Origenes Rosenwig 2006 Sedentism Food Soconusco

8/4/2019 Origenes Rosenwig 2006 Sedentism Food Soconusco

1/27

Sedentism and Food Production in Early Complex Societies of the Soconusco, MexicoAuthor(s): Robert M. RosenswigSource: World Archaeology, Vol. 38, No. 2, Sedentism in Non-Agricultural Societies (Jun.,2006), pp. 330-355Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40024504

Accessed: 09/07/2010 15:56

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. 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

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to World

Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40024504?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancishttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancishttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40024504?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/27

Sedentism and food production in earlycomplex societies of the Soconusco,MexicoRobert M. Rosenswig

AbstractThis paper presents a case study of the relationship between increasing plant use, sedentism andpolitical complexity among societies on the Pacific coast of southern Mexico during the Early andMiddle Formative period (1600-800 bee). I argue that each of these variables increased at differentpaces in the region. Some of the earliest ceramics in Mesoamerica are documented by 1600 bee as isincreasingly sedentary village life. During the following centuries a number of political centres roseand fell. While macrobotanical remains of numerous domestic plant species have been recoveredfrom Early Formative and earlier Archaic period contexts, the overall diet was very broad basedwith extensive resources exploited from the nearby swamp and estuary systems. Isotopic, groundstone and iconographic data all indicate that the subsistence base underwent a marked trans-formation during the Middle Formative Conchas phase (900-800 bee) which corresponds to anenvironmental shift to stable, moist conditions conducive to increased plant production. Therefore,there was over half a millennium during which ceramic-using, horticultural villagersdeveloped political rank prior to the adoption of agriculture and evidence of the first stratifiedpolitical organization in the region. Evidence from the Soconusco is reviewed and new data arepresented from the site of Cuauhtemoc, which was occupied through the entire 800-year period inquestion.

Keywords

Mesoamerica; sedentism; origins of agriculture; horticulture; rank society; social stratification;Olmec.

The development of settled life, of food production and of social complexity is one of themost fundamental changes to have occurred in the history of humankind. Of the millionsof years that our ancestors have been a distinct species it is only within the last 11,000 thatsuch changes have occurred. The transition from mobile and egalitarian foragers tosedentary and hierarchical food producers fundamentally transformed the way in whichpeople live and interact with each other. A number of models once proposed to explain

S3 Routledqe World Archaeology Vol. 38(2): 330-355 Sedentism in Non-Agricultural Societiesl\ Tayior&Franciscroup 2006 Taylor & Francis ISSN 0043-8243 print/1470-1375 onlineDOI: 10.1080/00438240600694115


3/27

Sedentismandfood production 331this transition assume that population growth caused resource stress which provided thestimulus for food production (e.g. Binford 1968;Cohen 1977). Yet, after decades of studyno such overarching model appears adequate to explain these phenomena (e.g.McCorriston and Hole 1991: 47; Harlan 1992: 46; Blake et al. 1992a; Whittle 1996;Perrin2003). Instead, local level explanations are requiredto explore specific sequences ofhuman/plant interaction and their resulting cultural implications. This does not precludethe possibility of common processes; it simply recognizes that there is a wide variety ofinterrelatedfactors that may not always have occurred for the same reasons.The interpretations of agricultural origins in Mexico and Central America have beendramatically revised over the past decade due to direct AMS dating of plant remainsrecovered from archaeological contexts. In the TehuacanValley, squash was present by cal.5900 BCE Smith 2005), maize by cal. 3500 BCE Long et al. 1989) but domesticated beansare not documented until over three millennia later at cal. 300 BCE Kaplan and Lynch1999). In the Valley of Oaxaca, squash was cultivated by cal. 8000 BCE Smith 1997),maizeby cal. 4200 BCE Piperno and Flannery 2001) and, while wild beans were present earlier,domestic varieties are not documented until approximatelycal. 100 BCEKaplan and Lynch1999).Two things are clear from these data. First, the coordinated production of the maize-bean-squash triad of New World domesticates was more recent than was once thought.Second, the triad emerged much less coherently than was traditionally believed. It is clearthat, understanding the reasons for cultivating these crops, each must be viewed as adistinct addition to an existing stable adaptation (e.g. Flannery 1986; Winterhalder andKennett 2006). Further, root crops such as manioc were also widely used by cal. 3000 BCEby horticulturalpopulations along with maize in Central America (Pohl et al. 1996;Pipernoet al. 2000; and see Hawkes 1989) and tree crops were an increasingly significantcontribution to the diet (e.g. vanDerwarker2005). Lentz (2000: table 4.2) provides a usefullist of crops from the Americas along with their wild progenitors, demonstrating the widevariety of nutritionally useful plants available to early Mesoamerican peoples.In Mesoamerica, pollen records indicate that humans engaged in small-scale clearing offorests as early as cal. 9000 BCE(Piperno and Pearsall 1998: 78) and, as noted above,cultivated squash by cal. 8000 BCE.This means that humans began to alter their environ-ment and engage in forms of horticultureearly in the Holocene. Therefore, the distinctionbetween areas of primary and secondary domestication is not particularly significant fortracking the origins of plant production within Mesoamerica. The more crucial questionaddressed in this paper is what humans did with the plants they domesticated and, inparticular, how and when this human-plant relationship altered mobility patterns andsocio-political organization.Recent work in the coastal lowland Soconusco region of Mesoamerica (Fig. 1) suggeststhat Early Formative (aka Neolithic) ceramic-using villagers did not employ subsistencetechnology that differed markedly from their non-ceramic using predecessors (Clark andGosser 1995;Rosenswig 2006a). Further, the available data suggest that some of these pre-ceramic, Archaic (aka Mesolithic) inhabitants of the region were quite sedentary (Kennettet al. 2006; Voorhies 2004). The rich local environment of closely packed river, swamp,estuary and tropical forest environments allowed for a significant degree of sedentism.This is consistent with a growing awareness among archaeologists that an economydependent on aquatic resources is similar to an agricultural adaptation in that intensified


4/27

332 Robert M. Rosenswig

Figure 1 Elevation map of Mesoamerica with sites mentioned in the text and the Soconusco regionindicated.

production does not lead to overexploitation of resources but does permit reduced resi-dential mobility (e.g. Hayden 1996;Haaland 1997:375; Kennett 2005). An analytic dicho-tomy between a distinct Archaic/Mesolithic adaptation characterized as non-ceramicusing, not fully sedentary and horticultural from an equally distinct Formative/Neolithicadaptive complex of ceramic use, sedentism and agriculture is certainly exaggerated inmost cases. Instead, these are better viewed as two ends of a continuum on which mostsmall-scale societies fall somewhere between (Smith 2001).In this paper, the development of food production and sedentism are explored inrelation to the emergence of cultural complexity in the Soconusco region of Chiapas,Mexico. First, I define agriculture and sedentism and explicitly outline how each will bedocumented using archaeological data. Then, I explore the timing and relationshipbetween increased sedentism and food production in the Soconusco using newly acquireddata from the site of Cuauhtemoc (Fig. 2). While never more than a local centre, there isevidence at Cuauhtemoc for persistent settlement at this location from the beginning ofceramic-using village life through a marked increase in the use of maize less than eightcenturies later (Rosenswig 2005a). Artefact patterns and site structure document theevolving adaptation of Cuauhtemoc's inhabitants during this period.

AgricultureThere is an important difference between early stages of plant use when humans transformplant behaviour and the point when human social organization depends on thesedomesticated plants for its very existence - and plants ultimately transform human


5/27

Sedentism andfood production 333

Figure2 Map of the south-east part of the Soconusco with major rivers and early sedentary villagesindicated along with a chronology chart of the Early and Middle Formative period ceramic phasesfor the region.

behaviour.1 In fact, Rindos (1984: 101) distinguishes between these strategies that hecontrasts as domestication versus agriculture.The former has always been present to somedegree (Rindos 1984: 258) but agriculture represents a qualitative change in humanbehaviour. The two are obviously related but domestication does not necessarily lead toagriculture.The use of plants, their periodic tending and even the spread of this practicedo not explain the emergence of an agricultural way of life where human socialorganization is transformed by domesticated species.In an insightful paper, Vladimir Kabo (1985) presents the idea of harvest-gathererswhocollect significantwild resources;a practice that he argues pre-adapts them for agriculture.Keeley (1995) offers a cross-cultural discussion of this phenomenon, which he termsproto-agricultureand Smith (2001) calls it low-level food production. In Kabo's estimation, pre-agriculturalsedentism was achieved through the harvesting of wild plants and is consistentwith the coastal lowland Soconusco environment where a mix of wild plants, tended plantsand dependable aquatic resources allowed for sedentary villages to be established. Kabopoints out that Australian Aborigines had:

mastered the arts of care for plants, harvesting in particular seasons, and processingplants for food in various ways (including detoxification of poisonous plants, threshing,winnowing, milling, and baking unleavened bread) there were primitive forms ofirrigation (construction of dams and reservoirs) to prevent the drying of plots duringdry seasons and stimulate the growth of useful plants to attract fish, birds and animals.

