The Cambridge History of the Native Peoples of the Americas

THE CAMBRIDGE HISTORY OF THE NATIVE PEOPLES OF THE AMERICAS

VOLUME II MESOAMERICA PART 1

Edited by Richard E.W. Adams Murdo J. MacLeod University of Texas University of Florida at San Antonio PUBLISHED BY THE PRESS SYNDICATE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB22RU, UK http://www.cup.cam.ac.uk 40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011-4211, USA http://www.cup.org 10 Stamford Road, Oakleigh, Melbourne 3166, Australia Ruiz de Alarco´n 13, 28014 Madrid, Spain

᭧ Cambridge University Press 2000

This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press.

First published 2000

Printed in the United States of America

௡ Typeface Adobe Garamond 11/13 pt. System DeskTopPro/UX [BV]

A catalog record for this book is available from the British Library.

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Mesoamerica / edited by Richard E. W. Adams, Murdo J. Macleod p. cm. – (Cambridge history of the Native peoples of the Americas) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0 521 35165 0 1. Indians of Mesoamerica–History. I. Adams, Richard E. W. II. Macleod, Murdo J. III. Series. E77.N62 2000 970.004'97–dc20 95-46096 CIP

Volume I: North America ISBN 0-521-34440-9 hardback complete set Volume I: North America, Part 1 ISBN 0-521-57392-0 Volume I: North America, Part 2 ISBN 0-521-57393-9 Volume II: Mesoamerica ISBN 0-521-65205-7 hardback complete set Volume II: Mesoamerica, Part 1 ISBN 0-521-35165-0 Volume II: Mesoamerica, Part 2 ISBN 0-521-65204-9 Volume III: South America ISBN 0-521-33393-8 hardback complete set Volume III: South America, Part 1 ISBN 0-521-63075-4 Volume III: South America, Part 2 ISBN 0-521-63076-2 CONTENTS

List of Illustrations page ix

Part 1 1 Introduction to a Survey of the Native Prehistoric Cultures of Mesoamerica 1 RICHARD E. W. ADAMS 2 The Paleoindian and Archaic Cultures of Mesoamerica 45 ROBERT N. ZEITLIN AND JUDITH FRANCIS ZEITLIN 3 The Preclassic Societies of the Central Highlands of Mesoamerica 122 DAVID C. GROVE 4 The Precolumbian Cultures of the Gulf Coast 156 RICHARD A. DIEHL 5 The Maya Lowlands: Pioneer Farmers to Merchant Princes 197 NORMAN HAMMOND 6 The Central Mexican Highlands from the Rise of Teotihuacan to the Decline of Tula 250 GEORGE L. COWGILL 7 Western and Northwestern Mexico 318 SHIRLEY S. GORENSTEIN 8 Cultural Evolution in Oaxaca: The Origins of the Zapotec and Mixtec Civilizations 358 JOYCE MARCUS AND KENT V. FLANNERY 9 The Southeast Frontiers of Mesoamerica 407 PAYSON D. SHEETS

v vi Contents

10 The Maya Highlands and the Adjacent Pacific Coast 449 ROBERT J. SHARER

11 The Aztecs and Their Contemporaries: The Central and Eastern Mexican Highlands 500 THOMAS H. CHARLTON

Index to Part 1 559

Part 2 12 Mesoamerica since the Spanish Invasion: An Overview 1 MURDO J. MACLEOD

13 Legacies of Resistance, Adaptation, and Tenacity: History of the Native Peoples of Northwest Mexico 44 SUSAN M. DEEDS

14 The Native Peoples of Northeastern Mexico 89 DAVID FRYE

15 The Indigenous Peoples of Western Mexico from the Spanish Invasion to the Present 136 ERIC VAN YOUNG

16 Native Peoples of Colonial Central Mexico 187 SARAH L. CLINE

17 Native Peoples of Central Mexico since Independence 223 FRANS J. SCHRYER

18 Native Peoples of the Gulf Coast from the Colonial Period to the Present 274 SUSAN DEANS-SMITH

19 The Indigenous Population of Oaxaca from the Sixteenth Century to the Present 302 MARI´A DE LOS ANGELES ROMERO FRIZZI Contents vii

