Prehistoric Macaw Breeding in the North American Southwest Paul E. Minnis; Michael E. Whalen; Jane H. Kelley; Joe D. Stewart American Antiquity, Vol. 58, No. 2 (Apt., 1993), 270-276. Stable URL: butp//links jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-73 16% 28 199304% 2958%3A2%3C270%3APMBITNG3E2.0,CO%3B2-0 American Antiquity is currently published by Society for American Archaeology. ‘Your use of the ISTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use, available at hhup://uk,jstor.org/abouvterms.himl. JSTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you ‘may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at hup:/fuk.jstor.org/journals/sam html Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the sereen or printed page of such transmission, STOR is an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to creating and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals, For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support @jstor.org. hup//uk jstororg/ Tue Mar 1 13:26:22 2005TORIC MACAW BREEDING IN THE NORTH AMERICAN SOUTHWEST Paul E. Minnis, Michael E. Whalen, Jane H, Kelley, and Joe D. Stewart ‘The scarlet macaw (Ara macao) was an important prehistoric trade item in northern Mexico and southwestern {United States’ Paguime for Casas Grande) tn northwestern Chihuahua has been assumed to have dominated or ‘even monopolized the macaw trade. Thi conclusion ts resll of the fact that Paguimé isthe onl site with ‘ridence of substantial macaw-breeding facilites. Two recent archaeological projects im Chihuahua indicate that ‘macaw production was no limited to Casas Grandes. Furthermore. the pltcal relations of production for these ritually and economically iniportamt birds difered depending on whether oF not the producers were part of the ‘complex polity centered at Casas Grandes En uempos preispdnicos, guacamayas Ata macao) fueron de mucha importanciaen ef ritual ven fos sistemas ‘econdmicos del suroeste de los Estados Unidos del nore de Mesico. Por muchos aos el Imercambio de [suacamayas se ha considerado como monopotio de la comunidad wrande de Paguime (o Casas Grandes), lo cual Svencuentra on el norvste del extado de Chihuahua, México. Esta conclusion eel resultado de que Paguimd ui el inico sitio donde habian sido descubietas facilidades para procrear guacamatas. thora. dos proyectos “argucoldgicos que recentemente se levaron a cab en Chihuahua indican que Ta produccion de guacamavas no Selimits a Paguimt. Adem, hay tndicaciones de que ax cieunstancias dela producetan de esos parser ‘uarlables entre fos pueblos stuados adentro de 1a ona de influencla maxima de Paguime los que se encuentran cafvera de dicha von Macaws and macaw feathers were widely traded prehistorically in the North American Sout ‘west—the United States Southwest and far northern Mexico. Until now just one site, Paquimé (also known as Casas Grandes), in northwestern Chihuahua, Mexico, had provided evidence of extensive ‘macaw breeding (Di Peso 1974; Di Peso etal. 1974). While other sites within the North American Southwest contained macaw remains, there has been insufficient evidence to conclude that these were breeding populations (Hargrave 1970), Archaeologists have had good reasons to suggest that the Paquimé community dominated, if not controlled, the exchange of parrots during the Medio period within the North American Southwest (eg...Di Peso et al. 1974; Minnis 1989; Neitze! 1989), ‘Two current archaeological projects, one in west-central Chihuahua (Proyecto Arqueol6gico Chi- hhuahua (PAC)) and one in northwestern Chihuahua (Reconocimiento Regional Paquimé [RRP). document that macaw breeding was practiced more widely than previously thought and that the political relationships of macaw production seem to have been different between the two project The multicolored and iridescent macaw feathers were necessary ritual items for many indigenous peoples in the North American Southwest. While live birds were exchanged, feathers were un= doubtedly the more ubiquitous item of prehistoric trade. However. feathers are unlikely to be preserved under most archaeological