Modeling
dynamical nested networks in the Prehistoric U.S. Southwest
Christopher Chase-Dunn
Institute for
Research on World-Systems
College Building South
University of California, Riverside
To be presented at the workshop on ‘analyzing complex macrosystems as dynamic networks” at the Santa Fe Institute, April 29-30, 2004. (9370 words) draft v. 4-27-04
https://irows.ucr.edu/cd/papers/sfi04/c-dsfi04pap.htm
Modeling the causes of
social evolution
The comparative world-systems perspective
Spatial bounding of world-systems:
nested interaction networks (bgn,
pmn,pgn, in)
Core/periphery differentiation and
hierarchy
Semiperipheral Development
Pulsation of networks
Rise and fall of large and powerful
polities
The iteration model
Exogenous factors
affecting the iteration model:
climate change, geographical conditions, botanical and zoological
capital, long-distance diffusion of crops, animals and ideas.
Inter-regional
interactions
The Southwest
and its Neighbors
Southwest, Plains, Great Basin,
California, Mesoamerica
Interegional
Interactions, Endogenous Processes and Exogenous Impacts
This paper discusses issues of dynamical
modeling of the evolution of human interaction networks, briefly outlines the
main ideas used by the comparative world-systems approach, and examines the
development of nested interaction networks in the late prehistoric U.S.
southwest.
Dynamical
modeling of the causes of social evolution should arguably combine the
agent-based approach with macrostructural process models. Ideally multilevel
agents and systems could be represented, with individuals, households,
settlements, and polities as actors within multi-polity systems. This would be
a fair approximation of most world-systems. But as Peter Turchin (2003:5) notes,
hierarchical dynamic models with more than two levels are impractical because
it is very difficult to interpret the results. The best solution for
world-system studies is to model polities as agents and the interpolity system
level variables and processes as constraints on and opportunities for the
action of polities. While this ignores the household as agent that is preferred
in most agent-based approaches to small scale systems like the “artificial
Anasazi” (e.g. Kohler et al 2000; Dean et al 2000), it allows
some of the macroprocesses of world-systems to emerge from the intentional
actions of polities.
Place-centric
interaction networks are arguably the best way to bound human systemic
processes because approaches that attempt to define regions or areas based on
attributes necessarily assume homogenous characteristics, whereas interaction
itself often produces differences rather than similarities (Chase-Dunn and
Jorgenson 2003). The culture area approach that has become institutionalized in
the study of the pre-Columbian Americas is impossible to avoid (as below), but
the point needs to be made that important interactions occur across the
boundaries of the designated regions. Networks are the best way to bound
systems, but since all actors interact with their neighbors, a place-centric
(or object-centric) approach that estimates the fall-off of interactional
significance is also required.
The comparative
world-systems approach has adapted the concepts used to study the modern system
for the purpose of using world-systems as the unit of analysis in the
explanation of human social evolution. Nested networks are used to bound
systemic interaction because different kinds of interaction (exchange of bulk
goods, fighting and allying, long-distance trade and information flows) have
different spatial scales. Core/periphery relations are of great interest but
the existence of core/periphery hierarchy is not presumed. Rather the question
of exploitation and domination needs to be asked at each of the network levels.
Some systems may be based primarily on equal interdependence or equal contests,
while others will display hierarchy and power-dependence relations. It should
not be assumed that earlier systems are similar to the modern global system in
this regard. Rather it should be a question for research on each system.
The comparative
world-systems claim that whole systems must be the unit of analysis for
explaining much of social change is mainly sustained by the hypothesis of
“semiperipheral development.” Without looking at intersocietal relations it is
impossible to see this phenomenon.
Studies of
premodern interaction networks have found a pattern of pulsation in
which networks expand and contract over time, with an occasion vast new
expansion that integrates larger and larger territories. Recent waves of
globalization in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries are a continuation of
this phenomenon. And another observation from comparing systems is that all
systems that have hierarchies exhibit a pattern of the rise and fall of
powerful polities. The modern rise and fall of hegemonic core states is thus
analytically similar to the rise and fall of empires and the rise and fall of
paramount chiefdoms.
Chase-Dunn and
Hall (1997) propose an explanation of human social evolution that combines
transformations of systemic logic across rather different modes of accumulation
with an underlying “iteration model” that posits causal relations among
population growth, intensification, population pressure, migration, circumscription,
conflict and hierarchy formation and technological change. It is an interaction
model because the outcomes (hierarchy formation and technological development)
have a positive effect on population growth, and so the model predicts a spiral
of world-system expansions.
A number of
important exogenous variable affect the iteration model. Climate change is
mainly an exogenous variable, though local climate may have also been impacted
by societies in the past, and is quite certainly being impacted in the present.
Geographical conditions can facilitate or hinder the emergence of larger
polities. Zoological and botanical capital can speed up processes of
technological development by providing species that are easily domesticated by
humans. And natural capital scarcity can also slow down technological change.
The
long-distance diffusion of domesticated crops and animals, and of technological
ideas from distant systems can have huge consequences for a local world-system
without signifying a systemic integration of the two systems. Systemic
integration requires two-way and regularized (frequent) interactions. Very
intermittent incursions or pandemic diseases can impact upon a system from
without. These possibilities of exogenous impacts on local and regional systems
need to be taken into account in order to fairly test the iteration model and
transformations of the modes of accumulation as explanations of human social
change.
Figure 1: Regional iteration model
processes impacted by exogenous factors
It does not make sense to ask how many world-systems there were in prehistoric North America if we accept the group-centric approach to bounding world-systems mentioned above. If every group interacts with neighboring peoples then there are no major breaks in interaction across space. Thus there were as many "systemic wholes" as there were groups because each group had a somewhat different set of interactions.
Of course this is not to say that there were not differential densities of interaction. Natural barriers such as deserts, high mountains, and large bodies of water increased the costs of communication and transportation. But ethnographic and archaeological evidence reveals that most of these geographical "barriers" did not eliminate interaction. In California travel across the High Sierra was closed by deep snow in the winter. But when the snow thawed regularized trade across this high range resumed. Natural barriers do affect interaction densities, but in most cases they do not eliminate systemic interaction.
The
suggestion that "culture areas" -- the culturally similar regions
designated by anthropologists (e.g. California, the Pacific Northwest, the
Southwest, etc[1].) -- can be
equated with world-systems is fallacious from the group-centric point of view
because important interactions frequently occurred across the boundaries of
these culture areas. Nevertheless it is
convenient to follow Stephen Kowalewski’s
(1996) lead in discussing how the world-systems in these traditional
culture areas were similar or different from one another. The literature on trade networks by
archaeologists is usually organized into discussions of these culture areas,
but there has been more and more study of trade interactions between the different
culture areas.[2] This section
discusses the U.S. Southwest and those recent adjacent to it that may have been
in systemic interaction with the Southwest. Chase-Dunn and Hall (1998) also
examine the other describe the world-system aspects of the other “culture
areas” in that part of North America that became the United States.