20 The Lowland Maya, from the Conquest to the Present 346 GRANT D. JONES 21 The Highland Maya 392 W. GEORGE LOVELL

Index to Part 2 445

ILLUSTRATIONS

MAPS TO PART 1 1.1 A general map of Mesoamerica, showing major ancient, colonial, and modern population centers page 8 2.1 North America, showing Bering land bridge, Late Pleistocene glacial zones, and probable migration routes into Mesoamerica 52 2.2 Mesoamerica, indicating location of Paleoindian sites 57 2.3 Archaeological sites of the Mesoamerican Archaic period 72 3.1 Preclassic sites in the central highlands 124 4.1 Archaeological sites of the Mexican Gulf Coast region 158 5.1 Important sites in the Maya Area: Preclassic through Postclassic period 198 5.2 Mayan language areas 199 5.3 Major environmental divisions 201 6.1 The central Mexican highlands 251 7.1 Sites in Guanajuato, Michoacan, Jalisco, Colima, and Nayarit 320 7.2 Sites in Zacatecas, Durango, and coastal western Mexico 329 7.3 Guerrero: The Balsas-Tepalcatepec Basin 335 7.4 Sites in northern Sinaloa and in Sonora 338 8.1 Archaeological sites and ethnic groups of Oaxaca 359 9.1 Archaeological sites and obsidian sources of ancient Mesoamerica 409 9.2 The southeastern Mesoamerican frontier in the Middle Formative period, 1000–500 B.C.E. 418 9.3 Mesoamerica, the Intermediate Area, and the frontier in the Late Formative period, 500 B.C.E.–C.E. 250 421

ix x Illustrations

9.4 Mesoamerica, the Intermediate Area, and the frontier in the Early Classic period, C.E. 250–600 424 9.5 Mesoamerica, the Intermediate Area, and the frontier in the Late Classic period, C.E. 600–900 427 9.6 Mesoamerica, the Intermediate Area, and the frontier in the Postclassic period 438 10.1 Archaeological sites of the Maya highlands and the adjacent Pacific Coast 450 11.1 Central Mexican symbiotic region 501 11.2 Epi-Teotihuaca´n period occupation 503 11.3 Early Aztec period occupation 504 11.4 Late Aztec occupation 505

FIGURES TO PART 1 2.1 Temporal framework for the Paleoindian and Archaic periods 48 2.2 Clovis-type fluted projectile point from the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico, and Ladyville, Belize 64 2.3 “Fishtail” point from Madden Lake, Panama 65 2.4 Projectile points from Santa Isabel Iztapan: (A) Scottsbluff; (B) Lerma; (C) Angostura 66 2.5 Tequixquiac carved camelid sacrum 70 2.6 Typical Archaic period mano and metate from Tehuaca´n 77 2.7 Corncob remains from excavations at Tehuaca´n 78 2.8 Guila´ Naquitz Cave, in its environmental setting 81 2.9 Naquitz-phase lithic artifacts: (A) notched flake; (B) denticulate scraper; (C) crude blade 81 2.10 Net bag fragment from Guila´ Naquitz 82 2.11 Wild plant food remains from excavations at Guila´ Naquitz Cave 83 2.12 Late Archaic/Early Formative lithic artifacts from Belize 88 2.13 Experimentally grown teosinte from the Valley of Oaxaca 100 3.1 Typical Early Preclassic clay figurines 129 3.2 Crocodilian supernatural, Tlapacoya 135 3.3 Paw and wing motifs, Tlatilco 135 3.4 Sharklike supernaturals, La Bocas 137 3.5 Ritual scene, Monument 2, Chalcatzingo 143 Illustrations xi

3.6 Cliff carving, Monument 1, Chalcatzingo 145 3.7 Stela depicting a woman, Monument 21, Chalcatzingo 147 4.1 Olmec colossal head, San Lorenzo Monument 61 165 4.2 Olmec diopside-jadeite figurine 166 4.3 Tres Zapotes Stela C 170 4.4 La Mojarra Stela 1 171 4.5 Matacapan kiln 175 4.6 El Tajin Pyramid of the Niches 177 4.7 Carved panel, El Tajin South ballcourt 178 4.8 Stone yoke 180 4.9 Smiling face figurine, El Zapotal 181 4.10 Monumental hollow sculpture, clay, El Zapotal 183 4.11 Huastec stone sculpture at Castillo de Teayo 186 4.12 Castillo de Teayo pyramid 187 4.13 Mausoleums at Quiahuiztlan 189 4.14 Herna´n Corte´s and Don˜a Marina after landing on the beach at Quiahuiztlan 190 5.1 Structure 326 at Cuello, Belize, seen from above 207 5.2 Rio Azul, an Early Classic city 218 5.3 The popol na or council house at Copan after restoration 229 5.4 The palace at Palenque 230 5.5 Puuc-style palace at Sayil 239 5.6 The Castillo at Chiche´n Itza´ 240 5.7 The Great Ballcourt at Chiche´n Itza´, the largest in Mesoamerica 241 5.8 The first and second churches at Lamanai 246 6.1 An aerial view of Teotihuaca´n 254 6.2 Teotihuaca´n talud-tablero architecture 256 6.3 One of the “Kneeling Jaguar” murals from the Tetitla apartment compound 257 6.4 Archaeological map of Teotihuaca´n 260 6.5 West facade of the Feathered Serpent Pyramid, Temple of Quetzalcoatl 266 6.6 One of the feathered serpent and headdress pairs on the Feathered Serpent Pyramid 266 6.7 A sacrifice victim in military attire 270 6.8 Nose pendants worn by sacrificed victims 271 6.9 Stone skulls from the Sun Plaza, Teotihuaca´n 274 xii Illustrations