conditions, although exceptions do occur (Hargrave 1979) Ironically, the macaw presumed to have been most widely used, the scarlet macaw (Ara Macao), is an inhabitant of the tropical lowlands of Mexico normally found as far north as Veracruz, over 500 km south of Paquimé. In contrast, the locally available military macaw (ra militaris) and thick- billed parrot (Rhynchopsitta pachyrhyncha) were used infrequently (Di Peso et al. 1974; Hargrave 1970; but see Bullock (1991] and Olsen and Olsen (1974). Paul E. Minnis, Departmen af Anthropology. University of Oklahoma, Norman, OR 73019 Michael E. Whalen. Department of dthropology. Universi of Tulsa. Tulsa. OK 74104 Jane H. Kelley. Department of Archaeology, University of Calgars. Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4 oe D. Stewart, Department of Anthropology, Lakehad Universit, Thunder Bay. Ontarto, Canada P7B SEI American Antiquity. $8(2). 1993. pp. 270 Copyright © 1993 by the Society for American A 76. chacologyRepoRTs, am Casas Grandes’ florescence occurred during the Medio period when it was one of the most influential communities in the North American Southwest (¢g., Cordell 1984; Di Peso 1974; Johnson, 1989; Phillips 1989). There is continuing debate concerning the dating of the Medio period (e-., Di Peso 1974; LeBlanc 1980; Lekson 1984; Phillips 1989; Ravesloot etal. 1986; Wilcox and Shenk 1977), and the major chronological reanalysis remains unpublished (Ravesloot ct al. 1986). Con- sequently, we set the chronological parameters of the Medio period broadly, from A.D. 1150/1250 to 1350/1450, (Casas Grandes was one of the most complex prehistoric polities in the North American Southwest (Cordell 1989; Di Peso 1974). Evidence of sociopolitical complexity includes the presence of wealth accumulation and elites, abundance of monumental structures, sophisticated architecture, special- ized economic production, and integration of communities on a regional scale (Di Peso 1974; Minnis 1989; Ravestoot 1988). MACAW BREEDING AT CASAS GRANDES ‘The presence of at least 144 scarlet macaw skeletons recovered before 1970 in numerous ar- chaeological sites from southern Utah to northern Mexico attests to some trade in live birds (Har- grave 1970). Many more have been found since Hargrave’s compilation. Yet, the immediate source ‘ofthe macaws was unknown prior to the excavation of Casas Grandes in the late 1950s by the Joint Casas Grandes Project, since no evidence of macaw breeding had been found. Research at Paquimé revealed multiple lines of evidence, such as a large number of macaw skeletons, the presence of Dreeding-age birds, macaw feces, nesting cages, and macaw eggshell fragments, indicating extensive macaw breeding (Di Peso 1974). For example, the Joint Casas Grandes Project recovered a total of 322 scarlet macaw skeletons, which was more than twice the number of macaw remains excavated from all sites in the North American Southwest at that time. ‘Somewhat troubling, however, is the fact that only one sample of macaw egg shells was found by the Joint Casas Grandes Project. While this might suggest very limited macaw breeding, we believe that there is a more likely explanation for the few macaw shell remains. The extent of turkey production (as measured by the number of turkey pens and skeletons excavated) at Paquimé is similar to that of macaws (Minnis 1988), and only four lots of turkey egg shells were recovered, Consequently, the small number of shell fragments of both turkeys and macaws is more likely due to poor preservation and the absence of fine sercening during excavation than to the lack of macaw cxgs, ‘The many types of evidence for macaw breeding have been lacking from other sites, and it had been reasonable to assume that Casas Grandes was the source for macaws recovered throughout the North American Southwest. It must be recognized that macaw remains predating the Medio period have been found from sites in the North American Southwest (Hargrave 1970). The source ofthese birds remains unknown, although there may have been some macaw breeding in the Mimbres region before the Medio period (Darrell Creel, personal communication 