This article, Rethinking Chaco as a System

Rethinking Chaco as a System attempts to define a “System” clearly in this article. It also assesses whether or not the evidence from the towns surrounding the Great House and the Chaco Canyon meets the requirements for interdependency, grouping, regular interaction, and unification. In fact, archaeologists who conduct research both outside and inside Chaco Canyon frequently view all the villages that showcase Chacon architecture as members of a regional system. A few prehistoric sociocultural entities are loosely defined here by the author as ones whose identity was founded on Chaco Canyon. The process of researching on the archaeological features begins with the consideration of some of the terms that are used for referring to the Chaco Anasazi. At this point, the author uses the 4th edition of the American Heritage Dictionary to define the meaning of “phenomena.” Regarding the definition, phenomena mean a circumstance or an occurrence. Certainly, the patterns of Chaco’s longevity suggest that its elements of culture were transmitted over at least some generations. The author also uses the word “system” more frequently in referring to Chaco. This word is provided with several definitions.

After dissecting Chaco as well as the exploration of its components of systems, his article further touches on the group of items that are being considered. Evidently, most scholarship focuses on the community as the fundamental entity that forms a Chaco system. Arguably, the Chaco systematic entity’s development is more closely related to the relationships that develop beyond the borders of the community compared with the intracommunity relationships. Primarily, the Chaco was evident not to be set of internal changes occurring independently in the same way as every community. In this position, the term community needs to be defined.

Mahoney concludes that the boundary of Chaco must have been amorphous. Regularly, this community included multiple clusters of habitation. The world database of Chaco consists of the date for several variables except for the information on the style of Dogoszhi. The missing information was to be added in future. The great house’s majority that was included in the database exhibit some features that significantly provides a useful examination and determination of the group.

Regarding the ”regular interaction,” two major sources of data are explored by the scholarship of Chaco when considering the interaction between communities that exhibits ceramics and roadways characteristics. In particular, the roadways served for a long time to indicate the regular intersection of the community with one another. However, the fact remains that about two or three significant roadways that have apparent continuity are emanating from Chaco and crosses to the San Juan Basin’s edges. Indeed, a large number of communities are passed by such roads. The final point that needs to be considered concerning the roadways regards the labor that is necessary for the construction and the maintenance of such roads.

Interdependence is one of the issues that hearkens back the models of redistribution of the 1970s and 1980s. Such models, which in general propose that the relationships of the region that are centered on Chaco Canyon were formed for sharing highly variable surpluses of food as it continues receiving attention today. According to the redistribution’s classic model, the materials flow into a center. They get stored at this point before they are taken back out as needed to the periphery. Only the local products that are found in each peripheral community include the lithics and pottery. Certainly, Chaco Canyon had no material resources that the outlying communities needed, almost all of which were located in the areas of the comparatively rich resource.

The author notes that it is difficult to evaluate the aspects of ”system” in the Chaco’s case. According to the discussion above, Chaco was not unified. Even though roads were used to connect some of the communities, a few of them were vaguely emulated by the patterns seen within the San Juan Basin. All the communities that shared the features of Chaco do not seem to be having “interdependent” or “regular interaction.” Again, there is no clarity of the degree to which the similarities of styles indicate a “unified whole.” So far, the evidence suggests that the distinctive traits of Chaco first emerged in before its immediate surrounding the Canyon.

Based on the Chaco world database assessment as well as its evaluation by other contributors to such issues, the author of the article concludes that only a ”Chaco World’s” small portion that is close to the Chaco Canyon might fit the systematic entity’s profile. Because such features first emerged in the Chaco Canyon, they were more elaborated at that point that in other areas. Subsequently, they were employed to the advantage of the canyon. However, most of the great house communities failed to participate in a broad-wide system of any kind. The author considers how the material culture that is shared and seen across the Chaco World might have appeared without the integrated regional system’s accompanying development.

Work Cited

Kantner, John. “Rethinking Chaco as a System.” KIVA, vol. 69, no. 2, 2003, pp. 207-227. Informa UK Limited, doi:10.1080/00231940.2003.11758491.