6.10 Some Miccaotli–Early Tlamimilolpa ceramics 276 6.11 Relief carving from Soyoltepec 278 6.12 Teotihuaca´n candeleros, Xolalpan–Metepec phase 283 6.13 A Teotihuaca´n composite censer, Xolalpan–Metepec phase 284 6.14 Principal buildings at Tula Grande 293 6.15 Plan of the archaeological site of Tula 294 8.1 Workmen building a protective wall around remains of Structure 6, San Jose´ Mogote 363 8.2 Vessels of 1150–850 B.C., showing stylized depictions of “Lightning” and “Earthquake” 365 8.3 Late Formative settlements in the Yanhuitla´n–Nochixtla´n Valley 367 8.4 Artist’s reconstruction of a Middle Formative building at Huitzo 369 8.5 Villages and hamlets in the western Valley of Oaxaca, 700–500 B.C. 370 8.6 A public building from San Jose´ Mogote, dating to 700–500 B.C. 371 8.7 Upper surface of Monument 3 at San Jose´ Mogote 372 8.8 Aerial view of the Main Plaza at Monte Alba´n 374 8.9 Valley of Oaxaca settlements, c. 300 B.C. 375 8.10 Remnant of Building L at Monte Alba´n 376 8.11 Aerial view of Pen˜a de los Corrales 378 8.12 Plan of Monte Negro in the Mixteca Alta 379 8.13 Plan of Main Plaza at Monte Alba´n 380 8.14 A Classic period palace at Monte Alba´n 381 8.15 Classic Zapotec effigy vessels 382 8.16 Classic period temple from Monte Alba´n 383 8.17 Monumental structure at Cerro de la Campana 384 8.18 Classic period sites in the Yanhuitla´n–Nochixtla´n Valley 387 8.19 The Lapida de Bazan 390 8.20 A Zapotec “genealogical register” of A.D. 600–900 393 8.21 Postclassic settlements in the Yanhuitla´n-Nochixtla´n Valley 395 8.22 Postclassic settlements in the central Valley of Oaxaca 397 8.23 Postclassic polychrome dish in Mixteca-Puebla style 398 Illustrations xiii

8.24 Small jadeite figurine 399 8.25 A scene from the Codex Bodley 400 8.26 The Hall of Columns at Mitla 401 8.27 The rocky fortress of Mitla 402 9.1 Excavation of the main Middle Formative period pyramid E-3-1, Trapiche area of Chalchuapa 415 9.2 Artist’s reconstruction of Structures 3 and 4 at Quelepa, El Salvador 426 9.3 Part of Structure 1, communal building of Household 1 at the Ceren site 428 9.4 Isometric drawing of Structure 2a at the Ceren site 430 9.5 Artist’s reconstruction of Structure 2a at the Ceren site 431 9.6 Isometric drawing and plan of Structure 3 at the Ceren site 432 9.7 Artist’s reconstruction of Structure 3 at the Ceren site 433 10.1 Excavation at El Mesak 457 10.2 Rubbing of a figure on Monument 12, Chalchuapa, El Salvador 460 10.3 Kaminaljuyu Stela 11, portraying a Late Preclassic ruler 466 10.4 Abaj Takalik Stela 5 in situ with its accompanying “altar” 468 10.5 Example of Usulutan (resist) pottery from Chalchuapa, El Salvador 470 10.6 El Bau´l Stela 1 473 10.7 Monument 16 from the Salama Valley, Guatemala 474 10.8 Abaj Takalik “Pot-bellied” Monument 40 478

TABLES TO PART 1 1.1 Major cultural institutions universal to human cultures (not exhaustive) 3 1.2 Material correlates to cultural institutions (not exhaustive) 4 1.3 Correlation of cultural institutions with field and other research methods of archaeology (not exhaustive) 5 4.1 Chronological history of major Gulf Coast archaeological sites 161 xiv Illustrations