1992). Macaw cages (nesting boxes) have, until now, only been found at Casas Grandes. Nesting boxes. were small rectangles of adobe walls, approximately 1.2 m deep by .8 m wide, with an open top, presumably covered by matting (Di Peso etal. 1974). An interior perch was present, and disintegrated. macaw feces have been found in the boxes. The front wall had an embedded donut-shaped stone (macaw nesting box stone, henceforth simply called cage stone) witha pestle-like plug, which offered additional access to the cage for feeding and tending, Cage stones from Paquimé averaged approx imately 16.000 g with an overall diameter of 35 em and an entrance-hole diameter averaging 17 cem (Di Peso et al, 1974), Macaw breeding was widely practiced within Casas Grandes. Intact macaw-nesting boxes were uncovered in atleast six areas ofthe site, having between 2 and 20 pens per location with an average ‘of 14 (Di Peso et al. 1974). The recovery of 125 cage stones from throughout the excavation suggests that nesting boxes were present elsewhere within the community but had disintegrated when sur- rounding adobe buildings decayed and collapsed (Di Peso et al. 1974). Since only a portion of the site was excavated, there is a high probability that the remains of even more macaw breeding areas may yet remain undetected,m AMERICAN ANTIOUTY [Wob 58, No.2, 1988) Figure 1. Location ofthe two project areas in Chihuahua, Reconocimlento Regional Paquimé (RRP) surveyed northwestern Chihuahua around the major site of Paquimé. Proyecto Arqueolgico Chihuahua (PAC) worked to the south in west-central Chihuabea MACAW BREEDING IN OUTLYING AREAS. ‘Two recent archaeological research projects in Chihuahua recovered cage stones, clearly docu- ‘menting macaw production at sites other than Paquimé. The first project, RRP, recorded a total of 87 archaeological sites in northwestern Chihuahua around Casas Grandes, from the Carretas Basin to the Santa Maria Valley (Figure 1). This was the frst archaeological project in the area since the excavation of Casas Grandes from 1959 10 1961. The presence of a single cage-stone artifact was noted at each of five sites other than Casas Grandes. The second project, PAC, examined around 120 sites in west-central Chihuahua south of Casas Grandes in the area between Laguna Bustillos and the Babicora Basin. Three Medio period sites in this region produced six cage-stone artifacts; {our cage-stone fragments came from a single site (three were surface finds, and one was excavated), ‘and one was found at each of two other sites (Figure 2). ‘Numerous archaeologists and adventurers conducted limited reconnaissance and test excavation prior to the Joint Casas Grandes Project (eg, Blackiston 1905, 1906a, 1906b, 1908, 1909; Brand 1943; Carey 1931; Lister 1946, 1958; Lumboltz 1902; Noguera 1926; Robles 1929; Sayles 1936), yet there are only three possible previous examples of cage stones. Sayles (1936:Plate XXID illus- trated an extremely well-made circular ground-stone artifact with a hole in the center recovered from Chihuahua D:8:1 (Gila Pueblo designation system). The dimensions of the hole are consistent ‘with cage-stone artifacts reported for Paquimé, and extremely well-made cage stones similar toREPORTS. a Figure 2. Cage stone (macaw nesting-box stone). This broken specimen is one-half of an intact cage stone recovered by the Proyecto Arqucologico Chihuahua in west-central Chihuahta. Access to the macaw cage as fained though the 1S-cm-diameter hole in the center ofthe stone that was embedded within the front wall of the ‘box: Cage stones have been found in pace at Casas Grandes, providing clear evidence ofthe atifuct's fancton. Sayles's example were recovered at Paquimé. We cannot be certain of the exact location of Sayles's site, D:8:1. The best-known site within the D:8 area is the Ramos site. Furthermore, the current ‘owner's family has owned the Ramos site property for many decades, and he informed us that cage stones had been taken from the Ramos site (J. Queveda, personal communication 1989). Therefore, it is quite likely that D:8:1 is the Ramos site. ‘Two possible cage stones (which we