most of the buildings are room blocks composed of habitation units (Ortman and Bradley, this volume), there also is a substantial amount of pub­ lic architecture. The site is enclosed on at least three sides by a low masonry wall that appears to have been built early in the settlement's construction his- SOCIAL POWER IN THE CENTRAL MESA VERDE REGION 225 tory. Most significant is a central complex that consists of a plaza, a great kiva, a large D-shaped building with two kivas in its enclosed courtyards, and a room block consisting primarily of storage rooms (the 300 block). Both the great kiva and the D-shaped building are partially or completely surrounded by rooms that are part of these structures (Ortman and Bradley, this volume). These peripheral rooms lack floor features, and floors are often sloping bedrock, indicating they were used primarily for storage rather than habitation. The 300 block also appears to have been a storage complex con­ taining perhaps 30 rooms (Bradley 1992a; Ortman and Bradley, this volume). These three complexes have more than 50 storage rooms, equaling the storage capacity of 10 to 20 habitation units. When the site-enclosing wall is consid­ ered as well, the public architecture at Sand Canyon Pueblo probably repre­ sents 10 to 15 percent of the construction effort at the site. The spatial association between the room-dominated 300 block, the plaza, the great kiva, and the D-shaped building suggests that management of central food stores (assuming that food is what in fact was stored) was given ceremo­ nial sanction by rituals performed in the plaza, the great kiva, and the D­ shaped building. Ortman and Bradley (this volume) review evidence that serving bowls were larger and more elaborately decorated at Sand Canyon Pueblo than at either earlier or contemporaneous small sites in the locality; they conclude that this indicates that Sand Canyon Pueblo was frequently the locus of feasts, probably held in conjunction with public rituals. The central­ ized storage facilities at the site would certainly have provided political-reli­ gious leaders with ample resources for hosting such feasts. Control of the central stores clearly would have been a significant source of social power. Mo­ bilizing contributions from community members, protecting and monitoring the stores, distributing stored food, and maintaining the storage facilities all imply a significant level of authority. These tasks could not have been carried out effectively by large unstructured groups, or by the community as a whole. Surely there were lines of authority and responsibility leading to a relatively few individuals, altl10ugh these individuals may have been acting on behalf of larger entities such as sodalities or kin groups. ls there any evidence of who these powerful individuals might have been or where they lived? In the portion of the 300 block that was excavated it was found that a small kiva had been inserted into the room block sometime after it was built (Ort­ man and Bradley, this volume). Given that most small Mesa Verde kivas are res­ idential, this could indicate that a household had moved into the block of storage rooms. Does this imply that a powerful household was asserting con­ trol over the complex, that whoever was in control of the complex had assigned someone to guard it, that the small kiva was only a symbolic "occupation," or that the centralized storage system had broken down and the abandoned rooms were being reclaimed for other uses? The answer is not dear. The small kiva that was built here was the opposite of ostentatious, however; the addition was not done in a way that would draw undue attention. WILLIAM D. LIPE