MAPS TO PART 2 12.1 A general map of Mesoamerica showing major ancient, colonial, and modern population centers page 2 13.1 Northwest Mexico 46 13.2 Native groups of northwest Mexico 48 14.1 Northeast Mexico 91 14.2 Northeast Mexico, c. 1800 103 15.1 The Mexican states, including the Center-West 137 15.2 Native languages of Center-West Mexico in 1519 144 15.3 North frontier of New Spain 151 15.4 Center-West Mexico 155 16.1 Nahua area of Central Mexico 188 17.1 Central Mexico: Colonial boundaries and topography 226 17.2 Native cultural/linguistic areas 227 17.3 Areas where more than 40 percent of adults spoke native languages before 1950 233 17.4 Areas of developing ranchero economies in the late nineteenth century 247 18.1 Totonaca´pan 277 18.2 Modern-day Veracruz 278 19.1 Indigenous groups of Oaxaca 303 19.2 State of Oaxaca and the Republic of Mexico 304 19.3 Geographical regions of Oaxaca 305 20.1 Distribution of Spanish colonial-period lowland Maya languages 349 20.2 The Maya lowlands 357 21.1 Native language groups of Chiapas 393 21.2 Native language groups of Guatemala 395 21.3 Chiapas 397 21.4 Guatemala 399

TABLES TO PART 2 14.1 Some estimates of native population of northeastern Mexico at contact 112 21.1 The highland Maya of Chiapas, 1950–90 394 21.2 The highland Maya of Guatemala, 1950–94 394 21.3 Maya speakers in Chiapas, 1950–90 396 Illustrations xv

21.4 Maya speakers in Guatemala, 1973–93 398 21.5 Native depopulation in sixteenth-century Guatemala 402 21.6 The Indian population of Chiapas and Soconusco, 1511–1821 403 21.7 Awards of encomienda in early colonial Guatemala, 1524–48 406 21.8 The tributary population of Huehuetenango and subject towns, 1530–31 and 1539 406 21.9 Encomienda obligations in Huehuetenango in 1530–31 and 1549 407 21.10 Pueblos de Indios founded in the sixteenth century by regular and secular clergy 410 21.11 Pueblos and parcialidades in Totonicapa´n, c. 1683 414 21.12 Profits earned on repartimientos by the alcalde mayor of Ciudad Real (San Cristo´bal de las Casas) in Chiapas, 1760–65 418

1

INTRODUCTION TO A SURVEY OF THE NATIVE PREHISTORIC CULTURES OF MESOAMERICA

RICHARD E. W. ADAMS

This section both introduces the chapters of my colleagues that follow and is an attempt to outline the intellectual context within which the work and thought have been accomplished. A short historical back- ground is also provided as well as a description of the basic theoretical underpinnings of American archaeology.

THE FUNDAMENTAL INTELLECTUAL STRUCTURES OF MESOAMERICAN FIELD ARCHAEOLOGY The basic theoretical structure of American archaeology is derived from its association with anthropology as well as parts derived from Western scholarly and traditions in general. Briefly, anthropology (and therefore archaeology) argues that most human behavior is patterned and that the patterns are culturally determined. Furthermore, any given culture is made up of such patterned behavior, functionally integrated, and driven by a core of beliefs about the nature of the universe and humanity’s place in it. These disciplinary premises have been distilled from the study of hundreds of cultures, mainly non-Western, over the past 150 years, al- though Herodotus (c. 425 B.C.) is often claimed as an early anthropolo- gist. All cultural patterns, such as differentiated social status, have mate- rial correlates, as witness differential housing. For archaeologists, the important part of this premise is that the material remains of any culture therefore have some relation to the formerly operative nonmaterial be- haviors. For example, ancestor veneration among the Maya drove them

I am deeply indebted to Harry Shafer, Thomas Hester, Jeffrey Quilter, and Laura J. Levi for commentary on this introductory chapter. While I did not take all of their advice, I carefully considered it, and any errors, therefore, are doubly my own.

1 2 Richard E. W. Adams to create shrines and temples, large and small, which are now found in ruins across the landscape. Analytically, the anthropologist and archaeol- ogist both may artificially break cultures down into component parts called cultural institutions. The use of cultural institutions is not the only means of analysis, but it is a particularly useful concept for archaeology because of the direct logical linkage between institutions and their mate- rial remains. Thus ancient irrigation canals reflect not just a farming technique but a segment of a former economic system. Examples of both cultural institutions and their material correlates are provided in Tables 1.1 and 1.2. Research methods that generate the data are listed in Table 1.3. A final point is that archaeology depends greatly on analogy to ethnographic or historical cultures in order to interpret material remains. A mild dispute exists between those who argue that only the sixteenth- century Mesoamerican cultures are appropriate analogies and those who cast their nets wider and include parallels from other historical or prehis- toric civilizations. Scholarly tradition in Western civilization has evolved so that it is commonly practiced in three distinct stages. The first is the gathering of information (fieldwork), then the elicitation of patterns from it (analysis), and finally the attempted explanation of those patterns (theory). It should also be observed, as it was by Sir John Eccles, ‘‘that all of science is based on a metaphysical assumption: There is a lawful order to the universe’’ (Michael Warder, WSJ 19Apr96). This is the most fundamental of the premises of Western science and modern scholarship. Warder also ob- serves that ‘‘metaphysical beliefs cannot, by definition, be disproven by the scientific method’’ (op. cit). Finally, explanation (theory) is derived from patterns in the data through the use of analogy or of greater perception. Analogical theory is epitomized by systems theory, and greater perception by cultural ecology, for example. Systems theory largely depends on the demonstrable or arguable linkages among the active parts of a cultural institution. Greater perception is dependent to some degree on personal experience. It is bemusing to note the amaze- ment of scholars whose lives have largely been spent in urban areas when they write of agricultural systems and their linkages to the natural envi- ronment. Cultural ecology makes these linkages explicit in both static and dynamic forms. Cultural institutions exist(ed) within ecological and biological con- texts, the major categories of which seem to be: Table 1.1. Major cultural institutions universal to human cultures (not exhaustive)