have yet to examine) are reported in Lumholtz’s collection curated at the American Muscum of Natural History (Martha Graham, personal communication 1992). These two specimens (catalog numbers 30/4030 and 30/4031) are reported to have been collected from Cave Valley, a portion of the Piedras Verdes River valley in the Sierra Madre ‘mountains west of Paquimé famous for two sites, Swallow Cave (Lister 1958) and Olla Cave (Di Peso 1974). “Most of the specimens discussed here were found on the surface of looted sites, since sites in both project areas have been badly vandalized. It is possible that extensive site disturbance has affected the distribution of cage stones in various ways. People illegally searching for artifacts in these sites have destroyed the original context, and some cage stones may have been removed by looters. However, heavy ground-stone artifacts, such as cage stones, are more likely to be left at sites than are lighter, more valuable, and more attractive artifacts. Pothunting can also result in a greater variety of artifact types being present on the surface than is often the case with intact sites, because subsurface artifacts have a greater chance of being exposed due to land-disturbing activities. Alter- natively, itis possible that other surveyed sites had cage stones that had been removed. While the effects of looting on the distribution of artifacts such as cage stones is not clear, we suspect that looting has increased the visibility of these artifacts. For the region immediately around Casas Grandes surveyed by RRP, the presence of cage stones is not associated with any class of site size; they were found at sites of all size ranges, from small sites representing a pueblo of several rooms to sites with hundreds of rooms and public ritual architecture suggestive of regional centers. Site size in this area was measured by the areal extent Of the mound resulting from the disintegration of the adobe rooms, a reasonably close measure of ‘the amount of enclosed architectural space at the site. The size range for the entire survey sample of 87 sites is 150 m2-13,000 m2. Sites with cage stones include small (289 m?, 620 m*), mediuma AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Not 58, No. 2 889) (2.900 m?, 6,016 m’), and large (10,000 m:) sites. Our estima medium-sized site The geographic distribution of macaw production as determined by the assemblage of cage stones within northwestern Chihuahua is puzzling. The one consistent pattern is that sites with cage stones are located within a short distance of Paquimé, approximately 30 km. No cage stones were found bby RRP at sites farther from Casas Grandes in northwestern Chihuahua, although many sites were ‘more than 30 km from Paguimé. Additionally. the Ramos site is approximately 27 km from Casas Grandes, Lumholtz’s possible cage stones from Cave Valley may be exceptions, being found in an area approximatcly 45 km from Paquimé. We do not want to place too much weight on these ‘examples, because we have not examined the artifacts from Cave Valley, and this location is outside the RRP study area, The pattern of limited cage-stone distribution might be expected with strong centralized control of macaw production, which was most likely one of the most important sources ‘of Paquimé’s wealth However, cage stones are also found in west-central Chihuahua, an area where the primary regional center of Casas Grandes seems not to have exerted strong control. Here, the sites presently known to have cage stones are small-to-medium-sized sites located at basin margins or in valleys above the main valleys. Due to differences in topography. vegetation. and history of land use, it is not now possible o develop site-size measures comparable to the those used in northwestern Chihuahua, c for the Ramos site is $,200 mr’, a DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY Much work is needed to form a clearer understanding of the economic and political structure of | the Paquimé-dominated polity and its relationships with adjacent populations, and of how macaw production was controlled and related to other social. political, and