Humans
came across the Aleutian land bridge at least thirteen thousand years ago. An encampment of hunter-gatherers near Monte
Verde, Chile, complete with chunks of Mastodon meat, has been firmly dated at
12,500 B.P. (10,500 B.C.E) The land route was difficult to pass before about
12,000 years ago because of the large Pleistocene glaciers. But it is possible
that maritime-adapted peoples moved along the coasts. Most archaeologists
discount the possibility of early voyaging across the open ocean.
In
the region that became the United States so-called Paleoindians used large
distinctively fluted stone spear points known as Clovis points[3]
over a wide region of North America.
Archaeologists think that the peoples who lived during the epoch they
call “Paleoindian” (usually from 10,000 B.C.E to 8,000 B.C.E.) were small
groups of big game hunting nomads who ranged over wide territories. In the case
of the Paleoindians archaeologists disagree about whether or not there was trade
among groups. Many Clovis points have been found that are made of stone that
came great distances. But since it is
thought that the nomadic Paleoindians ranged widely, it is possible that they
procured the materials directly from quarries rather than trading for them.
The
general model of social evolution that has most often been applied to North
America is that groups migrated to fill the land, then population increased,
and trade and complexity emerged. This general sequence is implied in the periodizations
that archaeologists have developed to characterize the cultures for which they
find evidence in North America. In every region the Paleoindian period was
followed by the Archaic, a period in which groups became more diversified
hunter-gatherers, restricted their migrations to smaller regions and developed
distinctive regional lithic styles.
Sometimes distinctions are made between the Lower and Upper Archaic. The
Archaic lasted longer in some regions than in others. After the Archaic, the
periodization terms differ from region to region. The general picture is one of increasing population
density, the development of more complex societies in each region and
increasing trade within and between regions. But this general model becomes
more complicated when we look more closely.
The trends toward greater population density, complexity and trade were
broken by cyclical processes of the rise and fall of hierarchies and
complexity, changes in the patterns of interaction within and between regions
and important differences in the timing and nature of social change across
regions.
The notion of widely nomadic populations becoming gradually more
sedentary is related to the problem of cultural differences, social identities
and territoriality. Archaeologists note
that stylistic differences among groups became more pronounced as nomadic
circuits became smaller and sedentism developed. This is interpreted as the
formation of local cultural identities by which people distinguished their own
communities from those of their neighbors.[4]
The wide circles of year nomadic treks of the Paleoindians with their
continentally similar Clovis spear-points were replaced by smaller regional and
intersecting circles of migration by groups hunting smaller game species and
using regionally distinct projectile points. Thus the spatial nature of nomadic
“settlement systems” shrank toward the eventual development of sedentism. A
system of moving people to resources was replaced by a system of moving
resources to people through trade networks. At first the trade networks were
small, but over time they grew larger. It is this latter process of trade
network expansion that brought small regional systems into greater interaction
with distant peoples. This is analogous to the sequence of network expansions
in waves that occurred in Afroeurasia since the emergence of sedentism that
began twelve thousand years ago in the Levant.
The Southwest
Most of the research on the Southwest that
explicitly uses world-systems concepts has focused on relations among societies
within the Southwest (e.g. Upham 1982; Spielmann 1991; Baugh 1991; Wilcox 1991,
McGuire 1993, 1996), but there has also been an important literature on the
relationship between the Southwest and Mesoamerica (discussed below). The term
"Pueblo" is the generic word that Spanish colonizers applied to
sedentary horticulturists found in what is now New Mexico and Arizona. These groups had only a few traits in
common: they built adobe villages with
a central plaza and ceremonial structures, and they grew corn, beans, and
squash. In historical times (i.e. after
the arrival of Spanish colonists) there was no overarching unity among the
Pueblo peoples, and warfare occasionally occurred between different Pueblo
villages. The people who occupied these
villages spoke languages from at least three different major linguistic stocks.
There are several culture
areas within the Southwest. The main centers that developed
political complexity about 1100 years ago were the
Hohokam in Arizona, the Anasazi Chacoan polities and a few centuries later,
Paquime (Casas Grandes) in Northern Chihuahua about 200 kilometers south of
Chaco Canyon (see Figure 3). Other important archaeologically known cultures in
the region are Mogollon and Mimbres.
Figure 3: Southwestern
macroregion and adjacent regions
The ancestors of the historically known Pueblo Indians
were the Anasazi – the “people of old.” The Anasazi culture emerged from 900
C.E to 1150. Several large centers were built in this period. At Chaco Canyon a
very large center emerged in the tenth and eleventh centuries with perhaps more
than 10,000 people living in the Chaco core (Vivian 1990). The Chaco culture,
recognizable by distinctive pottery and architecture, spread widely in New Mexico
and Arizona through the establishment of many “Chaco outliers.”
After 1200 Chaco Canyon was
nearly abandoned as the region endured a fifty-year drought. Kintigh (1994:138)
notes that at the turn of the thirteenth century there was a renewed aggregation
of living units into large communities and abandonment of smaller
settlements. This suggests the
reestablishment of a regional system. This second wave of complexity also
collapsed. All this is reminiscent of the cycling, or rise and fall of
cheifdoms that Anderson (1994) describes for the prehistoric Southeast.
Stephen Lekson (1999) has formulated an explanation for
the rise and fall sequence of the Southwest that focuses on the significance of
what he calls the “Chaco Meridian.”
Lekson sees immense significance in the geographical aspects of the great
straight roads that radiated from the ritual center of Chaco Canyon.[5]
He notes that after the decline of Chaco the next large central place to emerge
in the region, the so-called Aztec Ruin on the Salmon River, is directly to the
north of Chaco and that one of the ritual roads goes north from Chaco in the
direction of the Aztec Ruin. And after the decline of Aztec a new, larger
central place emerged that we know as Paquime (Casas Grandes) in a region that
allowed for the building of an elaborate canal-based irrigation system.
Lekson makes much of the observation that Casas
Grandes, though 200 kilometers to the south of Chaco, is also exactly on the
Chaco Meridian. Lekson’s explanation focuses on a hypothetical religious elite
that adapted to successive drought crises by moving its center of operation
first directly north, and then directly south of its original cult center.
The
straight lines are the prehistoric roadways at Chaco Canyon
David
Wilcox’s (1999) interpretation of the hegemonic rise and falls in the Southwest
posits a system of competing polities that succeed one another rather than the
adaptation of a single cultural group that moves its center of operation. It
is, of course, possible that newly emergent groups tried to appropriate the
spiritual power and legitimacy of earlier dynasties. This phenomenon is well
known from state-based systems. So it is possible that Wilcox’s scenario can
also account for the phenomenon of the Chaco Meridian.