Cultural institutions Subcategories

1. Kinship residential rules terminological categories descent and inheritance rules ranking principles, etc. 2. Non-kin groups warrior societies (associations, sodalities, etc.) religious sodalities occupational guilds (flint-knappers, scribe-artists?) tribal secret fraternities, etc. 3. Social structure principles of ranking within society; ascribed and achieved status rank, class, or caste societies economic factors in social ranking occupational specializations, etc. 4. Economics food production craft production internal exchange and distribution external trade tribute systems and taxation, etc. 5. Politics allocation of power relative to social structure and kinship units centralization versus diffusion of power; differences among re- gional states bureaucracy geographical units; hierarchical organization regional state and city-state models tribute systems, conquest states, etc. 6. Ideology formal religion folk religion magic and witchcraft world view political ideology regional and temporal variation, etc. 7. Warfare military organization weapons systems fortifications strategy and tactics, etc. 8. Settlement patterns urban networks settlement hierarchies rural fabric major landscape modification (wetland drainage, terracing, level- ing, paving, wall networks, roadnets, dams, reservoirs, etc.) 9. Technology argicultural crafts (weaving, pottery, woodwork, feather working, etc.) construction (quarrying, masonry, mortar, stucco, plaster prepa- ration [factor in deforestation]), engineering, architecture (heavy transport), etc. 10. Intellectual developments, writing communicative systems, and mathematics administrative and educa- astronomy tional tools art and iconography, etc. 4 Richard E. W. Adams

Table 1.2. Material correlates to cultural institutions (not exhaustive)

Material remains Analytical results Cultural institutions

Trash deposits discard patterns; artifacts social structure, trade patterns, etc. Artifacts (pottery, stone tools, taxonomic categories technological development, jewelry, etc.) trade patterns, craft specializa- tions, etc. Architecture functional categories; e.g., for- social, religious, political, mal and informal buildings, demographic, kinship, and ritual, residential, administra- other institutions tive, military, and burial struc- tures General construction functional categories: agricul- technology, economic, politi- tural, site preparation, hydrau- cal, and demographic institu- lic, etc. tions Burials classification ranges (interments social, religious, economic, kin- to tombs); content analysis ship, and other institutions

1. Climate and climatic cycles 2. Human demography, and its fluctuations 3. Health and disease parameters 4. Topographic and ecological characteristics: soils, drainage, miner- als, and so forth 5. Major landscape modification 6. Plant and animal inventories.

The interactions of these elements of the natural world with those of the cultural world constitute what has been called cultural ecology. Pro- cessualism, particularly espoused by the ‘‘New Archaeology,’’ attempts to explain cultural change and creation not only in terms of this interaction but also by the interactions of cultural institutions among and within themselves. Beyond these postulated factors are what I term secondary theoretical structures, such as those purporting to explain the origins of state-level political organizations or particular events of culture history. However, these derive either from the basic theoretical foundation or from the rapidly changing mass of data. To be sure, the fundamental theoretical structure of (especially Amer- icanist) archaeology has been under attack by scholars who have estab- Table 1.3. Correlation of cultural institutions with field and other research methods of archaeology (not exhaustive)

Cultural institutions Field and laboratory research methods

1. Kinship settlement pattern studies burials and tombs ceramic motif studies, etc. 2. Non-kin groups architectural studies script (epigraphy) artifact studies, etc. 3. Social structure settlement pattern studies functional analyses of buildings burials and tombs artifact studies studies of complex art, etc. 4. Economics agronomy studies (soil analyses, hydrology, palynology) studies of major landscape modifications remote sensing of landscape artifact analyses special studies such as trace element analyses of obsidian, etc. 5. Politics rank-size, rank-order analyses of urban (or community) networks epigraphy iconography architectural stylistic study internal analysis of community patterns, etc. 6. Ideology epigraphy iconography burials study of ritual centers, etc. 7. Warfare mapping remote sensing of landscape study of fortifications artifact analyses, etc. 8. Settlement patterns mapping of sites and regions remote sensing mapping artifact studies rank-size, rank-order studies functional analyses of urban, town, village, hamlet, farmstead and other unit examples selective excavation of units from settlement hierarchy, etc. 9. Technology artifact studies experimentation and replication study of manufacture zones, etc. 10. Intellectual structures, etc. epigraphy iconography burials artifact studies archaeoastronomy, etc. 6 Richard E. W. Adams lished something that they call postprocessualism (e.g., Hodder 1985). The adherents of this point of view argue, in essence, that much of the past is unknowable in its own terms and that many of our interpretations of prehistory are based only on our current perceptions of the world. Con- text and particularism are the only convincing interpretative bases for archaeological inference, and material culture reconstruction is the soundest of these inferential operations. This semiexistential movement has largely been espoused by armchair archaeologists and those from outside the anthropological tradition. In the end, it is no more than another variety of philosophical nihilism and as such has been rejected by most if not all field archaeologists working in Mesoamerica and most investigators working in the New World.