In the D-shaped structure Ortman and Bradley (this volume) note several lines of evidence indicating that the two interior k.ivas were used as domestic living rooms (as were the great majority of small "household" kivas in Pueblo II and Pueblo III Mesa Verdean sites). One of the kivas was unusual in having a large floor vault, although the vault was filled in before the end of the struc­ ture's use (Ortman and Bradley, this volume). Such vaults are uncommon in small late Pueblo III household kivas but appear widely through time and space in the Puebloan world and probably are elaborated ritual features related to sipapus (Wilshusen 1989). Muir (1999b; also see Ortman and Bradley, this volume) noted that remains of birds and other animals ethnographically im­ portant in ritual were found in deposits associated with the D-shaped struc­ ture but generally not in other contexts at the site. These pieces of evidence, plus the restricted access to the kivas, the location of the kivas within an archi­ tecturally distinctive and imposing building, and the direct association of these kivas with at least 14 surrounding storage rooms, all indicate that the oc­ cupants of the D-shaped building had significant social power. On the other hand, the kivas themselves are no larger or more formal in construction than ordinary household kivas, and both the kivas and the building as a whole em­ ploy the same strong north-south orientations found in ordinary habitations and in the layout of the site as a whole. As noted above, D-shaped buildings in the central Mesa Verde region are quite variable, and many appear not to have been used as residences. It is possi­ ble that their primary role was as a type of facility used by religious sodalities for storage of food and paraphernalia and for conducting certain rituals that involved only religious leaders. In some communities these religious leaders may have lived in or spent significant amounts of time in the structure, whereas in other communities this was not the practice. Ortman and Bradley (this volume; also see Huber 1993) review evidence that a small complex consisting of several excavated kivas, surface structures, and a tower in the 100 block were residences for community political-religious leaders. In addition to having several artifactual and feature indicators of ritual activity, the complex is deficient in storage space, suggesting that the persons who lived here were provisioned from stores kept elsewhere, perhaps from one of the three storage facilities noted above. Huber (1993) found that the archi­ tecture in this complex had a relatively high investment of labor relative to the two other kiva suites at Sand Canyon Pueblo and one at the Green Lizard site that he studied. He also noted that rim sherds from the 100 block also indicated larger-than-average serving bowls, which is consistent with increased hosting of guests by occupants of this complex (also see Ortman 2oooa; Ortman and Bradley, this volume). Muir (1999b) reports that both the 100 block and the ex­ cavated portion of the 1000 block have unusually high proportions of artio­ dactyl bones in floor and roof deposits. Both complexes are built against the site-enclosing wall near the center of its arc in the northern part of the site and have D-shaped towers that extend outside the wall. The 100 block is on the SOCiAL POWER IN THE CENTRAL MESA VERDE REGION 227

eastern side of the drainage that bisects the site, and the 1000 block is about the same distance from it on the western side. Because of the unusual association of artiodactyl bones with structures in the 100 and 1000 block, Muir (1999b:159) argues that these two "tower units" may have been loci for the display of valuable large game animals obtained in communal hunts organized by political or religious leaders. On the other hand, as Ortman and Bradley (this volume) point out, these bone assemblages must represent behavior that took place at the very end of the site's occupation and may have more to do with events peculiar to the site's Last days than with activities regularly associated with these complexes. Muir (1999b) notes that when only midden assemblages are considered, there is little differentiation among room blocks with respect to the frequency of artiodactyl remains, nor does Sand Canyon differ significantly from contemporaneous nearby small sites or from Castle Rock Pueblo. On the whole, however, multiple lines of evidence indicate that the exca­ vated structures in the 100 block are likely to have been occupied by individu­ als or families having significant social power, which is consistent with inter­ pretations made by Bradley (1992a, 1993) in earlier publications. Although the excavated portion of the 1000 block has a more "normal" complement of sur­ face rooms, it has some unusual architectural features as well and appears to have been used as a burial place after it was no longer being occupied (Bradley 1992a). (The "displays" of game animals on the 1000 block tower roofs that Muir (1999b) refers to would also have taken place after this complex was no longer being lived in.) The excavated kiva suites in both the 100 block and the 1000 block may represent facilities occupied by leaders of sodalities or kin groups. As in the D-shaped building, the evidence suggests that such leader­ ship would have been justified and exercised in the context of religious ideol­ ogy and ritual. Only about 12 percent of the architecturally defined spaces at Sand Canyon Pueblo have been excavated (Ortman and Bradley, this volume). and there may well be complexes similar to those from the 100 and woo blocks elsewhere in the site. However, there is only one other D-shaped tower built against the outside of the site-enclosing wall, and it is associated with a small w1excavated kiva suite in the 200 block on the western side of the site, adjacent w the plaza.