(Kabo 1985: 602)It is therefore not the use of plants, their tending, or even low-level capital input aimed

at enhancing yields, that define agriculture. While Washburn might refer to Australian


6/27

334 Robert M. RosenswigAborigines as 'farmersin disguise' (1980: 108) they are not agriculturalists.Agricultureis,of course, also more than just the dependence on plants for food. For example, Mongongonuts provide more than half of the protein and daily caloric intake consumed by theaverage !Kung (Lee 1993: table 4-4), and so any failure of this food source could causestarvation. However, no one would consider the ethnographically documented !Kung orAustralian Aborigine to be agriculturalists. Hunter-gathererstend, till, transplantand sowto improve abundance and reliability of resources (Ford 1985: 3-6).Domestication can be viewed as a progressive process with different degrees of humanreliance on domesticated resources. Smith explores the 'middle ground' betweeneconomies dependent exclusively on wild plants and animals and those who stronglydepend on domesticated resources and draws the transition to agriculture as a gradientbetween 30-50 per cent of annual caloric budget contributed by domesticates (Smith 2001:27, fig. 7). This perspectivemay be empiricallycorrect but it gauges domestication in termsof plants (or animals) rather than people.Rindos (1984) provides a more anthropocentric perspective where agriculture isdefined by the transformative effect that domesticates have on human society. Hisdefinition of agriculture emphasizes qualitative changes to human behaviour rather thanvariation in plant morphology, genetics or the proportion of domesticated resourcesconsumed. Rindos (1984) argues that agriculture results in both human society andplants transforming each others' behaviour and establishing a dependent relationshipwhere neither can survive (in their current state) without the other. Agriculture is thusthe condition where plants are dependent on humans for survival - such as, maizekernels that are enveloped in a husk that must be opened. But this is only one half ofthe equation. The other half is that human social organization and political structuresalso becomes dependent on crops (such as maize in the Mesoamerican context) thatallow high population density, greater sedentism or other characteristics that thecultural superstructure requires for its existence. The advantage of employing thisdefinition of agriculture is that it avoids the issue of having to set a precise proportionof a diet that Smith grapples with in defining agriculture. Instead, focus is placed onchanges in social and political organization, topics that archaeological data can moreeasily address.Maize is currently Mesoamerica's primary carbohydrate source.2 Identifying thisdomesticate as a staple crop is fairly straightforward as significant consumption leaves adistinct chemical signature when stable carbon isotope analysis is performed on humanbone. The reorganization of society is not always as clear but can generallybe documentedby greater political and economic specialization permitted by a controllable source offood. The transformation to an agricultural economy is also expected to be reflectedsymbolically by increased artistic representation of agricultural products, tools andactivities. Increasedprocessing of cereal grains such as maize can also be expected to resultin greater frequencies of processing tools recovered from archaeological deposits. This isan indirect indication of increased plant use but one that is particularly amenable toarchaeological identification. The establishment of a new social, political, economicand spiritual way of life represents the establishment of agriculture in Mesoamerica(see Table 1 for material indicators used in this paper). This was when Zea mays'domesticated' Homo sapiens as humans had domesticated maize many millennia earlier


7/27

Sedentismandfood production 335Table 1 Material indicators of agricultureand sedentism employed in this paperLines of evidence Behaviour Archaeologicalindicator

Agriculture1 Increased consumption of maize Carbon isotopes indicating

higher level of C4 foodconsumed2. Increased processing of grains More ground stone toolsMore efficient use of

grinding surface3. Increased symbolic importance of Artistic representation ofagriculturalproduction agricultural products,activities, tools, etc.4. Increased control of labour due to More large work projectssurplus produced by intensifiable such as the building offood production large mounds

High residentialmobility (after Arnold 1999)5. Site periodically reoccupied Several non-contiguousconcentrations of

occupation6. Residences used for short periods Low level of investmentof time in architectural construction7. Local landscape not claimed by a No burials at site

specific group of people8. Lack of memory of previous Small pits that cut throughoccupation of site each other in domestic areas9. Use of multipurpose vessels Tecomates dominate thedesigned for their durability ceramic assemblageand transportability

with little appreciable effect on society. The implication is that maize was not originallydomesticated to produce social reorganization as Zohary (2004; and see Hayden 2003) hasrecently argued in general terms and Smalley and Blake (2003) explore specifically for thecase of maize in the Americas.

SedentismSedentism is not always easy to define archaeologically in a clear-cut manner. A two-levelsettlementpattern can be the result of small hunter-gathererresourceextraction and campsites, on one hand, and larger aggregation sites, on the other. The latter contain moresymbolically charged artefacts as well as the remains of a wider range of activities (Conkey1980:612). A collector subsistence strategy (Binford 1980) can also bring groups of peopletogether to live in sedentaryvillages for part of the year. Further, the artefact compositionof these sites may differ markedly due to length of occupation rather than functions


8/27

336 Robert M. Rosenswigperformed at large and small sites (Mills 1989: 142-3). Therefore, settlement pattern datamust be interpreted critically when addressing early sedentism.

Other factors also complicate the identification of sedentary societies using archae-ological data. One segment of a population can remain sedentary all year while anothersegment is mobile for part of the year (Haaland 1995, 1997). Or, a community can beoccupied periodically for a number of years and abandoned in between (Arnold 1999). It istherefore more productive to discuss relative degrees of sedentism rather than its presenceor absence (Murdock and Provost 1973: 380; Kelly 1992: 49-51; but see Rafferty 1985:116). Furthermore, farmers do not have to be sedentary (e.g. Hard and Merrill 1992;Graham 1994)and, although theremay be a connection between pottery use and sedentism(Arnold 1985: 113-18; but see Rice 1999: 21), there appears to be no clear correlationbetween pottery use and agriculture (Skibo and Blinman 1999: 173). The relationshipbetween food production, pottery use and sedentism is thus complex and no a prioriassumptions should be made regarding the sequence or timing for increases of each.

Philip Arnold (1999) presents a provocative argument that residential mobilitycontinued in the Tuxtla Mountain region of Mesoamerica through to the beginning ofthe Late Formative period at approximately cal. 400 BCE. This is in contrast to thetraditional definition of sedentism beginning with the Early Formative period at some timebetween cal. 2000 and 1500 BCEwhen ceramic are first documented. With regard to theArchaic (Mesolithic) to Formative (Neolithic) transitions, he notes that: 'To read mostaccounts of this transition, one would think that Mesoamerican groups became sedentary,took up agriculture, and adopted pottery as soon as they crossed the threshold from oneperiod to the next' (Arnold 1999: 157-8). In this paper, as in Arnold's, the goal is tounpack sedentism, food production and social complexity and to document therelationship between each of these complexes.Arnold (1999: 159-60) offers seven lines of evidence to argue that the Early Formativeinhabitants of La Joya (see Fig. 1) were not sedentary: 1) several non-contiguousconcentrations of occupation exist at the site indicating that the area was periodicallyreoccupied rather than being settled permanently; 2) low levels of investment inarchitectural construction indicate that residences were used for short periods of time;3) ground stone technology was geared to non-intensive tasks;4) no macrobotanical maizeremains were documented; 5) no burials have been documented at the site, which suggeststhat the local landscape was not claimed by a specific group of people; 6) no large storagepits were used at the time but instead numerous small pits are documented that cutthrough each other, indicating a lack of memory of previous occupation episodes. Heconcludes that, if the presence of pottery at the site was ignored, 'there would be littlereason to interpret Early Formative La Joya as a fully sedentary occupation' (Arnold1999: 161). A seventh argument he marshals against interpreting the Early Formativeresidents of La Joya as sedentary is that tecomates (i.e. globular, neckless ceramiccontainers with a restricted orifice) were the most common vessel form at the time andserved multiple purposes, such as both storing and preparing food. In addition to theirfunctional versatility, Arnold (1999: 162) argues that another crucial factor in tecomatedesign was that they were extremely durable and thus transportable. Arnold thus positsthat tecomates served as multi-purpose containers employed by non-sedentary people. Ifwe omit criteria numbers 3 and 4 from the list above (as they relate to agriculturewhich


9/27

Sedentismandfood production 337I track independently in this paper) the remaining five criteriaprovide material indicatorswith which to document the degree of sedentism practised by inhabitants of a given site(see Table 1).