A DEFINITION OF MESOAMERICA Archaeology has three basic elements, as G. R. Willey has often pointed out. These are time, space, and data (content). Chronological organiza- tion of the information on ancient prehistoric cultures in the geographic space defined as Mesoamerica (Map 1.1) is a good example of the use of these components. Mesoamerica has been defined as a ‘‘co-tradition’’ or culturally inter- active area. The culture-area concept of Mesoamerica was first developed by Walter Lehmann in the 1920s and then reformulated by Krickeberg (1943). Both scholars largely defined the area as one in which complex cultures had existed in sixteenth-century sources. Characteristics were mainly derived from early historical sources. This resulted in something of a hodgepodge of both important and trivial elements, with some of both kinds being highly regional. For example, human sacrifice, a broadly distributed trait linked to a basic religious tenet, and the volador dance ceremony (restricted in distribution) were both on the original list. Wil- ley, Ekholm, and Millon (all archaeologists) reworked the concept in 1964 and made it operational for prehistoric research. I quote from my adjusted summary of their revision, as published elsewhere:

Basic agricultural technologies tended to be extensive in the tropical lowlands and intensive in the highlands. This distinction blurred in periods of high populations, when intensive agriculture was practiced in both sorts of zones. Regional crop lists always included varieties of corn (maize), squashes, and beans, but varied wildly in regional plants such as cacao, avocados, tropical fruits, and many sorts of vegetables. Settlement patterns tended to conform to these differ- Introduction 7 ing subsistence systems – dispersed in the lowlands and nucleated in the high- lands. [This distinction is a matter of degree, however.] Stone Age technologies were common to all Mesoamerican cultures. New World cultures lacked the wheel, possessed few useful domesticated animals, and did not use the true arch. Metal was not ordinarily used for utilitarian purposes. Movement of goods and people was largely by canoe or by foot. Organization of society and economy centered on the agricultural village. Aristocratic leadership controlled all affairs of import through civil servants. Merchants, warriors, and artisans formed special social classes ranking above the main class of farmer-laborers. Temple centers in both highlands and lowlands functioned as headquarters for the elite and bureaucratic classes, both initially and later when the centers had been transformed into varieties of urban com- munities. Market systems were integrated with the various population centers and furnished the sinews binding together the symbiotic regions. The dispersed and nucleated towns, cities, and metropolises all were built of stone, plaster, and mortar. A variety of architectonic forms were expressed in these materials, and they were decorated with art styles which were intimately connected with the elite classes. Other manifestations of hieratic art appeared in elaborate pottery, murals, sculpture, and jewelry. After the establishment of state-level organiza- tions, the city-state was the basic and stable unit, combinations of which made up the larger political structures of kingdom and empire. Intellectually, there were certain cross-cutting philosophical and religious principles. One set was bound up with the fatalistic cosmologies of the Meso- americans. [Humanity] lived in a hostile world with capricious gods. Mathemat- ics, hieroglyphic writing systems, astronomy, and calendrical systems were all tied to these philosophical tenets. Two ritual games were widely played, the [rubber] ball game and [patolli, a board game. The ball game still survives] in isolated regions. Regional diversities existed within these and other characteristics which bound Mesoamerica together. Willey has characterized Mesoamerica as a vast diffusion sphere. That is to say, whatever happened of importance in one area sooner or later had some effect on most of the other areas. (Adams 1991: 19–20)

The geographical extent of Mesoamerica includes roughly two-thirds of present-day Mexico, all of Guatemala and Belize, a thin western segment of Honduras, and probably four-fifths of El Salvador. In all, it covers about 1,015,300 square kilometers, or 392,000 square miles (see Map 1.1). Stage-development presentation has theoretical implications of its own. These are that in each stage, often a very long period of time, there were characteristic features common to all societies. These commonalities crossed all cultural institutions, although economic development as an infrastructure for further cultural elaboration has often been given prior- ity. Much of the terminology has lost most of its evolutionary implica- Map 1.1

10 Richard E. W. Adams tions, however, and now is best regarded as representing large blocks of time. Thus Willey, Ekholm, and Millon, (1964) used the Lithic, Preclas- sic, Classic, and Postclassic stages to organize their synthesis. However, I have made several modifications to that evolutionary terminology to conform with that used by various authors in the chapters that follow. First, the Lithic stage has been renamed the Paleoindian. Second, the now commonly used term Archaic has been adopted. Third, the term Formative has come to be used interchangeably with Preclassic.