The debate over the nature of Southwestern complex
polities is reminiscent of similar controversies about Mississippian complex
chiefdoms. Wilcox points out that chiefdoms may be organized either around a
single sacred chief who symbolizes the apex of a polity or they may take a
different form that he calls “group-oriented” that is organized around a
council of chiefs. Few examples of
elite burials are found in the Southwest (though this may partly be a
consequence of the existence of cremation rituals). Wilcox contends that the
polity that emerged at Chaco Canyon started out as a ritual theocracy in which
an ethnic group of rainmakers migrated to the canyon, perhaps at the invitation
of the horticulturalists who already lived there. This group of ritual specialists
constituted a theocratic polity at first and the cult of the Great House was
established in the Chaco outliers to organize the collection of food and raw
materials. A new center was established at Aztec Ruin, but Wilcox believes that
this outlier became an independent and competing polity. He sees the emergence
of Chaco as stimulating secondary chiefdom formation in adjacent areas and the
emergence of “peer polities” that constitute a system of competing and allying
polities. Wilcox contends that institutionalized coercion eventually became a
more important feature of the Chacoan system. He cites evidence of mass burials
and cannibalism in the period just before the Chaco collapse. He characterizes
the transition from theocracy to institutionalized coercion as the emergence of
a tributary state. He thinks that the Chacoan hegemonic state conquered Chuska
to the east in order to gain control of timber resources.
But while Wilcox sees the Chacoan phenomenon as
involving a core/periphery hierarchy based on tribute-gathering, his
characterization of the Hohokam phenomenon in Arizona is quite different.
Hohokam settlements emerged in the context of the building of a large system
for irrigating maize horticulture in the Phoenix basis and adjacent regions. The
big Hohokam capital was a Snaketown. One of the main signatures of the Hohokam
religion was the circular ball court used in fertility rituals. The largest of
these ball courts was at Snaketown. Wilcox claims the centrality of Snaketown
was completely a matter of “ritual suzerainty” and that there was no coercive
element in the relationship between Snaketown and the Hohokam outliers.
Figure 4: Trade connections between the Southwest and adjacent regions (Wilcox 1999)
Kowalewski’s (1996) comparison of the Southwest
with other U.S. culture areas describes a radical core/periphery identity
separation that emerged between closed corporate Pueblo communities of
horticulturalists and the more nomadic foragers and raiders that lived around
them. The Pueblo peoples live in defensible towns, often atop mesas
(flat-topped mountains), where they were able to protect their stores of corn
from nomadic raiders. And the dramatic Anasazi cliff dwellings (e.g. Mesa
Verde) have obvious defensive advantages.
But Feinman, Nicholas and Upham (1996), in
their explicitly world-systemic comparison of Mesoamerica and the Southwest
(which ignores the issue of the interaction between these two macroregions),
characterize the Southwest as a region in which networks were open and
permeable, without strong boundaries between societies. The contrast with Kowalewski’s portrayal is
vivid. Perhaps the earlier system was
open, while the bounded Pueblo communities emerged after the Spanish invasion
or after nomads obtained horses. But the existence of the Anasazi cliff
dwellings, built hundreds of years before the arrival of Spaniards and horses,
looks functionally quite similar to the mesa communities of historically known
Pueblos. It is a lot of trouble to
build houses into a cliff and carry water up from below. Defense against raiders would be a likely
explanation. Defensive communities and conflictive relations are often
associated with strong cultural boundaries between the conflicting groups.
In her discussion of
Plains/Pueblo interactions Katherine Spielmann (1991a, 1991b, 1991c) delineates
two ways in which exchange between what had heretofore been relatively
autonomous groups might have developed into systemic exchange (core-periphery
differentiation in world-system terms).[6] The first, which she favors, is mutualism, in which sedentary
horticulturalists engage in systematic exchange with nomadic hunters in such a
way that the total caloric intake over the necessary variety of food types
mutually benefits both groups. The second,
favored by Wilcox (1991) and Baugh (1991), is buffering in which sedentary agriculturists use exchange with
nomadic hunters to supplement food supplies during periods of scarcity.
The issue of pacific vs. conflictive
relations between horticulturalists and foragers has been raised in many other
contexts. Gregg’s (1988) discussion of
the expansion of gardening into Europe portrays a symbiotic relationship
between farmers and foragers who exchanged complementary goods. Spielmann’s
(1991) rendering of this relationship in the Southwest also favors a symbiotic
interpretation in which complementary surpluses were exchanged between Pueblos
and nomadic foragers. Baugh (1991) uses world-systems concepts to analyze this
same relationship. Both he and Wilcox (1991) see elements of a core/periphery
hierarchy in which the sedentary groups (Pueblos) were benefiting more than the
nomadic foragers from the interaction.
One
hypothesis that stems from the iteration model of world-systems evolution
(Chase-Dunn and Hall 1997: Chapter 6) is that all systems go through cycles of
increase and decrease in the level of conflict among societies. Farmer/forager interactions are more likely
to be symbiotic under conditions of low population pressure, but when
ecological degradation, climate change or population growth raises the costs of
production, conflict among societies is likely to increase. It is during these periods that new
institutional solutions are more likely to be invented and implemented. But if
new hierarchies or new technologies are not employed conflict itself will
reduce the population and a period of relative peace will return.
Randall
McGuire’s (1996) study of core/periphery relations in the Hohokam interaction
sphere reveals evidence of the rise of a culturally innovative center near what
is now Phoenix, Arizona. Several different surrounding peripheral regions
adopted styles from this core. McGuire demonstrates the dangers of applying
assumptions based on the modern world-system to stateless systems. He finds
that the peripheral Hohokam regions did not culturally converge, but rather
they become more different from one another as climate changed and they
interacted with other distant core regions.
Of course the hypothesis of convergence among peripheral regions is also
contradicted for the modern world-system because peripheral areas often
experience quite different developmental paths.
Little is known
archaeologically about nomad-nomad relations in the Southwest. Some of the
nomadic groups may have been recent arrivals (Wilcox 1981a). Baugh (1991) and Wilcox (1991) suggest that
trade among nomadic foragers was an alternative to centralization in
stabilizing volatile food supplies. The arrival of Spaniards (from 1530s on)
vastly disrupted intergroup relations (see Hall 1989). The alliances that some of the nomadic
groups made with the Spanish (e.g. the Comanches) may have had prehistoric
analogues in which nomadic groups allied with particular Pueblo core societies
to provide protection against other nomadic groups, and possibly to serve as
allies in disputes among Pueblo societies.
The
nested network approach to bounding world-systems is helpful for understanding
the ways in which precontact North American societies were linked to one
another and the relevance of these links for processes of development. As with
state-based systems, bulk goods, political-military interactions, prestige
goods networks and information networks formed a set of nested nets of
increasing spatial scale. Some of the earliest explicit usage of world-systems
concepts by archaeologists (Whitecotton
and Pailes 1986; Weigand and Harbottle 1977) were arguments that the Southwest
constituted a periphery of the Mesoamerican world-system.