Cuauhtemocand the SoconuscoThe Soconusco is located on a flat coastal plain approximately 15-40km wide between thePacific Ocean and the Sierra Madre Mountains (Fig. 1). The plain is transected bynumerous rivers and there are a number of large marine estuary and lagoon systems nearthe coast (Fig. 2). The environment is seasonal, with a dry period between November andApril. Although the region has been cleared over the past forty years, and is used almostexclusively for agricultureand ranching today, in prehistory the coastal plain was a mix ofdeciduous tropical forest and evergreen tropical forest depending on ground water (seeVoorhies 2004: 6-13).The Late Archaic Chantuto B phase (3000-1800 bee)3 is known from five estuary shellmound sites and the upland site of Vuelta Limon, which have been excavated by BarbaraVoorhies (2004). The estuary sites are interpretedas seasonal resourceprocurementlocalesand Vuelta Limon as a base camp site (Voorhies 1996a, 1996b) for groups engaged in acollector subsistence strategy (sensu Binford 1980). At the site of Tlacuachero a large,prepared clay surface was encountered with postholes forming two oval structures(Voorhies 1976: 38; Voorhies et al. 1991). This site was seasonally occupied to procureclam, fish, turtle and other marine resources and the tools recovered included millingstones and hammer stones. Two burials have been excavated from the Tlacuachero site.Isotopic analysis of these burials indicates reliance on C4plants (which include maize) andthis suggests a settlement cycle where mangrove and upland resources were each exploitedon a seasonal basis (Blake et al. 1992b). However, Blake et al. (1995: 167) suggest thatthese isotopic results may be due to high levels of consumption of marine resources.

Phytoliths have been analysed from the Tlacuachero midden and a sediment coreanalysed from the marsh adjacent to the Chantuto type site and both indicate that asimilar mangrove environment prevailed during Chantuto times. Unfortunately, noidentifiablepollen was preserved,nor were phytolith data pertinent to economic behaviour(Micheals and Voorhies 1999: 48). Analysis from Vuelta Limon indicates that forestelements dominated the phytolith assemblage but indicators of disturbance such as grassesare also present and Voorhies states that this phytolith study documents 'evidence ofprobable cultigens: maize, maize crosses and squash' (1996a: 24). The available data thusindicate that, in the Soconusco, non-ceramic-using, semi-sedentary people employed awide range of domesticated plants as part of a broad-based diet.Some of the earliest Mesoamerican ceramics have been recovered from the Soconusco(Clark and Gosser 1995; Clark and Cheetham 2002). In the Mazatan zone of theSoconusco, the first evidence of rank societies is documented between four and sevencompeting political centres (Clark and Blake 1994) during the first part (i.e. 1600-1250bee) of the Early Formative period (see Fig. 2). As I argue at greater length below, by 1450bee (at the latest) the residents of the Soconusco were quite sedentary and continued to usea wide range of domesticated plants including maize, squash, chilli peppers and avocado.


10/27

338 Robert M. RosenswigHowever, all these domesticates had been used for millennia. So, while the use of ceramicsand increased sedentism makes the sites occupied after 1600 bee more archaeologicallyvisible, there is little evidence of a dramatic change in the subsistence base or resourceprocurement practices during the Archaic to Formative transition (see Clark and Gosser1995).

During the second part of the Early Formative (1250-900 bee), the Soconusco was inintensive contact with residents of the San Lorenzo Olmec capital on Mexico's Gulf Coast(Clark 1997; Rosenswig 2005a; Cheetham 2006). Not only did these two regions ofMesoamerica share similar representational styles but the demographic and politicaldevelopments in both regions were closely intertwined as the founding and subsequentcollapse of San Lorenzo corresponded to significant political reorganization of theSoconusco (Clark and Pye 2000; Lesure 2004; Rosenswig 2004). However, none of thesepolitical developments had much of an effect on the economic base on which Soconuscosociety was built (Rosenswig 2005b).

During the Middle Formative Conchas phase (900-800 bee) the Mazatan zone wasabandoned and the entire regional population resettled around La Blanca (see Fig. 2). Thenewly emerged political centre of La Blanca was the location of the earliest monumentalpyramid mound built in Mesoamerica - prior to the better known example at La Venta(see Love 1999). This was also the time when the first stratified society is documented inthe region (Love 2002; Rosenswig 2006b). As I argue at greater length below, it was alsoduring the period beginning at approximately 900 bee that agriculture(following Rindos'definition) is first present in the Soconusco, more than half a millennium after the firstsedentary societies are documented in the region and many millennia after the firstdomesticates were adopted. However, the political prominence of La Blanca was shortlived and after a century or two the entire Cuauhtemoc zone was abandoned (Rosenswig2004) while Izapa rose to prominence on the nearby piedmont (Lowe et al. 1982). Izaparemained a major political centre for the next thousand years.

My work at Cuauhtemoc, a small local centre occupied from the Barra throughConchas phase, provides an opportunity to study these developments at a single site in anarea adjacent to the Mazatan zone (see Fig. 2). Ceramicand figurinestyles at Cuauhtemocwere identical to those of the Mazatan zone as were demographicpatterns, suggesting thatthe Soconusco between the El Cantilena and Guamuchal swamps (see Fig. 2) functionedas a relatively cohesive cultural area (Rosenswig 2004, 2005a). Cuauhtemoc is unique inthe Soconusco as its occupation encompassed the 800-year period during which ceramicuse, sedentism and a dramatic increase in the reliance on maize are documented. It istherefore an ideal location from which to examine the relationship between sedentism andagriculture.

Early and Middle Formativeplant use in the SoconuscoWhile macrobotanical remains of domestic plant species have been recovered from EarlyFormative contexts in the Soconusco, the dietary reconstruction suggests that a diverserange of resources were exploited from the nearby swamps and estuaries (Blake et al.1992a). Blake et al. (1992a: 143) report that the contents of a Cherla phase refusepit fromthe site of Aquiles Serdan contained a diverse mix of fish, reptile, mammal and bird


11/27

Sedentism andfood production 339remains. Fish dominate the assemblage but white-tailed deer, pocket gopher and domesticdog were also well represented.This indicates that a broad spectrum diet was maintainedin the Mazatan zone and Early Formative faunal patterns from Cuauhtemoc areconsistent (Rosenswig 2005a).Feddema (1993: 77) analysed macrobotanical samples from four Early Formative sitesin the Mazatan zone and found carbonized maize remains (Zea mays) in deposits from allEarly Formative phases. AMS dating of eight of these seeds confirm their age (Clark1994: 234). In addition, the length of maize cob fragments more than doubled betweenOcos and Cuadros times (Feddema 1993:62). However, even the largest Early FormativeCuadros phase sample was still only 40 per cent of the size of modern maize (Blake et al.1992b: 89).

Despite the presence of these macrobotanical maize remains, isotopic results fromfifteen Early Formative burials at eight sites in the Mazatan region indicate that limitedquantities of C4 plants were consumed as the samples had relatively low 13Cvalues thatranged between -22.4%Oand - 16.9%owith a mean of - 19.6%oBlake et al. 1992b: 89).Results from the four Middle Formative burials available at the time indicate that higherquantities of C4 plants were consumed with 13Cvalues at La Blanca as high as - 10.8%o(Blake et al. 1992b: table 1). The results of this study have been questioned due to smallcollagen fractions (Ambrose and Norr 1992) but re-analysis of problem samples producedsimilar results (Chisholm et al. 1993). Assuming the isotope results are reliable, this is stilla small sample size. Further,as the Conchas phase burials are all from the regional capital,it is possible that elevated maize consumption was related to socio-political status.However, corroborating evidence discussed below suggest that these isotope patterns willbe born out with larger samples from more diverse contexts.Isotope results that indicate low levels of maize consumption in the Soconusco duringthe Early Formative and a marked increase at the beginning of the Middle Formative aresupported by ground-stone data from Cuauhtemoc. During the Early Formative periods,there were relatively low levels of the overall proportion of ground stone (Fig. 3A) as wellas a low proportion of manos and metates relative to mortars and pestles (Fig. 3B)compared to the Conchas phase deposits. Due to limited sample size, these assemblagesare presentedas early and late facets of the Early Formative period (see Rosenswig 2005a:166-9). Results show a clear increase in the overall quantity of ground stone during theConchas phase as well as an increase in the proportion of manos and metates to mortarand pestles (Fig. 3). Both patterns are consistent with expectations of increased maizeprocessing- the first in terms of sheerquantity of grinding tools present and the second interms of relatively more tools with substantially larger grinding surfaces. Parallelingisotope results, ground-stone data indicate relatively low intensity of plant processingduring the centuries before 900 bee with a marked increase thereafter.