Paleoindian (35,000?/10,000–7000 B.C.) The earliest certain settlers in Mesoamerica now seem to date about 10,000 B.C., but possibly people were there as early as 40,000 years ago. Upper Paleolithic hunting and gathering bands appear to have sporadi- cally crossed through the land bridge (Beringia) between northeastern Siberia and present-day Alaska over several hundred years. At the mo- ment, it appears that the initial entry was not later than 15,000 B.C. Material from the Southern Cone of South America dates the earliest presence of humans there at about 12,000 B.C. or slightly earlier (Meltzer et al. 1997). New finds in the Amazon date to about 9200 B.C. (Roosevelt et al. 1996). Ice age climates, Pleistocene animals and plants, and other features such as lower ocean levels formed the context within which these earliest colonists lived. Radically distinct varieties of stone tool kits were developed and adapted to New World conditions.

Archaic (8/7000–1500 B.C.) Apparently under the pressures of climatic change, drastic loss of animal populations, and other factors, transitions from hunting and gathering took place during this stage. Domestication of many plants and a few animals began at least by 7000 B.C. and perhaps by 8000 B.C. Nonagri- cultural villages were established about 5000 B.C., while others used a mixture of old extractive techniques combined with new food-producing methods. Agricultural villages were established all over Mesoamerica by 1500 B.C. A general increase in the number of people diminished oppor- tunities to expand through space and eventually led to regional differ- ences. Introduction 11

Preclassic (1500 B.C.–A.D. 150) Cultural elaboration leading to complex cultures took place over the next 1,650 years. The Gulf Coast culture called the Olmec seems to have been the earliest to reach a state of development that we can define as civiliza- tion about 1350 B.C. and appears astonishingly early in the period, al- though there are now possible predecessors on the Pacific Coast. A number of other precocious Formative cultures in the central highlands were in existence and interacted with the Olmec. Beginning about 600 B.C., various large regional centers with major buildings appeared in many zones. Many of these became the focal points for complex cultures between 600 B.C. and A.D. 150. By the latter date, most of the features defining Mesoamerica and that distinguish it from North and Central American cultural areas were in place.

Classic (A.D. 150/300–650/900) The development of elaborate cultural institutions appears to have been directly spurred by social and ideological factors. Indirectly, population growth was also a dynamic element. The starting and ending dates are strictly dependent on the area with which one deals. Classic cultures were in every sense the second florescence of Mesoamerican civilization and built upon the previous successes of Preclassic civilizations. The first large-scale, economic and political systems were developed, which bound together several regions.

Early Postclassic (A.D. 650/900–1250) Collapse and transformation of Classic civilizations led to new regional expressions in this stage. Intense interaction between far-flung zones led to the creation of hybrid cultures, which appeared as transitional forms. Climatic changes played a role in at least accelerating the new adapta- tions. Tribute-seeking, predatory military states developed, which laid down patterns fully developed in the next stage.

Late Postclassic (A.D. 1250–1519) Essentially, this was the climax stage for reformulated, regional, and larger-than-regional cultures put together in the preceding stage. 12 Richard E. W. Adams

Historical and native documents as well as eyewitness accounts provide unexcelled detail for these civilizations. A number of the sixteenth- century expressions of Mesoamerican civilizations are relatively well known: the Aztec, Tarascan, Maya, Zapotec, and Mixtec.

A SHORT HISTORY OF MESOAMERICAN FIELD ARCHAEOLOGY: A SELECTIVE HISTORICAL REVIEW OF RESEARCH I have concentrated on the years 1950 to the late 1990s for a historical survey of research, a period within which all of the scholars with chapters in this book accomplished the research that gave them the credentials to write in their chosen fields. However, I also refer to a number of earlier developments and precursor concepts. The dating of the survey is not entirely arbitrary; it is clear that the last forty-six years have seen radical changes in both research data and our understanding of it. Surveys of literature and trends in Maya archaeology made in 1969 (Adams) and 1982 (Adams and Hammond) clearly show the explosive growth not only of knowledge but also of practitioners. The obvious points are that these developments are related and are also characteristic of the general field of Mesoamerican archaeology (as seen in Blanton et al. 1981; Adams 1991; Weaver 1991). The less obvious point is that an increasing diversity of research design, field methods, interpretation, and even of publications took shape. Some references will be made to precursors in certain fields. In the longer history of Mesoamerican archaeology three trends can be clearly seen. The first is the growing realization of the great depth of time in the area. The second is the increasing perception of the complex- ity of the area and of that achieved by individual cultures. These two changes in intellectual awareness are mainly substantively driven – that is, nearly a direct result of increased fieldwork and the publication of it. The third trend is the increase in the amount of and persuasiveness of explanatory (secondary theoretical) material from about 1960 onward. This is partly a response to the challenges of the changes in perception of the data but is also driven by the history of the field of archaeology as practiced by Northamericans. In Latin America, mainly regionally trained archaeologists have taken the Marxist models as premises to be assumed and have found themselves bewildered and even upset by the newer and more sophisticated constructions of their Northamerican colleagues. Introduction 13