Wealth Items So far, this chapter has focused on demographic, settlement-pattern, and architectural evidence but has had little to say about artifacts that might have advertised an individual's high status or ability to acquire exotic items. The ar­ tifactual database for Pueblo III excavated contexts in the Sand Canyon locality includes 40 occurrences of"exotic" material: 10 of jet, 3 of , 9 of ob­ sidian, and 18 of shell. There are also 242 ornaments, most of them simple pen­ dants or beads made of local ma te rial, including bone; 18 ornaments, however, 228 WTLLlAM D. LIPE

Table 10.3. Exotic Material and Ornaments Relative to Corrugated Sherds

Exotic Material• Ornamentsb

Site Class Number of Corrugated Sherds Number Ratio (x 100) Number Ratio (x 100)

Small Early and Mid-Pueblo III (5) 17,903 4 .022 20 .112 Small Late Pueblo Ill (8) 22,205 3 .014 49 .221 Castle Rock Pueblo 18,161 12 .066 18 .099 Sand Canyon Pueblo 76,678 21 .027 155 .202 All sites 134,952 40 .030 242 .179

Note: Data as of 1994; minor changes in the database since then do not significantly affect the totals. aExotic materials: jet (10); obsidian (9); shell (18); turquoise (3). bOrnaments: beads (78); pendants (100); rings (1); bone tubes (63). Thirteen beads and two pendants are shell; three beads are turquoise; these are also counted in the tabulation of exotic materials.

are of the previously mentioned exotic materials. Table 10.3 displays the total inventory of exotics and ornaments recovered during 10 years of excavation on the Sand Canyon Archaeological Project, representing the sampling of 15 Pueblo III sites at various levels of intensity. The table also reports frequencies of corrugated sherds to provide a basis for comparison among sites or groups of sites. Table 10.3 shows that exotics and ornaments occur in very small frequen­ cies, both absolutely and relative to corrugated sherds. The data are from four categories of archaeological contexts: a very large late Pueblo III community center, Sand Canyon Pueblo; a relatively small late Pueblo III community cen­ ter, Castle Rock Pueblo; and two groups of small sites (< 50 structures each), one consisting of :five early to middle Pueblo III sites and the other composed of eight sites from Late Pueblo III. Considering all15 sites, the ratio of exotics to corrugated sherds is 0.030 (x 100), and that for ornaments is 0.179 (x 100). Castle Rock Pueblo is above average in the occurrence of exotics but below av­ erage in ornaments. The contemporary late Pueblo III center Sand Canyon Pueblo is about average in the occurrence of exotics and slightly above average in ornaments. None of the sites represented in Table 10.3 had disproportion­ ately large amounts of exotics or ornaments. The ratios of turquoise (3 items) and shell (18 items) to total corrugated sherds are a paltry 0.002 (x 100) and 0.013 (x 100), respectively. By contrast, Phillips (1993:Table 1) reports much higher frequencies of turquoise and shell relative to sherds from Pueblo II (A.D. 920 to 1120) contexts at Chaco Canyon. Excavations by the Chaco Archaeological Project produced 869 pieces of turquoise and 203 occurrences of shell, relative to 246,266 sherds of all types (corrugated sherds plus other gray, white, and red wares). The ratio of turquoise to sherds is 0.353 (x 100), and that for shell is o.o82 (x 100). The Chaco Project counts reported by Phillips do not include a cache of turquoise SOCIAL POWER IN THE CENTRAL MESA VERDE REGION 229 items or a deposit of turquoise debitage and hence underestimate the occur­ rence of turquoise. His data show, however, that in Pueblo II Chacoan contexts, turquoise was at least 177 times more common than in Pueblo m contexts in the Sand Canyon locality. Shell was at least 6 times more common in the Chaco Canyon collections. The extremely low frequencies of exotics and ornaments documented for the Sand Canyon locality, and the extremely modest nature of the ornaments, indicate that display of such items was not important in mediating social rela­ tions or in advertising differences in social power. Of course, we are dealing here only with imperishable items. If feathers were the currency of social sta­ tus, we might not know it. On the other hand, no evidence of exotic birds such as parrots has been found. As noted, remains of a number of birds of prey and songbirds were found (Muir 1999b; Ortman and Bradley, this volume) in asso­ ciation with the D-shaped structure. These might have provided feathers used by the inhabitants of that structure as personal adornments, but a more likely inference is that these individuals (and perhaps others who had access to this structure) were using feathers from these birds in ritual paraphernalia. Although other lines of evidence indicate that substantial social power differentials existed at Sand Canyon Pueblo and between this site and others in the locality, its impoverished assemblage of exotics and ornaments indicate that social power was not signified by individual ornamentation. It apparently was important for individuals to appear not to be different from others, even if they were able to wield considerable social power by virtue of offices in sodali­ ties or kin groups. The data on exotics and ornaments also indicate that this populous locality had relatively little trade with the "outside world;' an inference bolstered by equally tiny frequencies of White Mountain Red Ware, Tsegi Orange Ware, and other non-Mesa Verdean ceramics that were widely traded in other parts of the upland Southwest. Throughout the central Mesa Verde area interregional exchange appears to have declined from late Pueblo II to Pueblo III (Lipe and Varien 1999b ). In light of this evidence it does not appear that strategies of per­ sonal aggrandizement that relied on acquiring and displaying hard-to-get "prestige goods" were important at Sand Canyon Pueblo or other Pueblo III centers in the central Mesa Verde region.