Technological changes further demonstrate a gradual development from the Archaic tothe Early Formative period adaptation rather than an adaptive revolution. Manos werepresent in the Mazatan region during the Barra phase in such low numbers that Lowe(1975) suggested that there was a lack of corn at Altamira. Minimal wear on these toolssuggests that stone grindingwas not a significantpractice at this time. Further, due to highproportion of obsidian chips at Altamira, Lowe (1975) proposed that manioc was thestaple crop at the site and that these were the remains of grating boards required for


12/27


Figure Overallquantityof ground tone(A)and ratioof manosandmetates o mortars ndpestles(B) recoveredfrom Cuauhtemoc.Values and ratios are standardizedby volume of depositsexcavatedandreportedboth in termsof counts andweights.

processing. Apparently, Lowe did not entertain the possibility that ceramic-using villagersdid not have a staple crop.Clark and Gosser (1995) employ an increase in the relative quantity of plain tecomatesand decrease in fire-cracked rock through the firstpart of the Early Formative to argue fora gradual change in food preparation technique from the Archaic pattern of roasting inpits to the Formative practice of boiling in pots (for an alternativeview see Voorhies 2004:357-66). Fire-cracked rock is debris left over from boiling liquid in containers made ofwood or other flammable materials - prior to the adoption of ceramic or metal cookingcontainers that can be placed directly on an open fire. I have documented similardiachronic trends at Cuauhtemoc that replicate the patterns presented by Clark andGosser (Fig. 4). Fire-cracked rock decreases through the six Early Formative phases, withthe exception of the Ocos which may be due to a special deposit introducing bias into thesample (Fig. 4A). Plain tecomates increase in relativeproportions at Cuauhtemoc throughthe Barra, Locona and Ocos phases (Fig. 4B) and the subsequent decrease (also


13/27

Sedentism andfood production 341

Figure4 Graphs of fire-crackedrock (A) standardizedby volume of deposits excavated and reportedas counts and weights and plain tecomates (B) calculated as a proportion of the minimum number ofvessels (MNV) of the assemblage from each phase.

documented by Clark and Gosser 1995: fig. 17.3) is the result of changes in overallassemblage composition during the second half of the Early Formative period. Thesepatterns suggest a gradual transition in subsistence practices as maize use graduallyincreases, during the centuriesfollowing the adoption of ceramics and establishment ofvillage life. Therefore, increased maize use (and the selective forces that led to an increasein cob size) in the Soconusco may have been the result (as it certainlywas not the cause) ofincreased sedentism in the area.

Smalley and Blake (2003) suggest that Early Formative maize stalks may have initiallybeen exploited for their sugar content to produce an alcoholic beverage. This would helpexplain the rapid spreadof maize throughout the Americas as well as the presenceof maizecobs at archaeological sites but small quantities of ground stone and low C4 levels in thebones of those who lived in the early villages. The latter would have been the case as C4carbon is deposited in bone only through consumption of the protein contained in maizecobs but absent in their stalks (Smalley and Blake 2003: 684). In such a scenario, seedswould not have been intensively processed so, while they are present, they did not require


14/27

342 Robert M. Rosenswigspecial tools to process them.4Another result of clearing and burningfields to plant maizewould have been to attract deer to graze on grasses and maize plants (Rosenswig 2005a:157;and see Smith 2001: 30-1). Both these possible initial uses of maize are consistent withharvest-gatherer proto-agricultural practices (Keeley 1995:254-6) and neither would haveaffected the carbon isotope content of human bone or the proportion or type of groundstone used.

The isotope, ground stone, ceramic and fire-crackedrock evidence of increased maizeexploitation during the Conchas phase is consistent with the firstwide-spreaduse of maizein the Middle Formative iconography of Mesoamerica. Taube (1996, 2000) observes thatthe nature of Olmec iconography changed during the Middle Formative when rulersbeganto be depicted in association with maize. At Cuauhtemoc, the Middle Formative Conchasphase marks the first widespread use of the double-line break motif (Fig. 5A) and cleftmotif (Fig. 5B) used to decorate ceramics. These iconographic conventions are ubiquitousin Mesoamerica at the time and are abstracted ways to represent the ground surface and/or the head of rulers from which maize grows (Fig. 5C). The association of politicalrulershipwith maize persists through to the Classic period Maya maize god (Taube 1996,2000). By that time, political leaders claimed legitimacy by embodying the staple graincrop and thus personifying the well-being of their subjects.In summary, there was a long history of domesticated plant use in the Soconusco (as inother parts of Mesoamerica) that preceded the adoption of ceramics and the establishmentof settled life. The Archaic/Mesolithic to Formative/Neolithic adaptive transition occurredgradually in the Soconusco with no marked disjuncture between the two periods.

Figure5 Examples f double ine bread A) andthe cleft motif(B) incised n ceramic ervingvesselsfromCuauhtemoc s well as how suchiconographys a simplified bstractionof rulersclaimingsymboliccontrol over maizeproduction C). Drawingby Ayax Moreno.


15/27

Sedentism andfood production 343However, dietary, technological and iconographic evidence all indicate that a fundamentalreorganization of the Soconusco economy occurred during the early Middle FormativeConchas phase. This means that, following Rindos' definition of agriculturetransforminghuman society, such an adaptation had not emerged during the 700-year Early Formativeperiod (1600-900 bee). Defined in this manner, the Early Formative residents ofCuauhtemoc (as well as their Archaic predecessors) were not agriculturalists- althoughthey were consuming many domesticated plants including maize. In fact, aside from theadoption of ceramics (and increased sedentism as discussed in the following section), therewas little change detected between the Archaic and Early Formative domestic economies(Rosenswig 2006a).

Residentialmobility at CuauhtemocFollowing the criteria for documenting residential mobility enumerated earlier in thispaper (based on Arnold 1999: 159-60), there is evidence of a significant increase insedentismin the Soconusco from at least 1450 bee during the Locona phase. Such changesmay well have occurred during the earlier Barra phase but evidence is so scant for thisearly phase that, in light of Arnold's argument, it is difficult to judge at the current time.Five lines of evidence are presented here to argue for increased sedentism by the Loconaphase (see Table 1). First, there was a gradual build up of the Cuauhtemoc site in a singlelocation over its 800-year occupation. This is in contrast to the multiple, non-contiguousdeposits that Arnold documented at La Joya (Table 1, No. 5). It also contrasts with theseasonal occupation of Tlacuachero documented by Voorhies (2004). Middens on the eastand west sides of Cuauhtemoc were recorded on a 220m profile - drawn from the wall of adrainagecanal that bisected the site (Fig. 6A) - that document the continuous build up ofcultural materials. Excavation blocks Suboperation 1 and 10 document the accretionalbuild up of middens around the site with materials from Barra through Conchas phasedebris (Fig. 6B).Two Locona-phase structures were documented at Cuauhtemoc associated with burials,trash pits and a hearth (Fig. 7A). Based on the absence of these features at La Joya(Table 1, Nos 7 and 8), Arnold argued for residentialmobility during the Early Formative.Not only do these Locona phase features not cut into each other but there is also a greaterdiversity of the types of features at Cuauhtemoc than at La Joya. Further, the twostructures are oriented in the same direction, indicating a degree of coordination inbuildingconstruction. This provides second and third lines of evidence for sedentism in theSoconusco by the Locona phase at the latest.A fourth argument for residential mobility proposed by Arnold is low labour input inarchitecture(Table 1, No. 6). While the Early Formative architecturedocumented to dateat Cuauhtemoc was modest, such was not the case at Paso de la Amada. At this large sitein the Mazatan zone, a 22m-long elite residence was rebuilt in multiple episodes duringthe Locona and Ocos phases (Blake 1991) as were other residences (Lesure 1997). Thesestructures indicate substantial labour investment in residential architecture that isconsistently associated with increased sedentism (Kelly et al. 2005).The final argument presented by Arnold for residential mobility was that tecomatesserved as a tool designed for many functions, including being frequently moved (Table 1,


16/27


Figure 6 Schematic depiction of the stratigraphy documented in the 220m profile of Trench 1 (A)showing the Cuauhtemoc site (B) in cross-section. Vertical axis in box A is exaggerated to makestratigraphymore apparent.

Figure 7 Plan map of the Suboperation 8 excavation units (A) showing two Locona phase structuresand associated burials and pit features as well as the location of these excavation units atCuauhtemoc (B).