economic characteristics of these extinct cultures. Nonetheless, the distribution of cage stones at sites so close to @ large and regionally dominating site is most suggestive of tight production control of this commodity within Casas Grandes’ sphere of strongest influence. West-central Chihuahua, in contrast, would appear to bbe an outlying and presumably more autonomous region outside the Paquimé system. Here macaw production may have been practiced more independently. Multiple lines of independent evidence indicate that sites within approximately 30 km of Casas Grandes may have had stronger ties or special relationship with Paquimé and may have constituted the “nucleus” or “core” ofthe Paquimé polity. Ball courts, the locations of public rituals that integrated communities and which presumably were similar to those recorded in Mesoamerica to the south (Scarborough and Wilcox 1991), are far more common within this zone and seem to have been less frequent farther from Paguimé (Minnis and Whalen 1989, 1990: sce also Naylor [1985] for an exploratory study of ball courts in northwestern Chihuahua), Similarly, series of morphologically distinct circular alignments of stones ‘up to 6 min diameter, some of which are located next to ball courts and may be associated with rituals, is found only in and near sites within 30 km of Casas Grandes. The large sites within this area also have much greater architectural diversity and soem to have a different occupational history from the large sites further from Paquimé (Minnis and Whalen 1989, 1990). Importantly, we do not yet have evidence for as many specialized architectural features in west- central Chihuahua, suggesting a regional social organization different from that around Paquimé. For example, no ball courts or stone circles have been identified from west-central Chihuahua, While more Fescarch is needed to fully understand the regional organization of prehistoric Chihua~ hua, the archaeological data clearly demonstrate important differences between west-central and northwestern Chihuahua and clarify the fact that the technology necessary for macaw production \was not restricted just to the primate center of Casas Grandes itself, No cage stones are recorded from sites contemporaneous with Casas Grandes in the North American Southwest despite the significant amount of archacological research conducted in these areas. Especially interesting is the absence of cage stones from Medio period sites in other regions ‘within the International Four Corners (Chihuahua, Sonora, Arizona, and New Mexico). A reasonable explanation for the distribution of cage stones restricted 0 the small area of northwestern and westREPORTS, 2s central Chihuahua invites further research. We simply do not know why macaw breeding seems 10 hhave been absent from most of the North American Southwest. ‘Macaw production is not only more widespread than has been known previously, but the social relations of production of these ritually and economically important birds differed depending on whether or not the producers were part of the complex polity centered at Paquimé Acknowledgments. RRP was supported bythe National Science Foundation (BNS 88-20597)anda University of Oklahoma Junior Faculty Summer Fellowship. PAC is supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (Grant 410-90-1070) following a University of Calgary Pilot Grant and a Lakehead University Senate Research Grant. Both projects are conducted under permits ftom the Instituto Nacional de Antropologia¢ Historia, and its support is gratefully acknowledged. We thank Sylvia Abonyi. Darrell Creel, Paul Fish, Patricia Gilman, Martha Graham, Warten Hill, David Phillips, Ir, Randall McGuire, and David ‘Wilcox for their assistance with this manuserip. REFERENCES CITED Blackiston, A. H. 1903 "Chiff Dwellers of Northern Mexico. Records ofthe Past 4355-361 1906a Ruins of the Cerro de Moctezuma. american Anthropologist 8256-261 190Gb Casas Grandian Outposs. Records ofthe Pasi $:142-147 1908. Ruins of the Tenaja and the Rio San Pedro. Records of the Past :21-32, 1909 Recently Discovered Cliff-Dwellings in the Serra