There
has been a huge controversy about the importance or unimportance of links
between the U.S. Southwest and Mesoamerica (Mathien and McGuire 1986; Cobb
Maymon and McGuire 1999)). An early
advocate of the importance of these linkages was Charles Dipeso (1974) who
argued that the great houses at Chaco Canyon were erected as warehouses and
dwellings for a small group of Toltec traders, the pochteca[7]. DiPeso contended that it was the withdrawal
of the Toltec pochteca in the twelfth
century that prompted the rapid decline of the Chaco Canyon polity.
That there were at least
some connections between the Greater Southwest and Mesoamerica is now widely
accepted. However, their importance for
local development is still the subject of considerable dispute. Weigand
and Harbottle (1993) continue to argue that the Southwest was a periphery of
Mesoamerica based on the proven fact that turquoise from the Cerrillos Hills
just south of Santa Fe was mined and exported to the states in the Valley of
Mexico (where Mexico City now is). They
claim that turquoise played an important role in the overall structure of trade
between these two regions and that the demand for turquoise was an important
factor in the rise of complex societies in the Southwest. Other features of societies in the
Southwest, such ball-courts, ceremonial mounds and scarlet macaws kept as pets,
also suggest influences from Mesoamerica. Striking similarities in Southwestern
and Mayan mythology (spider woman, warrior twins, etc.) are downplayed by Cobb,
Maymon and McGuire (1999). They suggest that the feather-serpent motif
associated with Quetzecoatl may have been part of an ancestral mythology common
to all the Native Americans. Cobb, Maymon and McGuire also contend that
important large settlements in Western Mexico linked to the states of the Valley
of Mexico were are relatively recent phenomenon, and that before that the huge
region of northern Mexico was inhabited only by nomadic foragers.
Late Mississippian chiefdoms such as that at
Etowah in Georgia have been found to have produced iconographs that employ
design elements and symbolic content that is strikingly similar to the icons of
Mesoamerican states (see Figure 3). (e.g. Anderson (1994:83). Archaeologists refer to the cultural complex
that produced these iconographs as the “Southern Cult” (Galloway 1989). Most
archaeologists contend that influences from Mesoamerica were unimportant to the
processes of development that occurred in the Southwest and other areas of what
is now the United States. Some argue that these cultural resemblances are due
to parallel evolution, not interaction (e.g. Fagan 1991).
Figure 3:This iconograph was found at Etowah , Georgia. (Anderson (1994:83)
The evidence of turquoise sourcing shows that there was definitely
trade between highland Mesoamerica and the Southwest. Certainly there was
down-the-line trade, but there could have also been at least a few
long-distance trade expeditions undertaken by pochteca from the Mexican highlands or from Western Mexico. It is
hard to imagine how down-the-line trade could have transmitted the ideologies
behind the iconographs of the Southern Cult, though the predominant consensus
among both Southwestern and Southeastern archaeologists (e.g. Webb 1989; Cobb,
Maymon and McGuire 1999) is that direct influence was slight. The predominant
opinion among archaeologists after a several decades of dispute is that local
and regional processes were much more important determinants of development in
the Southwest and the Southeast than were the long-distance connections with
Mesoamerica.
The Plains
The
Plains Indians are best known in the ethnographic literature for large bands of
horsemen who hunted buffalo and made war.
But horses were introduced by Spaniards in the sixteenth century and
rapidly adopted by nomadic groups on the Plains. The coming of the horse had a
revolutionary effect on the societies of the Plains because of increased
mobility and increased efficiency of the hunt.
Groups that formerly needed to disperse to find food could now come
together to form larger polities and alliances. These developments had important affects on adjacent regions
where peoples both adopted Plains features and organized to defend against the
military power of the Plains peoples.
But an earlier story is less well known. Contemporaneous with the emergence of the
Mississippian interaction sphere was the florescence on the southern Plains of
a mound-building culture that had important trade and cultural links with both
the Mississippian heartland, especially Spiro, and with the Southwest (Vehik
and Baugh 1994). This is known as Caddoan culture. The Caddoans built large mounds and villages and planted corn,
but they were culturally somewhat
different from similarly complex societies to the east and west. This cultural distinction might be
interpreted as only marginal differentiation if we did not also know that the
Caddoans cut themselves of from trading beyond the Plains and constructed a
network centered on the Caddoan heartland (Vehik and Baugh 1994). This was an instance of a semiperipheral
region turning itself into a core by means of delinking from other distant
cores. Around 1200 C.E. Caddoan trade
with the Mississippian societies collapsed.
This caused societies on the eastern Plains (on the border between the
Plains and the Mississippian interaction sphere) to decrease in
complexity. It also created a Plains
trade network centered in the Caddoan heartland that was largely separated from
both the Southwest and the Mississippian networks. Later the Caddoan core declined at about the same time as the
Cahokian core chiefdoms. And this was contemporaneous with declines in the
Southwest. A fascinating instance of synchronous growth/decline phases of
cities and empires in East and West Asia from 650 BCE to 1500 CE (Chase-Dunn,
Manning and Hall 2000) suggests the possibility of similar synchronies in the
growth/decline sequences in the Americas.
The
Great Basin
In what are now the states of Utah,
Nevada and eastern California is a region of high desert in which water does
not flow to the seas, but rather into large land-locked basins. Some rather
large rivers run for hundreds of miles and disappear into the sand. It is an ecologically sparse environment
that is punctuated by small areas where water, game and plant life are more
abundant. In addition to the lack of rainfall in most areas, the distribution
of rainfall varies greatly from year to year. This ecologically coarse
environment was the home of nomadic foragers, known ethnohistorically as the
Paiute, the Western Shoshone and the Ute, who adapted to the desert environment
by moving to where food was most available. This region was also the
inspiration of the theory of social evolution known as cultural ecology that
emphasizes the importance of social adaptations to the local environment.
Julian Steward, a major figure in the development of cultural ecology (1938;
1955), did important ethnographic surveys in which he charted population
densities across the entire Great Basin region and analyzed why there were
important organizational and cultural differences among the ethnohistorically
known groups in this large region. The ecological constraints on human
societies are dramatic in the basin and range geography studied by Stewart.
As the debate about whether or not
the Southwest was a periphery of Mesoamerica has raged, there has been an
analogous controversy over whether or not the Great Basin was a periphery to
the Southwest. The early peoples who
moved into the Great Basin occupied the few locations where there were good
supplies of game and food plants. Subsequent population growth and more recent
arrivals led groups to occupy more marginal regions. What emerged was a mosaic of social structures that mapped the
ecological geography almost perfectly. The desert mosaic was composed of small
settled groups near isolated food resources (e.g. near rivers and lakes)
surrounded by more nomadic groups who were following the yearly variation in
food availability. This desert mosaic
was impinged upon by outside influences from California, the Plains and the
Southwest, but despite these factors and changes in climate, the basic mosaic
pattern still existed when the Euroamericans came to explore this region in the
1840s.