17/27

Sedentism andfood production 345No. 9). While this might have been the case for tecomates documented at La Joya, thesame cannot be said for the Soconusco. For instance, numerous Locona and Ocosphase tecomates in the Soconusco were formed with decorative supports. The examplein Figure 8 shows a hollow support, made in the form of a peccary head, that would haveraised the body of the vessel approximately 12-15cm above the ground surface. This typeof tecomate support would have greatly reduced the use-life of vessels that were frequentlymoved as well as making them difficult to pack or carry for travel by either foot or boat.In summary, Cuauhtemoc was a sedentary community by the Locona phase - or, atleast, its inhabitants were much more sedentary than those who occupied La Joya duringthe Early Formative period. Village middens were built up in the same location over thecenturies that the site was occupied. The earliest documented burials, pits and hearthsfrom the site date to the Locona phase. At Paso de la Amada, large residences were builtand refurbished during the Locona and Ocos phases which indicate much morepermanency than the temporary camp Arnold describes at La Joya. Further, EarlyFormative tecomates in the Soconusco, especially those with elaborately modelled hollowsupports, are not consistent with the idea that they were containers designed fortransportability by people with a high degree of residential mobility. Compared to LaJoya, the Early Formative sites on the coastal plain of the Soconusco appear to have beenoccupied by relatively sedentary villagers by at least 1450 bee during the Locona phase.These sedentary villagers, however, practised a mixed foraging and horticulturalsubsistence strategy.

Sociopolitical organization in the SoconuscoBlake and Clark outline seven lines of evidence for the emergenceof early Early Formativerank societies, including:(1) a two-tiered hierarchy settlement pattern comprised of small villages and hamletscentered around large villages, (2) elite domestic architecture, (3) differentialmortuarypractices, (4) unequal access to sumptuary goods, (5) presence of patronized craft

Figure 8 Hollow, Ocos-phasetecomate support depicting a peccary head recoveredfromCuauhtemocreconstructionrawingof MichisRed-on-Buff ecomateby Ayax Moreno).


18/27

346 Robert M. Rosenswigspecialization centered around elite house mounds, (6) clues of increased publicfeasting, and (7) evidence of redistribution within each large village community.

(Blake and Clark 1999: 56)However, recent artefact analysis using larger samples from Paso de la Amada found noevidence for criteria numbers 4 and 5 listed above (Lesure and Blake 2002). This indicatesthat, while incipient social and political rank was present during the first part of the EarlyFormative, there is no evidence for economic inequality, which is the definingcharacteristic of stratified society (Rosenswig 2005a: 337-48).At Paso de la Amada, platform mounds occupied by the traditional elite wereabandoned at the end of the Ocos phase (Blake 1991) and new mounds were built (Lesure1997). After the Cherla phase, Paso de la Amada and other Early Formative Mazatanpolities were abandoned. By approximately 1250 bee, a distinctive Olmec-style aesthetic isdocumented in the Soconusco along with a reorganization of the local settlement system(Clark 1997; Rosenswig 2005a, 2005b). During the Cuadros and Jocotal periods, thepolitical centre of the region shifted from the swamp margins in the Mazatan zone to theshores of the Coatan River at the sites of Canton Corralito and El Silencio respectively(Clark and Pye 2000; Perez 2002; Cheetham 2006) (see Fig. 2). During the later part of theEarly Formative period there were thus significant political and demographic changes inthe region whereas the economic base remained relatively stable (Rosenswig 2005b).The Conchas phase (900-800 bee) marks the beginning of the Middle Formative periodin the Soconusco and the single most obvious development at this time was theconstruction of the earliest pyramid mounds in Mesoamerica. La Blanca, located to theeast of Cuauhtemoc in modern-day Guatemala, rose to prominence at this time in an areathat had had a small population during the previous Jocotal phase. The site quickly grewto cover at least lOOha(Love 2002: 55). A 25m-high mound was constructed at LaBlanca and was the largest known mound built in Mesoamerica to that date (Love 1999).There were at least forty-threehouse mounds at La Blanca and the site was at the centre ofa multi-tiered settlement system that includes fifty-six sites documented by Love (2002) inthe Naranjo River zone. Due to the virtual abandonment of the Mazatan zone to thenorth west (Blake and Clark 1999) and the Rio Jesus zone to the southeast (Pye andDemarest 1991), the leaders of the La Blanca polity appear to have drawn in thesurroundingpopulations as part of this newly emerging polity (Blake and Clark 1999:64;Love 1999: 90).The La Blanca polity consisted of a five-level settlement system. The sites of La Zarcaand El Infierno (see Fig. 2) representa second tier of settlement during the Conchas phase.These sites were both clustered around central mounds measuring 20m and 18mrespectively. While no investigations have occurred at either site, these are the largestmounds documented at the time other than La Blanca. Cuauhtemoc was a third-tier siteduring the Conchas phase, measuring lOhawith a 5m-high central mound. Therewere twosites documented that measured 1 to 3ha without mounds as well as many smallerConchas phase hamlets less than 0.7ha in extent, thirty-fiveof which were documented inthe 28km2 systematically surveyed zone around Cuauhtemoc (Rosenswig 2004).I have recently summarized six lines of evidence for social stratificationin the La Blancapolity (Rosenswig 2006b: table 2). These indicators of social stratification are: 1) a


19/27

Sedentism andfood production 347four-tier settlement hierarchyabove that of small hamlets; 2) population nucleation in thearea of La Blanca and abandonment of previous political centres; 3) progressively higherlevels of labour expenditure in architectural construction at first-, second- and third-tiercentres; 4) greater quantities of wealth items, such as those carved from jade andgreenstone, that required specialized skill to produce; 5) exclusive use of high statusceramic wares in elite contexts at Cuauhtemoc; and 6) exclusive use of large earspools atthe regional capital of La Blanca and their absence at Cuauhtemoc. Therefore, theemergence of political stratification in the Soconusco appears to have been coeval with amarked increase in maize consumption.In summary, while sedentism and increasing political rank developed in the EarlyFormative period, a stratified society emerged in the Soconusco only during the earlyMiddle Formative Conchas phase. In a heuristic sense, I follow Fried's (1967) distinctionbetween rank and stratified societies. It is only in the latter that differentiation is based onunequal access to the means of production, which qualitatively alters social and politicalrelations between human beings (Kristiansen 1998: 54-61; Chapman 2003: 88-99;Rosenswig 2005a: 337-48). The Conchas phase was also when, following Rindos'definition, agriculture is documented for the first time in the region.

Summaryand conclusionDue to abundant and stable resources in the coastal Soconusco environment, a degree ofsedentism was established during the Archaic period and most Mesoamerican groupsengaged in horticulture at the time. This was followed by some of the earliest evidence ofceramic use in Mesoamerica as well as the first documented case of increased politicalcomplexity (Clark and Blake 1994; Clark and Gosser 1995; Clark and Cheetham 2002).However, in contrast to a perspectivethat places the origins of agricultureat the beginningof the Formative/Neolithic era, I argue that the economic base of Soconusco society wastransformed 700 years later during the Conchas phase. While macrobotanical analysisindicates that Early Formative villagers were generating progressively larger cobs, maizewas probably also used to ferment stalk sugar and possibly to attract deer. Maize wouldthus have been attractive for multiple reasons during the Early Formative period inaddition to being a source of food. Further,maize was just one of many plants in use at thetime along with squash, avocado and manioc. Therefore, horticulture is documented earlyin the Archaic period while sedentism increasedthrough the Late Archaic (3000-1800 bee)and permanent villages were established by the Locona phase (1450-1350 bee) at thelatest. Ceramics were adopted during the Barra phase (1600-1450 bee), followed byincipient political complexity during the Locona and Ocos phases. During the late EarlyFormative period (1250-900 bee), the degree of sedentism and plant use show no signs ofchanging but there was a political reorganization of the Mazatan zone. However, it wasonly in the following centuries that intensified plant production reorganized the economicbase of the Soconusco during the Conchas phase (900-800 bee).

Agriculture emerged only during the Conchas phase but politically competitive villagershad already inhabited the region for over half a millennium. So, while the Conchas phasewas when social stratification was first apparent in the region (Love 2002; Rosenswig


20/27

348 Robert M. Rosenswig2005a, 2006b), rank societies had long been present (Clark and Pye 2000; Rosenswig2000). Political competition between leaders in Early Formative villagers may have been afactor driving resource intensification. However, as competitive behaviour was thus aconstant (Clark and Blake 1994; and see Wiessner 2002), it cannot (by itself) account forthe emergence of social stratification.