However, scholarly interchange has brought about more sympathetic understanding on both sides. The history of field archaeology in Mesoamerica is a simultaneously narrower and wider field than the usual survey of Mesoamerican studies. As Bernal notes (1980:148), the first large-scale Mesoamerican fieldwork was begun in the 1880s by Harvard’s Peabody Museum at the site of Copan, Honduras. Before that time, antiquarianism had characterized the study of artifacts and the sites. The lack of discipline in excavation, especially the lack of the stratigraphic method, had hampered even the best of the fieldworkers in comprehending what they observed and in developing the sequence of events and construction at any given site. Typological studies often had been done on museum collections, includ- ing a study of the small clay figurines so common in the Basin of Mexico. However, the figurines were ordered in time by stylistic means and lacked the necessary independent confirmation. Such indispensable discipline was introduced about 1911 with the stratigraphic technique, which has since been supplemented by a great number of technical and field meth- ods. In my view, it is no coincidence that the person probably most responsible for introducing stratigraphic excavation to New World ar- chaeology was Franz Boas, the founder of American anthropology (Adams 1960:99). As Browman and Givens (1996:91) conclude, however, the method was probably independently introduced three times into American archaeology during a relatively short period. The intellectual development of that crucial time meant that archaeology was to be part of anthropology, and that the interactivity characteristic of the total field was also to be part of the subfield. It is also apparent that the develop- ment of stratigraphy, and the implications of the information to be gained from it, meant that field methods were not mere skills and proficiencies that were an end in themselves. The real implication was that fieldwork, done in a disciplined and imaginative manner, could produce insights and conclusions available from no other source. In short, explanation and understanding flowed from fieldwork, or at least from the information produced by fieldwork. It is my argument that new methods of gathering information and of analyzing it ultimately are the intellectual drivers in the field of Meso- american studies and not secondary theories. Two examples will suffice. The reformulated and integrated theory of the Classic Maya collapse (Culbert 1973) was stimulated by the accumulation of significant amounts 14 Richard E. W. Adams of data on the topic from projects in the period 1955–70. The explanation was not the result of a breakthrough in understanding but was the consequence of new information from several sites that appeared to coincide and to suggest it might be possible to integrate the data and explanations. The breakthrough in understanding came at a conference where all the data was examined and twelve scholars contributed to the analysis and final form of explanation. The new explanation was, as always, insufficiently supported by data in certain areas; it therefore became a guide for further research during the next twenty-five years and probably will continue to influence field research for the foreseeable future. A second example is that of the research effort in the Valley of Oaxaca and its surrounds. Considerable data had been accumulated from 1920 to 1965, principally from the work of Alfonso Caso and his colleagues. In this case, a later, small group of scholars led by Kent Flannery generated a series of research problems based on Caso’s work and also on a larger theoretical scheme, the Palerm Wolf theory, which, in turn, was based on huge amounts of work already done in the Basin of Mexico (Flannery et al. 1967). Again, I argue that the available information generated by fieldwork and analysis stimulated tentative explanations and further field- work as well as still further explanations. Both of these examples are examined further in this introduction, but my point should be clear. Data generation leads to more sophisticated analysis and thence to more pattern perception that, finally, demands explanation and more field- work. Theory mistakenly has been set at the center of this scholarly operational process and, because of its glamor and the often perceived lack of need for data to sustain it, is frequently used as shortcut to facile, persuasive, and mistaken explanation. Greater intellectual weight and historical credit needs to be given analysis and field methods. The recent and ever faster changing fashions in ‘‘theory’’ often have little or no effect on the nature of and the quality of the information produced. This point can be demonstrated by comparing the quality of the fieldwork, publication, and data from the work of scholars at the Carnegie Institution of Washington with that from many other projects stimulated by the hypothesis testing of the ‘‘New Archaeology.’’ The triviality of conclusions, poverty of documentation, and smallness of sample of the latter are in often great contrast to the work accomplished by the Carnegie group. To use an analogy, a great deal of theory is too often like the surface of the ocean, tossed and agitated by every wind