Southwestern-type village-living horticulturalists and pot-makers,
called the Fremont culture, emerged in the southern Great Basin in about 400
C.E. Upham (1994) has argued that Great
Basin peoples alternated back and
forth from settled versus nomadic strategies depending on climatic, ecological
and interactional shifts. Trade
networks that are visible in the potsherd evidence (broken pieces of pots with
distinctive designs) indicate that the settled groups used trade networks to
insure against local food shortages (McDonald 1994). Between 1250 and 1350 C.E. the Fremont peoples abandoned the
Great Basin, probably because of the droughts of the Little Ice Age. It was
this same climatic change that probably caused the abandonment of the Anasazi
regions on the Colorado plateau to the south.
New groups of people, presumably the ancestors of the Shoshoni, may have
moved into the region at this time (Madsen and Rhode 1994).
Julian
Steward’s (1938) analysis shows that
the local sedentary core groups developed religious rituals, collective
property rights, and political organization at the village level, whereas their
more nomadic neighbors existed primarily with only family-level
organization. Steward does not discuss
the interactions among these groups. Indeed he claims that there was little
trade and little interaction. But the
groups occupying prime sites would have needed to protect their resources from
intruders. They developed political organization to regulate internal access,
but also to protect from external appropriation. Steward argues that warfare was not an important emphasis for any
of these groups, except those few who adopted some of the cultural trappings
from neighboring societies on the Great Plains. Nevertheless the development of bounded territories and the
enforcement of legitimate claims to resources by means of coercion – even if
only yelling and stone-throwing – represented an institutional response to a
core/periphery differentiation in which some groups needed to protect their
ecological resources from other groups.
As for the peripheral peoples, their culture, as
Steward (1938) says, was primarily
“gastric” -- focused on food. In order
to not starve they needed to cache enough food to survive through the winter.
The key food for this purpose was the nut from the cone of the Pinion
pine. These were available for harvest
in the fall. Pinion nut crops varied
greatly from location to location and from year to year, and when they were
plentiful in one location there was usually enough for all those who had the ability
to harvest and process them. This set of characteristics was not propitious for
the development of property rights, and so groups did not try to control
particular Pinion stands.
This
was a rather elemental form of a local core/periphery structure. There was no
core/periphery hierarchy in which core societies exploited the labor or
resources of peripheral societies. What the core societies did was to protect
their assets from potential peripheral intruders. And for their part the peripheral peoples were disorganized by
the ecological circumstances, in which “optimal foraging strategy” dictated
that they remain spread out in very small groups. Thus when hunger gripped them
they had not the ability to attack the stores of the core societies. Rather
they simply starved.
Contrary to Steward’s claim that
Great Basin peoples did not trade, their is ample archaeological evidence that
they did participate in long distance trade networks.
Bennyhoff
and Hughes (1987) show that an olivella shell-based trade network that linked
the Western Great Basin to the coast of Northern California expanded from 2000
B.C.E. to 200 B.C.E. and then contracted from 200 B.C.E. to 700 C.E. and then
expanded again from 700 C.E. to 1500 C.E.
After 1500 C.E. there was a major expansion within California based on a
different kind of shells (clam disk beads), but this network did not extend
into the Great Basin. Hughes (1994)
shows that two cave dwellings in the Western Great Basin that are rather close
to one another, were parts of very different obsidian exchange networks, but
were linked into the same shell network. This cautions us against assuming that
all sorts of trade items fit into the same exchange networks.
California
This
section considers the whole California culture area in comparative perspective.
In California only a few societies had clans and moieties,[8]
and there were no hierarchical kinship systems. In the area of Northern California that was studied by Chase-Dunn
and Mann (1998) (see also Chase-Dunn and Hall 1997: Chapter 7) the largest
polity was the tribelet, a very small unit consisting of a few villages. Larger political entities did not exist
except in the San Joaquin Valley (Yokuts) and in Santa Barbara (Chumash). Though California has been characterized as
a culture area based on social structural and artifactual similarities, there
were enormous differences within California as well. Linguistic differences are the most obvious. Linguists contend that six major linguistic
stocks were present in indigenous California.
Whereas clay pots were not used by most of the indigenous peoples of
California, the Western Mono, Paiute and some of the Yokuts peoples made
pottery in southeastern California. The
only maize horticulturalists in California lived along the Colorado River on
the border between California and Arizona, although nearly all groups in
California planted small amounts of tobacco.
We have already mentioned the
studies of trade linkages between California and the Great Basin. These show
that the expansion and contraction of trade networks is a feature of
intersocietal relations even when the constituent societies are very
egalitarian. Shell and shell artifacts from the Pacific were traded with the
Southwest. Wilcox (1999) emphasizes the notion that the Chumash traded abalone
shell and shell fishhooks with the Chacoans.
Interaction Nets over the Long Run
Rather than a
simple model of interaction nets getting larger, the sequence found in several
North American regions shows a more complicated pattern. The “settlement
systems” of nomads were spatially huge as they ranged over great territories.
As population density increased these nomadic ranges became smaller until the
transition to sedentism emerged. The first sedentary societies had very small
interaction nets, but these got larger and then smaller again, and then once
again larger. This is network pulsation.
The early Paleoindians were explorers and colonizers of land that was yet uninhabited. They chased herds of big game, and they also tended to concentrate in areas that had greater amounts of game and other foods (Anderson 1995). As with other colonization sequences, the first arrivals probably took the best locations and then tried to hang on to them. Population density was so low at first that there were plenty of good new locations, and so interactions among groups were mainly friendly. But as the best locations became utilized and the megafauna became scarce, more competition emerged. Some groups developed seasonal migration rounds in particular territories and tried to defend the best camping sites against new arrivals. The small bands always needed to gather with other bands seasonally to trade and exchange marriage partners. But the sizes of these seasonal gatherings were limited by the availability of food stocks at the meeting place.
A kind of
territoriality emerged among nomads, but it was probably not well
institutionalized. We do not know whether or not the Paleoindian pioneers
brought with them a cultural apparatus for claiming and defending collective
territory. The Polynesian pioneers of the Pacific brought with them an
ancestral culture that included the concepts of mana an tapu [9]that
were the basis of sacred chiefdoms. The Polynesians temporarily abandoned
ceremony and hierarchy and to become egalitarian hunter-gatheres when they
landed on islands populated by large and delicious flightless megabirds (e.g.
New Zealand). But when the birds were all eaten, the Polynesians reconstructed
class societies and territoriality using the linguistic and ideological
equipment that was embedded in their ancestral culture.
Very likely the immigrants to North America did not have such a hierarchical cultural heritage because the Asian societies from whence they came had not yet developed ideas and kin relations appropriate to the symbolization of the linkage between place and blood. This means that the original America pioneers had to invent these institutions as they came to need them.