Ever-increasing maize cob size appears to have passed some sort of productivitythreshold during the Conchas phase that enabled it to be used as a staple crop during thecentury that social stratification emerged in the Soconusco. Recently publishedenvironmental reconstruction (Neff et al. 2006) indicates that conditions became moreconducive to plant production precisely at this time. Pollen cores from just south east ofthe Guamuchal Swamp (see Fig. 2) indicate that moist, stable conditions began at thebeginning of the Middle Formative and lasted for nearly a thousand years. Therefore,cultural pre-adaptation of the politically competitive superstructure received a 'well-timed'5push by the environment that appearsto have funded an increased level of politicalcomplexity during the Conchas phase.The transformations that occurred during the Conchas phase qualitatively alteredSoconusco society in a manner consistent with Rindos' (1984) definition of agriculture.While Childe (1951: 59) and other early scholars emphasized human control over foodsupply as a defining characteristic of the Formative/Neolithic revolution, the residentsof the Soconusco appear to have lost control to their food supply during the Conchasphase - at least in the sense that they were dependent on it for reproducing theirincreasingly stratified social order. Ultimately, this economic revolution appears to have'funded' the political aspirations of the newly emerging Conchas phase elite (Rosenswig2006b).While the political florescence of the La Blanca polity was spectacular, it was also shortlived and collapsed within a century of two. Izapa emerged as the new political centre onthe nearby piedmont that receives up to four times as much rain as the coastal plain.Higher levels of precipitation along with closer proximity to stone needed to process hard-kernelmaize grains would have made the piedmont a desirable location to support a large,socially complex population.The Archaic/Mesolithic to Formative/Neolithic transition was once assumed to havebeen a relatively clean transition between the two stable adaptations (e.g. Childe 1951;Ford 1969). Such a dichotomy implies that nominal data are sufficientto study the changebetween two function states of organization. However, it is increasingly evident thatresidential mobility (Rafferty 1985), food production (Smith 2001) and politicalcomplexity (de Montmollin 1989; O'Shea and Barker 1996) must each be studied at anordinal scale because each develops incrementally. Therefore, these key variables wereneither wholly present nor completely absent during the Archaic-Formative transition.Instead, sedentism, food production and political complexity must each be described asexisting to a greater or lesser extent. Further, while there is some concordance betweenincreases in these variables, each can develop at a differentrate. What is needed then is todocument local sequences and embrace each region's idiosyncratic history. This must bedone before it is feasible even to begin exploring the possibility that there is any regularityin underlying processes. This said, I have found it useful to define agriculture, followingRindos (1984), as the point where the political superstructure is dependent on the


21/27

Sedentism andfood production 349subsistencebase to supportculturalcomplexity.This providesa relativelyconsistentcriterionbywhichto compare hepoliticaldependence n food productionbetweenmanyregionsof the world withoutgetting bogged down in the details of comparingdiversesequencesof plant or animal domesticationand use. By this criterion,EarlyFormativeresidentsof the Soconuscoweresedentaryvillagerspractisinghorticulture or centuriesbeforeagricultures documentedduring he Conchasphase.

AcknowledgementsTheCuauhtemoc ata werecollectedundera seriesof permits ssuedby Mexico'sINAH,Consejode Arqueologia.Fundingwas provided by: a NSF DissertationImprovementGrant; a Fulbright-HaysDoctoral Dissertation Research Abroad Fellowship; aFoundationfor the Advancementof MesoamericanStudies(FAMSI) ResearchGrant;a New WorldArchaeologicalFoundationResearchGrant;a DoctoralFellowship,SocialSciencesand HumanitiesResearchCouncilof Canada;Yale Councilof International ndArea Studies(YCIAS)Dissertationand Pre-DissertationGrants;the Albers Fund (onvariousoccasions)and the WilliamsFund- both from the Department f Anthropology,YaleUniversity.The New WorldArchaeological oundation NWAF) providedogisticaland curatorial upportwithout which the projectwould not have beenpossible.Specialthanks are due to the NWAF directorJohn Clark.DouglasKennett,MarilynMasson,David Grove and two anonymousreviewers ach providedusefulcommentson earlierdrafts of this paperand Yvonne Marshall'ssuggestionswere also helpful.I alone amresponsibleor the ideas and errors n thispaper.

Department f AnthropologyUniversity t Albany SUNY, USA

Notes1 In this paperI deal exclusivelywith plantdomestication.Similararguments ould beappliedto animal domesticationbut in Mesoamerica he only domesticatedanimalsweredogsthathad been domesticated riorto the Formative ra(seeFiedel2005)andturkeys hat were domesticatedduringthe Postclassicperiod,i.e. withinthe last 500yearsbefore the arrivalof the Spanish.The timingof the domesticationof these twoanimalspeciesthus does not correspond o increasedsedentism,plant cultivationorpoliticalcomplexity.2 There is a tendencyamong Mesoamerican rchaeologists o equateagriculturewithmaizeagriculture ue to theclear historicalandcontemporarymportance f thiscropin the region. Equatingagriculturewith a relianceon maize should not be accepteduncriticallyor the earlyprehistory f Mesoamerica.However,maize s Mesoamerica'only cerealcrop and is uniqueamong crops growncommerciallyo this day for theefficiency f caloricproduction.Due to the modernworld's nsatiable ppetite orsugar,

the productionof corn syrup and fructose has made maize the world'sthird most


22/27

350 Robert M. Rosenswigcultivated crop and this has had a significant impact on many areas of the modern world(e.g. McCann 2005). As maize was by far the crop most represented in indigenousMesoamerican art and iconography this also appearsto have been the case in prehistory(Taube 1996, 2000). The only other plant species to receive anywhere near as muchattention in Prehispanic iconography is cacao, which was clearly a prestige crop (Coeand Coe 1996). Wild forest products continued to be important through the Prehispanicperiod (Lentz 1991; Lentz et al. 1996, 1997).3 Uncalibrated radiocarbon years before the common era (bee) are employed in this paperwhen discussing the Soconusco phase limits. While there are problems with not usingcalibrated dates, such as correlating cultural events with environmental changes (seeRosenswig 2006a), Formative Mesoamerican scholars have traditionally reported theirdates in this manner and I follow Clark and Cheetham's (in press;which updates Blakeet al. 1995)definition of Soconusco ceramicphase limits. Calibratingthese dates will notaffect the relative sequence of events (which is all that is necessary for my purposes inthis paper) and will shift all dates earlier by a century or two. So, for example, thebeginning of the earliest ceramic Barra phase dates to cal. 1800 bce rather than theuncalibrated 1600 bce.

4 Another factor affecting the quantity of processing tools could be the use of hard versussoft kernel variants of maize. While possibly a confounding factor in interpreting thesignificance of ground stone data, sufficient botanical evidence does not yet exist withwhich to explore this problem systematically.5 Well timed only in the sense that without this economic push the changes being studiedin this paperwould not have happened as they did. I do not intend a valuejudgement onthe development of social stratification being a positive turn as it has likely led to moreharm than good in the course of human history.

ReferencesAmbrose, S. H. and Norr, L. 1992. On stable isotopic data and prehistoric subsistence in theSoconusco region. CurrentAnthropology,33: 401-4.Arnold, D. 1985. Ceramic Theoryand Cultural Process. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.Arnold, P. J. III. 1999. Tecomates, residential mobility, and Early Formative occupation incoastal lowland Mesoamerica. In Pottery and People: A Dynamic Interaction(eds J. M. Skibo andG. M. Feinman). Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press, pp. 157-70.Binford, L. R. 1968. Post-Pleistocene adaptations. In New Perspectives in Archaeology (edsS. Binford and L. R. Binford). Chicago, IL: Aldine, pp. 313-41.Binford, L. R. 1980. Willow smoke and dog's tails: hunter-gatherer settlement systems andarchaeological site formation. AmericanAntiquity,45: 4-20.Blake, M. 1991. An emerging Early Formative chiefdom at Paso de la Amada, Chiapas, Mexico. InThe Formationof ComplexSociety in SoutheasternMesoamerica(ed. W. R. Fowler, Jr). Boca Raton,FL: CRC Press, pp. 27^5.Blake, M. and Clark, J. E. 1999. The emergence of hereditary inequality: the case of Pacific CoastalChiapas. In Pacific Latin America in Prehistory (ed. M. Blake). Seattle, WA: Washington StateUniversity Press, pp. 55-73.


