{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02023608768971332, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003372681281618887, 'mean_word_length': 5.118556701030927, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Economic Support of Chaco Canyon Society

I propose that Chaco Canyon was a chiefdom that emphasized a corporate political strategy (Blanton et al. 1996). Corporate groups define the relationship of people to resources, especially as the owners of productive land. Groups are materialized by public ceremonies and monuments, but leaders are typically faceless. Chaco's famous road system, the elaborate architecture of the great houses, and the regional procurement of specific resources support the proposal that Chaco was a corporate chiefdom. To create and sustain the regional institutions of a chiefdom requires not only leaders, but a system of finance. Chaco is argued to have had a system of staple finance, where surplus food and everyday technologies were mobilized from a broad supporting population. Mobilization was based on control of food production, but the method of control has not yet been defined for Chaco. The exchange of prestige goods, such as turquoise, shell, and copper bells, was not part of the system of finance for Chaco, but was part of an interpersonal and noncentralized reciprocal exchange network such as those found broadly in egalitarian societies.