The Paleoindian interaction networks were large, especially for exchanging fine and useful objects such as Clovis points and exotic lithic blanks. Cultural styles were widely shared across macroregions. And the territories exploited by human groups were huge, though the numbers of people in each macroband were small. As bands became somewhat less mobile they developed more differentiated tool-kits depending in part on the nature of the territories they inhabited, but also as a way of symbolizing alliances with friends and differences with foes.
The question of
systemic versus conjunctural or intermittent relations among macro-regions in
prehistoric North America remains. The consensus among archaeologists is that
the patterns of network development, complexity and hierarchy seen in the
Southwest were predominantly endogenously caused, though exogenous impacts from
climate change obviously were important. The notion that Toltec pochtecas from
Mesoamerica were major players in the emergence of large polities in the
southwest has been largely dismissed and no direct evidence in support of this
idea has been found. The idea that the export of turquoise to the South had an
important impact on developments in the Southwest is plausible, but the
mechanisms by which this may have worked have not been investigated. Did the
mining and trading of turquoise play an important role in the development of
the Chacoan polity? The turquoise trade constitutes a prestige good connection
with Mesoamerica, but how important was it in terms of volume and what role did
it play in Southwestern social change? These questions have not been answered
by those who point to the turquoise connection as evidence that the Southwest
was a periphery of Mesoamerica.
References
Anderson, David
G. 1994. The Savannah River
Chiefdoms: Political Change in the Late
Prehistoric Southeast. Tuscaloosa,
AL: University of Alabama Press.
Baugh, Timothy. 1984. "Southern
Plains Societies and Eastern Frontier Pueblo Exchange during the Protohistoric
Period." Pp. 156-67 in Papers of the Archaeological Society of New
Mexico, Volume 9. Albuquerque: Archaeological Society Press.
_____. 1991. "Ecology and Exchange:
The Dynamics of Plains-Pueblo Interaction." Pp. 102-107 in Farmers,
Hunters, and Colonists: Interaction Between the Southwest and the Southern
Plains, edited by Katherine A. Spielmann. Tucson: University of Arizona
Press.
_____. 1992. "Regional Polities and
Socioeconomic Exchange: Caddoan and Puebloan Interaction." Paper presented
at Southeast Archaeological Conference, Little Rock, AR.
Baugh, Timothy G. and Jonathan E. Ericson
(eds.) Prehistoric Exchange Systems in North America. New York: Plenum
Press.
Bennyhoff, J.A. and R.E. Hughes 1987 "Shell bead and ornament exchange networks between California and the Great Basin" Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 64,2.
Blanton, Richard, Stephen Kowalewski and
Gary Feinman 1992 "The Mesoamerican world- system" Review
15,3:419-426.
Brandt, Elizabeth A. 1994.
"Egalitarianism, Hierarchy, and Centralization in the Pueblos." Pp.
9-23 in The Ancient Southwestern Community: Models and Methods for the Study
of Prehistoric Social Organization. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico
Press.
Brose,
David S. 1994 "Trade and exchange in the Midwestern United States,"
in Baugh
and
Ericson.
Caldwell,
Joseph R. 1964 "Interaction spheres in prehistory." Hopewellian
Studies 12,6:133-156 Springfield,IL.: Illinois State Museum Scientific
Papers
Chase-Dunn,
Christopher and Thomas D. Hall 1997 Rise and Demise: Comparing World-Systems
Boulder, CO.: Westview Press.
Christopher
Chase-Dunn and Thomas D. Hall, 1998
"World-Systems in North America: Networks, Rise and Fall and Pulsations of
Trade in Stateless Systems," American Indian Culture and Research
Journal 22,1:23-72.
http://wsarch.ucr.edu/archive/papers/c-d&hall/isa97.htm
Christopher
Chase-Dunn and Andrew K. Jorgenson, “Regions and Interaction Networks: an
institutional materialist perspective,” 2003
International Journal of Comparative Sociology
44,1:433-450.
Chase-Dunn,
Christopher and Kelly M. Mann 1998 The Wintu and Their Neighbors: A
Very
Small World-System in Northern California. University of Arizona Press.
Chase-Dunn, C., Susan Manning
and Thomas D. Hall 2000 “Rise and fall: East-West
synchrony
and Indic exceptionalism reexamined,” Social
Science History 24,4:727-
754.
Cobb,
Charles R. Jeffrey Maymon and Randall McGuire 1999 “Feathered, horned and
antlered serpents: Mesoamerican connections with
the Southwest and the Southeast”
Pp. 165-182 in Neitzel.
Collins,
Randall 1992 "The geographical and economic world-systems of kinship-based
and
agrarian-coercive societies." Review
15,3:373-88 (Summer). Westport, CT.:
Greenwood Press.
Dean,
Jeffrey S., George J. Gumerman, Joshua M. Epstein, Robert L. Axtell, Alan C.
Swedlund, Miles T. Parker and Stephen McCarroll
2000 “Understanding Anasazi
culture change through agent-based modeling,” Pp.
179-206 in Kohler and
Gumerman.
Dozier,
Edward P. 1970. The Pueblo Indians of North America. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.
Ericson,
Jonathan and Timothy Baugh (eds.) 1993 The American Southwest and
Mesoamerica: Systems of Prehistoric Change. New York: Plenum.
________________________________1994
"Systematics of the study of prehistoric
regional
exchange in North America," Pp. 3-16 In Timothy Baugh and Jonathan E.
Ericson (eds.) Prehistoric Exchange Systems in North America. New York:
Plenum Press.
Fagan,
M. Brian 1991 Ancient North America: The Archaeology of a Continent. London:
Thames and Hudson.
Feinman,
Gary. M., and Linda. M. Nicholas. 1996. "The Changing Structure of
Macroregional Mesoamerica." Journal of World-Systems Research 2:x.
Feinman,
Gary, Linda Nicholas and Steadman Upham 1996 "A macroregional
comparison
of the American Southwest and Highland Mesoamerica in pre-Columbian times:
preliminary thoughts and implications" PP. 65-76 in Peregrine and Feinman.
Feinman,
Gary and Jill Neitzel 1984 "Too many types: an overview of sedentary
prestate societies in the Americas" Pp. 39-102 in M. B. Schiffer (ed.) Advances
in Archaeological Method and Theory, Volume 7. New York: Academic Press.
Ford,
Richard I. (19xx) “Inter-indian exchange in the Southwest,” Pp. 711-722 in
Alfonso
Ortiz (ed.) Handbook of North American Indians,
Vol. 10, Southwest. Washington DC:
Smithsonian Press.
Foster,
Michael S. 1986. "The Mesoamerican Connection: A View from the
South." Pp. 55-
69 in Ripples in the Chichimec Sea: New
Considerations of Southwestern-Mesoamerican
Interactions, edited by Frances Mathien and Randall McGuire. Carbondale, IL:
Southern Illinois University Press.