23/27

Sedentism andfood production 351Blake, M., Clark, J. E., Chisholm, B. S. and Mudar, K. 1992a. Non-agricultural staples andagricultural supplements: Early Formative subsistence in the Soconusco region, Mexico. InTransitions to Agriculture in Prehistory (eds A. B. Gebauer and T. D. Price). Madison, WI:Prehistory Press, pp. 133-51.Blake, M., Chisholm, B. S., Clark, J. E., Voorhies, B. and Love, M. W. 1992b. Prehistoricsubsistence in the Soconusco region. CurrentAnthropology,33: 83-94.Blake, M., Clark, J. E., Voorhies, B., Micheals, G., Love, M. W., Pye, M. E., Demarest, A. A. andArroyo, B. 1995. Radiocarbon chronology for the Late Archaic and Formative periods on thePacific Coast of Southeastern Mesoamerica. Ancient Mesoamerica, 6: 161-83.Chapman, R. 2003. Archaeologies of Complexity London: Routledge.Cheetham, D. 2006. The Americas' first colony? A possible Olmec outpost in southern Mexico.Archaeology,59(1): 42-6.Childe, V. G. 1951. Man Makes Himself London: New American Library of World Literature.Chisholm B., Blake, M. and Love, M. W. 1993. More on prehistoric subsistence in the Soconuscoregion: response to Ambrose and Norr. CurrentAnthropology,34: 432^4.Clark, J. E. 1994. The development of Early Formative rank societies in the Soconusco, Chiapas,Mexico. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Clark,J. E. 1997. The arts of governmentin EarlyMesoamerica. Annual Reviewof Anthropology,26:211-34.Clark, J. E. and Blake, M. 1994. The power of prestige: competitive generosity and the emergenceof rank societies in Lowland Mesoamerica. In Factional Competitionand Political Developmentinthe New World eds E. M. Brumfieland J. W. Fox). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, pp. 17-30.Clark,J. E. and Cheetham, D. 2002. Mesoamerica's tribal foundations. In TheArchaeology of TribalSocieties (ed. W. A. Parkinson). Ann Arbor, MI: International Monographs in Prehistory,pp. 278-339.Clark, J. E. and Cheetham, D. in press. Cerarnica ormativa de Chiapas.Mexico: Instituto Nacionalde Antropologia e Historia.Clark, J. E. and Gosser, D. 1995. Reinventing Mesoamerica's first pottery. In The Emergence ofPottery: Technologyand Innovation in Ancient Societies (eds W. K. Barnett and J. W. Hoopes).Washington, DC, and London: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp. 209-21.Clark, J. E. and Pye, M. E. 2000. The Pacific Coast and the Olmec question. In Olmec Art andArchaeologyin Mesoamerica (eds J. E. Clark and M. E. Pye). Washington, DC: National Gallery ofArt, pp. 217-51.Coe, M. D. and Coe, S. D. 1996. The TrueHistory of Chocolate. London and New York: Thames &Hudson.Cohen, M. 1977. The Food Crisis in Prehistory.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Conkey, M. W. 1980. The identification of prehistoric hunter-gathereraggregation sites: the case ofAltamira. CurrentAnthropology,21: 609-30.de Montmollin, O. 1989. The Archaeology of Political Structure: Settlement Analysis in a ClassicMaya Polity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Feddema, V. 1993. Early Formative subsistence and agriculture in Southeastern Mesoamerica.Unpublished master's thesis, Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of BritishColumbia, Vancouver.Fiedel, S. J. 2005. Man's best friend - mammoth's worst enemy?A speculative essay on the role ofdogs in Paleoindian colonization and megafaunal extinctions. WorldArchaeology, 37: 11-25.


24/27

352 Robert M. RosenswigFlannery, K. V. 1986. GuilaNaquitz: ArchaicForagersandAgriculture n Oaxaca, Mexico. Orlando,FL: Academic Press.Ford, J. A. 1969.A Comparisonof Formative Cultures n the Americas:Diffusionof the Psychic Unityof Man. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.Ford, R. I. 1985. The processing of plant food production in prehistoric North America. InPrehistoric Food Productionin North America(ed. R. I. Ford). Anthropological Papers No. 75. AnnArbor, MI: University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology, pp. 1-18.Fried, M. H. 1967. The Evolutionof Political Society: An Essay in Political Anthropology.New York:Random House.Graham, M. 1994. Mobile Farmers: Ethnoarchaeological Approach to Settlement Organizationamong the Raramuri of Northwestern Mexico. Ann Arbor, MI: International Monographs inPrehistory.Haaland, R. 1995. Sedentism, cultivation, and plant domestication in the Holocene Middle Nileregion. Journal of Field Archaeology,22: 157-74.Haaland, R. 1997. Emergenceof sedentism: new ways of living, new ways of symbolizing. Antiquity,71: 374^85.Hard, R. J. and Merrill, W. L. 1992. Mobile agriculturalists and the emergence of sedentism:perspectives from northern Mexico. AmericanAnthropologists,94: 601-20.Harlan, J. R. 1992. Crops and Man, 2nd edn. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy.Hawkes, J. G. 1989. The domestication of roots and tubers in the American tropics. In ForagingandFarming: The Evolution of Plant Exploitation (eds D. Harris and G. Hillman). London: UnwinHyman, pp. 481-503.Hayden, B. 1996. Thresholds to power in emergent complex societies. In Emergent Complexity: TheEvolutionof Intermediate Societies (ed. J. E. Arnold). Ann Arbor, MI: International Monographs inPrehistory, pp. 50-8.Hayden, B. 2003. Were luxury foods the first domesticates? Ethnoarchaeological perspectives fromSoutheast Asia. WorldArchaeology, 34: 458-69.Kabo, V. 1985. The origins of the food-producing economy. CurrentAnthropology,26: 601-16.Kaplan, L. and Lynch, T. F. 1999. Phaseolus (Fabaceae) in archaeology: AMS radiocarbon datesand their significance for Pre-Columbian agriculture.Economic Botany, 53: 261-72.Keeley, L. H. 1995. Protoagricultural practices among hunter-gatherers:a cross-cultural survey. InLast Hunters-First Farmers: New Perspectives on the Prehistoric Transition to Agriculture (edsT. D. Price and A. B. Gebauer). Sante Fe, NM: School of American Research Press, pp. 243-72.Kelly, R. L. 1992. Mobility/sedentism: concepts, archaeologicalmeasures and effects. Annual Reviewof Anthropology,21: 43-66.Kelly, R. L., Poyer, L. and Tucker, B. 2005. An ethnoarchaeological study of mobility, architecturalinvestment, and food sharing among Madagascar's Mikea. AmericanAnthropologist,107: 403-16.Kennett, D. J. 2005. The Island Chumash:BehavioralEcology of a Maritime Society. Berkeley, CA:University of California Press.Kennett, D. J., Voorhies, B. and Martorana, D. 2006. An evolutionary model for the origins ofagriculture on the Pacific Coast of southern Mexico. In BehavioralEcology and the Transition toAgriculture(eds D. J. Kennett and B. Winterhalder). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press,in press.Kristiansen, K. 1998. Europe before History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Lee, R. B. 1993. The Dobe Ju/'hoansi, 2nd edn. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace.


25/27

Long, A., Benz, B., Donahue, D., Jull, A. and Toolin, L. 1989. First AMS dates on early maize fromTehuacan, Mexico. Radiocarbon,31: 1035^0.

Sedentism andfood production 353Lentz, D. L. 1991. Maya diets of the rich and poor: Paleoethnobotanical evidence from Copan. LatinAmericanAntiquity,2: 269-87.Lentz, D. L. 2000. Anthropocentric food webs in the PrecolumbianAmericas. In ImperfectBalance:Landscape Transformations n the Precolumbian Americas (ed. D. L. Lentz). New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press, pp. 98-119.Lentz, D. L., Beaudry-Corbett, M. P., Reyna de Aguilar, M. L. and Kaplan, L. 1996. Foodstuff,forests, fields, and shelter: a paleoethnobotanical analysis of vessel contents from the Ceren site,El Salvador. Latin AmericanAntiquity, 7: 247-62.Lentz, D. L., Ramirez, C. R. and Griscom, B. W. 1997. Formative period subsistence and forestproduct extraction at the Yarumela site, Honduras. Ancient Mesoamerica, 8: 63-74.Lesure, R. G. 1997. Early Formative platforms at Paso de la Amada, Chiapas, Mexico. LatinAmericanAntiquity,8: 217-35.Lesure, R. G. 2004. Shared art styles and long-distance contact in Early Mesoamerica. InMesoamerican Archaeology: Theory and Practice (eds J. A. Hendon and R. A. Joyce). Oxford:Blackwell, pp. 73-96.Lesure, R. G. and Blake, M. 2002. Interpretivechallenges in the study of early complexity: economy,ritual and architecture at Paso de la Amada, Mexico. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 21:1-24.