Madres. Records of the Past 12:282-290. Brand, B.D. 1943 The Chihuahuan Culture Area, New Mexico Anthropologist 6:115-158, Bullock, PY. 1991” Casas Grandes and Macaws: Adventures inthe Bird Trade. Paper presented at the 64th Pecos Con- ference, Nuevo Casas Grandes, Chihuahua, Mexico Carey. HEA, 1931 An Analysis ofthe Northwestern Chihuahua Culture, American Anthropologist 39:325-374, Cordell, 8 1984" Prehistory ofthe Southwest. Academic Press, New York Di Peso, C:C. 1974" Casas Grandes, Fallen Trading Contr ofthe Gran Chichimeca, vols. 1-3. Northland Press, Flagstaff Arizona Di Peso, C-C. J. B. Rinaldo, and G. A. Fenner 1974" Casas Grandes, Fallen Trading Center ofthe Gran Chichimeca, vols. 4-8. Northland Press, Pagstaf. ‘Arizona. Hargzave, LL 190. Mexican Macaws: Comparative Osteology and Survey of Remains from the Southwest. Anthropological Papers No. 20. University of Arizona, Tucson, 1979" Macaw Feather Artifact from Southeastern Utah, Southwestern Love 45:16 Johnson, G.A. 1989” Far Ourside-Looking In In Dynamics of Southwestern Prehistory. edited by L. Cordell and G, Gum- ‘rman, pp. 371-389. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Lelane, S|. 1980 The Dating of Casas Grandes. American Antiquity 45:799-805, Lekson, 8. H, 1984 ‘Dating Casas Grandes. The Kiva 50:58-60, wer, RH, 1946 ‘Survey of Archacological Remains in Northwestern Chihuahua. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 2443-452, 1958 archaeological Excavations in the Northern Sierra Madre Occidental, Chihuahua and Sonora, Mexico. Studies in Anthtopology Vol. 7. University of Colorado, Boulder, Lumboltz 1902 "Unknown Mexico. Scribner and Sons, New York Minnis, PE. 1988" Four Examples of Speciaized Production at Casts Grandes, Nonhwesterm Chiba, The Kin 5: 181-1 1989 "The Casas Grandes Polity in the Intemational Four Corners. In The Sociopoical Structure of Pre historic Southwestern Societies, edited by 8. Upham, K- Lightfoot, and R. Jewett, pp. 269-308, Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado,a AMERICAN ANTIQUITY (ol. 8, No.2, 193), Minnis, P.E. and M. E. Whalen 1989" Ei sistema repional de Casas Grandes. Bolen de Consejo de Araueologia 1:86-90, México, D.F, 1990 _Elsistema regional de Casas Grandes. Actas del Segundo Congreso Historia Regional Comparada 1990: 444-55. Universidad Auténoma de Ciudad Juez, Chihuahua, Mexico, Naylor, TH, 1985. Casas Grandes Outlier Balleours in Nonthwestern Chihuahua Paper presented at the international ‘symposium “The Mesoamerican Ballgame: Regional Contexts and Comparative Interpretations." Tucson, Arizona, 1985. Ms. on file, Department of Anthropology, Univesity of Oklahoma, Norman Neitz. 1989 Regional Exchange Networks in the American Southwest: A Comparative Analysis of Long-Distance “Trade, In The Sociopaiical Structure of Prehstote Southwestern Soceie, edited By S. Upham, K-Light- foot, and R. Jewett. pp. 149-195. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. Noguera E. 1926" Ruinas arguedldgicas de Casas Grandes, Chiduahua, Publicaciones de la Secretaria de Educacién Pibjica Tomo 11, No. td, México, DF ben, §.5., and J. W. Olsen 1974" Macaws from Grasshopper Pueblo, The Kiva 40:67-70 Philips, D. AL Je 1989 Prehistory of Chihuahua and Sonora, Mexico, Journal of World Prehistory 373-401 Ravesoot, J.C. 1988» Mortuary Practices and Social Differentiation at Casas Grandes, Chihuahua, Mexico. Anthropological Papers No. 49. University of Arizona, Tucson, Ravesloot, JC, J. 8. Dean, and M.S, Foster 1986. A New Perspective on Casas Grandes Tree-Ring Dates. Paper presented Conference, Tucson. the Fourth Mogollon Robles, CA. 1929 La region arqueolgica de Casas Grandes, Chiuahua. Impreata Nuicz, México, DF. Sayles, EB 1936 An Archaeological Survey of Chihuahua, Mexico. Medallion Papers No. 22. Gila Pueblo, Globe, Ar- Scarborough, V. L. and D. R. Wileox (editors) 1091" The Afesoamerican Ballgame. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Wilcox, D.R. and 1G. Shenk 1977 The architecture of Casa Grande and Its Interpretation. Archacologcal Series No. 115. Arizona State Museum, Tucson, Received December 12, 1991: acepted February 20, 1992