Gregg,
Susan A. 1988 Foragers and Farmers: Population Interaction and Agricultural
Expansion in Prehistoric Europe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
______(ed.)
1991 Between Bands and States. Center for Archaeological Investigations,
Occasional Paper #9, Carbondale, IL.: Soutehern Illinois University.
Habicht-Mauche,
Judith A. 1991. "Evidence for the Manufacture of Southwestern-style
Culinary Ceramics on the Southern
Plains." Pp. 51-70 in Farmers, Hunters, and
Colonists: Interaction Between the Southwest and
the Southern Plains, edited by
Katherine A.
Spielmann.
Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Hall,
Thomas D. 1989. Social Change in the Southwest, 1350-1880. Lawrence, KS:
University Press of Kansas.
_____________.
1991 "Nomadic peripheries" in C. Chase-Dunn and T.D. Hall (eds.)
Core/Periphery Relations in Precapitalist Worlds. Boulder, CO.: Westview.
Hughes,
Richard E. 1994 "Mosaic patterning in prehistoric California-Great Basin
exchange," Pp. 363-384 in Baugh and Ericson.
Johnson,
Gregory A. 1989. "Dynamics of Southwestern Prehistory: Far
Outside--Looking
In." Pp. 371-389 in Dynamics of Southwest
Prehistory, edited by Linda S. Cordell and
George J. Gumerman. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian
Institution Press.
Johnson,
Jay K. "Prehistoric exchange in the Southeast," Pp. 99-126 in Baugh
and Ericson.
Kohler,
Timothy A. and George J. Gumerman (eds.) Dynamics in Human and Primate
Societies.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Kohler,
Timothy A., James Kresl, Carla Van West, Eric Carr and Richard H. Wilshusen
2000
“Be there then: a modeling approach to settlement
determinants and spatial
efficiency among late ancestral Pueblo populations
of the Mesa Verde Region, U.S.
Southwest,”Pp. 145-178 in Kohler and Gummerman.
Kintigh,
Keith W. 1994. "Chaco, Communal Architecture,and Cibolan
Aggregation."
Pp,
131-140 in The Ancient Southwestern Community: Models and Methods for the
Study of Prehistoric Social Organization. Albuquerque: University of New
Mexico Press.
Kirch,
Patrick V. 1984 The Evolution of Polynesian Chiefdoms. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Lafferty,
Robert H. III 1994 "Prehistoric exchange in the Lower Mississippi
valley," Pp. 177-214 in Baugh and Ericson.
Leckson,
Stephen H. 1999 The Chaco Meridian: Centers of Political Power in the
Ancient Southwest.
Walnut Creek, CA; Altamira Press.
Levine,
Francis. 1991. "Economic Perspectives on the Comanchero Trade." Pp.
155-169
in
Farmers, Hunters, and Colonists: Interaction Between the Southwest and the
Southern Plains, edited by Katherine A. Spielmann. Tucson: University of
Arizona Press.
Lintz,
Christopher. 1991. "Texas Panhandle-Pueblo Interactions from the
Thirteenth Through the Sixteenth Century." Pp. 89-106 in Farmers,
Hunters, and Colonists: Interaction Between the Southwest and the Southern
Plains, edited by Katherine A. Spielmann. Tucson: University of Arizona
Press.
Mathien,
Frances. 1986. "External Contacts and the Chaco Anasazi." Pp. 220-242
in Ripples in the Chichimec Sea: New Considerations of
Southwestern-Mesoamerican Interactions, edited by Frances Mathien and
Randall McGuire. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Mathien,
Frances Joan and Randall McGuire, eds. 1986. Ripples in the Chichimec Sea:
Consideration
of Southwestern-Mesoamerican Interactions. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
McGuire,
Randall H. 1980. "The Mesoamerican Connection in the Southwest." Kiva
46:1-2:3-38.
_____.
1983. "Prestige Economies in the Prehistoric Southwestern Periphery."
Paper presented at Society for American Archaeology, Pittsburgh.
_____.
1986. "Economies and Modes of Production in the Prehistoric Southwestern
Periphery." Pp. 243-269 in Ripples in the Chichimec Sea: New
Considerations of Southwestern-Mesoamerican Interactions, edited by Frances
Mathien and Randall McGuire. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University
Press.
_____.
1989. "The Greater Southwest as a Periphery of Mesoamerica. Pp. 40-66 in Centre
and Periphery: Comparative Studies in Archeology, edited by Timothy
Champion. London: Unwin.
_____.
1992. A Marxist Archaeology. New York: Academic.
_____. 1996.
"The Limits of World-Systems Theory for the Study of Prehistory." Pp.
51-
64
in Pre-Columbian World-Systems, edited by Peter N. Peregrine and Gary M.
Feinman. (Monographs in World Archaeology No. 26) Madison, WI: Prehistory
Press, 1996.
Neitzel,
Jill E. 1994. "Boundary Dynamics in the Chacoan Region System." Pp.
209-
240
in TheAncient Southwestern Community: Models and Methods for the Study of
Prehistoric Social Organization. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico
Press.
Neitzel,
Jill E. (ed.) Great towns and regional polities in the prehistoric American southwest
and southeast. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
O'Brien,
Patricia 1992 "The world-system" of Cahokia within the middle
Mississippian
tradition," Review 15,3:389-418 (Summer).
Pailes,
Richard A. and Joseph W. Whitecotton. 1975. "Greater Southwest and
Mesoamerican World-Systems." Paper presented at the Southwestern
Anthropological Association meeting, Santa Fe, NM, March. Revised version
published 1979. [This is the first application of world-system theory to
precapitalist settings]
_____.
1979. "The Greater Southwest and Mesoamerican "World" System: an
Exploratory Model of Frontier Relationships." Pp. 105-121 in The
Frontier: Comparative Studies, Vol. 2, edited by W. W. Savage and S. I.
Thompson. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Patterson,
Orlando. 1982. Slavery and Social Death: A Comparative Study. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Peregrine,
Peter. 1991. "Prehistoric Chiefdoms on the American Mid-contentinent: A
World-system Based on Prestige Goods." Pp. 193-211 in Core/Periphery
Relations in Precapitalist Worlds, edited by Christopher Chase-Dunn and
Thomas D. Hall. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
_____.
1992. Mississippian Evolution: A World-System Perspective. Monographs in
World Archaeology No. 9. Prehistory Press, Madison, WI.
_____.
1995. "Networks of Power: The Mississippian World-System." Pp.
132-143 in Native American Interactions, edited by M. Nassaney and K.
Sassaman. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press.
_____.
1996a. "Archaeology and World-Systems Theory." Sociological
Inquiry.
______1996b
"Hyperopia or Hyperbole?: the Mississippian World-System" Pp.39-50 in
Peter N. Peregrine and Gary M. Feinman (eds.) Pre-Columbian World Systems.