Love, M. W. 1999. Economic patterns in the development of complex society in Pacific Guatemala.In Pacific Latin America in Prehistory: The Evolution of Archaic and Formative Cultures(ed. M. Blake) Pullman, WA: University of Washington Press, pp. 89-100.Love, M. W. 2002. Early complex society in Pacific Guatemala: settlements and chronology of theRio Naranjo, Guatemala. Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation 66. Provo, UT:Brigham Young University.Lowe, G. 1975. The Early Preclassic Barra Phase of Altamira, Chiapas: a review with new data.Papers of the New WorldArchaeologicalFoundation38, Provo, UT: Brigham Young University.Lowe, G. W., Lee Jr., T. A. and Espinoza, E. M. 1982. Izapa: an introduction to the ruins andmonuments. Papers of the New WorldArchaeologicalFoundation 31. Provo, UT: Brigham YoungUniversity.McCann, J. C. 2005. Maize and Grace: Africa's Encounter with a New World Crop, 1500-2000.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.McCorriston, J. and Hole, F. 1991. The ecology of seasonal stress and the origins of agricultureinthe Near East. AmericanAnthropologist,93: 46-69.Micheals, G. H. and Voorhies, B. 1999. Late Archaic Period coastal collectors in southernMesoamerica: the Chantuto people revisited. In Pacific Latin America in Prehistory:The EvolutionofArchaic and Formative Cultures(ed. M. Blake). Pullman, WA: Washington State University Press,pp. 39-54.Mills, B. J. 1989. Integrating functional analysis of vessel and sherds through models of ceramicassemblage formation. WorldArchaeology,21: 133^7.Murdock, G. P. and Provost, C. 1973. Measurement of cultural complexity. Ethnology, 12:379-92.Neff, H., Pearsall, D. M., Jones, J. G., Arroyo de Pieters, B. and Freidel, D. E. 2006. Climate changeand population history in the Pacific Lowlands of Southern Mesoamerica. QuaternaryResearch,in press.


26/27

354 Robert M. RosenswigO'Shea, J. M. and Barker, A. W. 1996. Measuring social complexity and variation: a categoricalimperative?In EmergentComplexity:The Evolutionof IntermediateSocieties (ed. J. E. Arnold). AnnArbor, MI: International Monographs in Prehistory, pp. 13-24.Perez Suarez, T. 2002. Canton Corralito: un sitio Olmeca en el litoral chiapaneco. In Arqueologiamexicana, historia y esencia. Sigh XX: En reconocimiento al Dr. Roman Pina Chan (ed. J. NavaRivero). Mexico: Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, pp. 71-92.Perrin, T. 2003. Mesolithic and Neolithic cultures co-existing in the upper Rhone valley. Antiquity,11: 732-9.Piperno, D. R. and Flannery, K. V. 2001. The earliest archaeological maize (Zea mays L.) fromhighland Mexico: new accelerator mass spectrometrydates and their implications. Proceedings of theNational Academy of Science USA, 98: 2101-3.Piperno, D. R. and Pearsall, D. M. 1998. The Origins of Agriculture n the LowlandNeotropics. SanDiego, CA: Academic Press.Piperno, D. R., Ranere, A. J., Hoist, I. and Hansell, P. 2000. Starch grains reveal early root crophorticulture in the Panamanian tropical forest. Nature, 407: 894-7.Pohl, M. D., Pope, K. O., Jones, J. G., Jacob, J. S., Piperno, D. R., deFrance, S. D., Lentz, D. L.,Gifford, J. A., Danforth, M. E. and Josserand, J. K. 1996. Early agriculturein the Maya lowlands.Latin AmericanAntiquity, 7: 355-72.Pye, M. E. and Demarest, A. A. 1991. The evolution of complex societies in southeasternMesoamerica: new evidence from El Mesak, Guatemala. In The Formationof Complex Societies inSoutheasternMesoamerica (ed. W. R. Fowler, Jr). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, pp. 77-100.Rafferty, J. E. 1985. The archaeological record on sedentariness: recognition, development, andimplications. Advances in ArchaeologicalMethod and Theory,8: 113-56.Rice, P. M. 1999. On the origins of pottery. Journalof ArchaeologicalMethod and Theory,6: 1-54.Rindos, D. 1984. The Origins of Agriculture:An Evolutionary Perspective. New York: AcademicPress.Rosenswig, R. M. 2000. Some political processes of ranked societies. Journal of AnthropologicalArchaeology, 19: 413-60.Rosenswig, R. M. 2004. Three and a half millennia of settlement changes in the Cuauhtemoc regionof the Soconusco, Chiapas, Mexico. Paper presented at the 69th Annual Meeting of the SAA,Montreal.Rosenswig, R. M. 2005a. From the land between swamps: Cuauhtemoc in an Early Olmec world.Unpublished PhD dissertation. New Haven, CT: Yale University.Rosenswig, R. M. 2005b. Economia y Estetica de Cuauhtemoc: 800 anos de cambio en unacomunidad del Soconusco. Paper presented at the XIX Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueologicasen Guatemala, Guatemala City.Rosenswig, R. M. 2006a. Northern Belize and the Soconusco: a comparison of the Late Archaic toFormative transition. Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology3, in press.Rosenswig, R. M. 2006b. Beyond identifying elites: feasting as a means to understand earlyMiddle Formative society on the Pacific Coast of Mexico. Journal of AnthropologicalArchaeology,in press.Skibo, J. M. and Blinman, E. 1999. Exploring the origins of pottery on the Colorado plateau. InPottery and People: A Dynamic Interaction(eds J. A. Skibo and G. M. Feinman). Salt Lake City,UT: University of Utah Press, pp. 171-83.Smalley, J. and Blake, M. 2003. Sweet beginnings: stalk sugar and the domestication of maize.CurrentAnthropology,44: 675-703.


27/27

Sedentism andfood production 355Smith, B. D. 1997. The initial domestication of Cucurbitapepo in the Americas 10,000 years ago.Science, 276: 932-4.Smith, B. D. 2001. Low-level food production. Journal of Archaeological Research, 9: 1-43.Smith, B. D. 2005. Reassessing Coxcatlan Cave and the early history of domesticated plants inMesoamerica. Proceedingsof the National Academy of Science USA, 102: 9438-45.Taube, K. 1996. The Olmec maize god: the faces of corn in Formative Mesoamerica. RES:Anthropologyand Aesthetics, 29-30: 39-81.Taube, K. 2000. Lightningcelts and corn fetishes: the Formative Olmec and the developmentof maizesymbolism in Mesoamerica and the American southwest. In Olmec Art and Archaeology inMesoamerica eds J. E. Clark and M. E. Pye). Washington, DC: National Galleryof Art, pp. 297-337.vanDerwarker,A. M. 2005. Field cultivation and tree management in tropical agricultural:a viewfrom Gulf Coastal Mexico. WorldArchaeology,37: 275-89.Voorhies, B. 1976. The Chantuto people: an Archaic period society of the Chiapas littoral, Mexico.Papers of the New WorldArchaeologicalFoundation 41. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University.Voorhies, B. 1996a. Subsistencestrategieson the eve of complexity: the Late Archaic Period in southcoastal Chiapas, Mexico. In The Prehistory of the Americas. 13th International Congress of thePrehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences, Vol. 17. Forli, Italy, pp. 19-26.Voorhies, B. 1996b. The transformation from foraging to farming in lowland Mesoamerica. In TheManaged Mosaic: Ancient Maya Agricultureand Resource Use (ed. S. L. Fedick). Salt Lake City,UT: University of Utah Press, pp. 17-29.Voorhies, B. 2004. Coastal Collectors in the Holocene: The ChantutoPeople of Southwest Mexico.Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida.Voorhies, B., Michaels, G. H. and Riser, G. M. 1991. Ancient shrimp fishery. National GeographicResearch and Exploration, 7: 20-35.Washburn, J. 1980. Hunters and gatherers today and reconstruction of the past. In Soviet andWesternAnthropology(ed. E. Gellner). London: Duckworth, pp. 95-118.Whittle, A. 1996. Europe in the Neolithic: The Creation of New Worlds. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.Wiessner, P. 2002. The vines of complexity: egalitarian structures and the institutionalization ofinequality among the Enga. CurrentAnthropology,43: 233-69.Winterhalder,B. and Kennett, D. J. 2006. Behavioral ecology and the transition from hunting andgatheringto agriculture:volume introduction. In BehavioralEcology andthe Transition o Agriculture(eds D. J. Kennett and B. Winterhalder).Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, in press.Zohary, D. 2004. Unconscious selection and the evolution of domesticated plants. EconomicBotany,58: 5-10.

Robert M. Rosenswig is currently a Social Science and Humanities Research Council ofCanada postdoctoral fellow at the University of Montreal. He will begin as an AssistantProfessor in the Department of Anthropology at the University at Albany - SUNY in thefall of 2006. His research interests include the emergence of socio-political complexity andthe origins of food production. He carries out fieldwork in two areas of Mesoamerica: theSoconusco on Mexico's Pacific coast and in northern Belize near the Atlantic coast.

Origenes Rosenwig 2006 Sedentism Food Soconusco

Documents

Transcript of Origenes Rosenwig 2006 Sedentism Food Soconusco