Mortuary Associations Excavations on the Sand Canyon Project encountered relatively few formal burials, and Crow Canyon Center's archaeologists did not deliberately seek burials. Most human remains were found inside or adjacent to structures coin­ cident with excavation of these structures. Most human remains from Castle Rock Pueblo were not formally buried and appear to have resulted from the massacre of most or all of the site's population at the end of its occupation, 230 WILLIAM D. LIP£

probably during the A.D. 1270s (Kuckelman et al. 2000, 2002). At Sand Canyon Pueblo some human remains may have been deposited in the context of vio­ lence, but most had been respectfully interred (Bradley 1998; Kuckelman et al. 2002). None of these burials was accompanied by elaborate grave_goods, and a number lacked grave offerings, at least of the type that would survive in the ar­ chaeological record. To my knowledge no exceptionally elaborate burials dat­ ing to the Pueblo III period have been reported from the central Mesa Verde region. This is consistent with the lack of emphasis on marking the social power of individuals that was shown by the data on exotic materials and orna­ ments reviewed above.

CONCLUDING REMARKS Evidence from both the Sand Canyon locality and the region indicates that social power differentials became more strongly and clearly expressed in late Pueblo Ill. In that period significant amounts oflabor were mobilized to build and maintain several kinds of public architecture. Most strikingly, substantial amounts of nondomestic storage space were maintained. If food was stored in most of these spaces, this storing indicates that a substantial amount of surplus production was being generated and that its storage and distribution was con­ trolled above the household level. These stores would have required consistent involvement of individuals or small groups having the authority to acquire, protect, and distribute them. At Sand Canyon Pueblo the association of large storage facilities with the plaza, great kiva, and D-shaped structure indicates that both public and restricted-access rituals provided the ideological and be­ havioral context in which this authority was established and exercised. Higher frequencies of large, elaborately decorated serving bowls at Sand Canyon Pueblo suggest that stored food was likely distributed at public feasts (Ortman and Bradley, this volume). These would have been occasions at which the so­ cial power of those responsible for hosting and food distribution was vali­ dated. The population sizes of community centers and local polities appear to have increased from early to late Pueblo III; this development could have both promoted and been promoted by an elaboration of ritual and food distribu­ tion. Population estimates indicate that in late Pueblo III the sizes of commu­ nities and local polities nonetheless were relatively small; the largest probably did not exceed 1,000 to 1,500 people even when liberal assumptions are made about numbers of structures in use at the same time and numbers of people living outside the nuclear villages. The increased spatial "packing" of settlement in late Pueblo III provides a context that could have promoted a higher level of regional political integra­ tion or, alternatively, an increase in competition among local polities. The data suggest the latter. The maximum size of local polities did not increase much if at all over the previous period, but a number of polities grew to be about the