Madison: Prehistory Press.
Peregrine,
Peter N. and Gary M. Feinman. 1996. PreColumbian World Systems.
(Monographs in World Archaeology No. 26) Madison, WI: Prehistory Press.
Price,
T. Douglas and James A. Brown (eds.) 1985. Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers: The
Emergence of Cultural Complexity. New York: Academic Press.
Spielmann,
Katherine A. 1989. "Colonists, Hunters, Farmers: Plains-Pueblo Interaction
the Seventeenth Century." Pp. 101-113 in Columbian Consequences.
Volume 1: Archaeological and Historical Perspectives on the Spanish
Borderlands, edited by David Hurst Thomas. Washington, D. C.: Smithsonian
Institution Press.
_____,
ed. 1991a. Farmers, Hunters, and Colonists: Interaction Between the
Southwest and the Southern Plains. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
_____.
1991b. "Interaction Among Nonhierarchical Societies." Pp. 1-17 in in Farmers,
Hunters, and Colonists: Interaction Between the Southwest and the Southern
Plains, edited by Katherine A. Spielmann. Tucson: University of Arizona
Press.
_____.
1991c. "Coercion or Cooperation? Plains-Pueblo Interaction in the
Protohistoric Period." Pp. 36-50 in Farmers, Hunters, and Colonists:
Interaction Between the Southwest and the Southern Plains, edited by
Katherine A. Spielmann. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Stark,
Barbara. 1986. "Perspectives on the Peripheries of Mesoamerica." Pp.
270-290 in Ripples in the Chichimec Sea: New Considerations of
Southwestern-Mesoamerican Interactions, edited by Frances Mathien and
Randall McGuire. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Steward,
Julian 1938 Basin-Plateau Aboriginal Sociopolitical Groups. Bureau of
American
Ethnology, Bulletin 120 Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution
Tainter,
Joseph A. 1988. The Collapse of Complex Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge
University
Press.
Upham,
Steadman. 1982. Polities and Power: An Economic and Political History of the
Western Pueblo. New York: Academic Press.
_____.
1986. "Imperialists, Isolationists, World Systems and Political Realities:
Perspectives on Mesoamerican-Southwestern Interaction." Pp. 205-219 in Ripples
in the Chichimec Sea: New Considerations of Southwestern-Mesoamerican
Interactions, edited by Frances Mathien and Randall McGuire. Carbondale,
IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
_____.
1990. The Evolution of Political Systems: Sociopolitics in Small-Scale
Sedentary Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
_____.
1992. "Interaction and Isolation: The Empty Spaces in Panregional
Political and Economic Systems." Pp 139-152 in Resources, Power, and
Interregional Interaction, edited by Edward Schortman and Patricia Urban.
New York: Plenum Press.
Upham,
Steadman, Gary Feinman and Linda Nicholas. 1992. "New Perspectives on the
Southwest and Highland Mesoamerica: A Macroregional Approach." Review
15:3(Sum.):427-451.
Upham,
Steadman, Kent G. Lightfoot, and Roberta A. Jewett, eds. 1989. The
Sociopolitical Structure of Prehistoric Southwestern Societies. Boulder,
CO: Westview Press.
Vehik,
Susan C. and Timothy G. Baugh 1994 "Prehistoric Plains trade," Pp.
249-274 in
Baugh
and Ericson.
Weigand,
Phil C. 1992. "Central Mexico's Influences in Jalisco and Nayarit During
the Classic Period. Pp. 221-232 in Resources, Power, and Interregional
Interaction, edited by Edward Schortman and Patricia Urban. New York:
Plenum Press.
Weigand,
Phil C., Garman Harbottle and Edward V. Sayre
1977
"Turquoise sources and source analysis: Mesoamerica and the Southwestern
U.S.A." Pp. 1534 in T. K. Earle and J. E. Ericson (eds.) Exchange Systems
in Prehistory. New York: Academic Press
Weigand,
Phil C. and Garman Harbottle 1993 "The role of turquoises in the ancient
Mesoamerican trade structure," Pp. 159-178 in Ericson and Baugh.
Whitecotton,
Joseph W. and Richard A. Pailes. 1979. "Mesoamerica as an Historical Unit:
A World-System Model." Paper presented to XLIII International Congress of
Americanists, Vancouver.
_____.
1983. "Pre-Columbian New World Systems." Paper presented at Society
for American Archaeology, Pittsburgh.
_____.
1986. "New World Precolumbian World Systems." Pp. 183-204 in Ripples
in
the
Chichimec Sea: New Considerations of Southwestern-Mesoamerican Interactions, edited by Frances Mathien and Randall McGuire.
Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press
Wilcox,
David R. 1984 "Multi-Ethnic Division of Labor in the Protohistoric
Southwest
During the Protohistoric Period." Pp. 141-154
in Papers of the Archaeological Society of
New Mexico 9. Albuquerque: Archaeological Society Press.
_______
1986a. "A Historical Analysis of the Problem of Southwestern-Mesoamerican
Connections." Pp. 9-44 in Ripples in the Chichimec Sea: New
Considerations of Southwestern-Mesoamerican Interactions, edited by Frances
Mathien and Randall McGuire. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University
Press.
_____.
1986b. "The Tepiman Connection: A Model of Mesoamerican-Southwestern
Interaction. Pp. 135-154 in Ripples in the Chichimec Sea: New Considerations
of Southwestern-Mesoamerican Interactions, edited by Frances Mathien and
Randall McGuire. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
_____.
1991. "Changing Contexts of Pueblo Adaptations, A.D. 1250-1600." Pp.
128-154 in Farmers, Hunters, and Colonists: Interaction Between the
Southwest and the Southern Plains, edited by Katherine A. Spielmann.
Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
_____.
1993. "The Evolution of the Chacoan Polity." Pp. 76-90 in Chimney
Rock Achaeological Symposium, edited by J. McKim Malville and Gary Matlock.
USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-227. Fort Collins, CO: USDA
Forest Service.
Wilcox,
David R. 1999 “A Peregrine view of macroregional systems in the North American
Southwest,” Pp. 115-142 in Jill E. Neitzel (ed.) Great
Towns and Regional Polities in the
Prehistoric Southwest and Southeast. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Wills,
W. H. and Robert D. Leonard, eds. 1994. The Ancient Southwestern
Community:
Models and Methods for the Study of Prehistoric Social Organization. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Wilkinson,
David 1991 "Cores, peripheries and civilizations" Pp. 113-166 in C.
Chase- Dunn and T.D. Hall (eds.) Core/Periphery Relations in Precapitalist
Worlds Boulder,CO.: Westview.
Wissler,
Clark. 1927. "The Culture Area Concept in
Social Anthropology." American Journal of Sociology
32:6(May):881-891.
Wright,
Henry T. 2000 “Agent-based modeling of small-scale societies: state of the art
and future prospects.” Pp. 373-386 in Kohler and Gumerman.