Varien, Mark. Seeking The Center Place. Salt Lake City, US: University of Utah Press, 2002. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 11 May 2016. Copyright © 2002. University of Utah Press. All rights reserved. SOCIAL POWER IN THE CENTRAL MESA VERDE REGION 231 same size as the largest. No single center or duster stands out as having been the "capital" of the region in late Pueblo III. The settlement data for this period indicate two modes of aggregation--one into single large villages, the other into clusters of smaller villages. There are five large spatially isolated centers and four clusters of spatially contiguous smaller centers in late Pueblo Ill, all having between about 500 and 700 structures. The remaining 30 isolated cen­ ters and clusters all have 350 structures or fewer. Several lines of evidence indicate that warfare increased and became more deadly in Late Pueblo III. This may have promoted the tighter integration of local polities and hence the greater expressions of social power that have been reviewed here. Increased social, demographic, and economic competition among equally strong polities may also have promoted warfare. Chronic war­ fare would have made smaller polities outside the nine largest ones vulnerable to attack, at least if hostilities were generalized and not just focused on compe­ tition among the larger polities. The occurrence of clearly defensive sites even in low population density areas of southeastern Utah (Lipe 1970) and the mas­ sacre of the residents of Castle Rock Pueblo, a small isolated center south of Sand Canyon Pueblo (Kuckelman et al. 2000, 2002), indicate that hostilities were in fact quite widespread. This should have promoted the formation of al­ liances between larger and smaller polities, at least in the more heavily popu­ lated parts of the central Mesa Verde region. The regional survey presented here was not able to detect such relationships if the centers in question did not fall into one of the dusters defined on the basis of spatial patterning. As noted, the large late Pueblo III community centers and dusters of cen­ ters do not appear to have been part of a hierarchically organized regionwide polity. Likewise, the distribution of public architecture and site sizes within the large late Pueblo III commtmity clusters does not indicate a clearly hierarchical relationship among the communities included in these clusters. At Sand Canyon Pueblo three different sets of supradomestic storage facilities are asso­ ciated with three different types of ritually important spaces (great kiva, plaza, and D-shaped structure). These lines of evidence suggest the possibility that there were multiple centers of power both within and among local polities. Power relationships at both the local and regional levels are likely to have been rather fluid although more constrained by social expectations and norms at the local level. One of the most striking findings of the extensive excavations carried out in the Sand Canyon locality is the near absence of artifactual, architectural, or mortuary evidence for individual political aggrandizement. Several lines of evidence indicate that the acquisition and exercise of social power at Sand Canyon Pueblo ordinarily was represented as service to a group-likely a kin group, a sodality, or the community as a whole. The regional evidence sup­ ports this interpretation as well. Whatever the effects of warfare in late Pueblo III, it does not seem to have promoted the appearance of highly visible "maxi­ mum leaders." 232 WILLIAM D. LJPE

A glance at Feinman's characterization of the network-corporate dimen­ sion of sociopolitical organization (Feinman 2ooo; also see the discussion ear­ lier in this chapter) indicates that the Pueblo III communities of the central Mesa Verde region are strongly on the corporate side of this continuum. This mode of implementing social power characterizes both early and late Pueblo lil but becomes intensified as social power differentials increase in late Pueblo III. To put it in Feinman's terms, in late Pueblo III, central Mesa Verdean social systems became somewhat more hierarchical on the egalitarian-hierarchical dimension but remained steadfastly on the corporate side of the network-cor­ porate dimension (Feinman 2ooo:Figure 12.2). Finally, ifleadership in kin groups and/or religious sodalities did depend in part on the power to store and redistribute surplus food production, then a de­ cline in that production would have undermined those relationships. Even if the climatic problems of the late A.D. uoos (Dean and Van West, this volume) did not result in disastrous crop failures, they might have created conflicts be­ tween the households that produced the crops and those individuals or groups whose social power depended on these households continuing to contribute a surplus for centralized storage and redistribution. TI1ese conflicts might have weakened the social and ideological order in ways that made communities more vulnerable to warfare or that made emigration seem an attractive option. A number of elements oflate Pueblo III architecture and settlement planning apparently were given up by those central Mesa Verde residents who migrated to areas farther south (Lipe and Lekson 2001; Reed 1956). The elements that "did not make the move" include the small household kiva; D-shaped struc­ tures; complexes of canyon-rim towers; strong north-south directional sym­ bolism expressed in both habitations and settlements; and bilateral layout of village-sized settlements. This suggests that the migrations were accompanied by social and cultural changes that probably affected the particular ways in which social power was mobilized and expressed, although perhaps not the general position of the resulting postmigration societies on Feinman's two di- . mens10ns.