8
The Monte Alban State:
A Diachronic Perspective on
an Ancient Core and its Periphery
Gary M. Feinman and Linda M. Nicholas
In a
review of contemporary archaeology,
Trigger
(1984:286) wrote that:
...what is important is the growing
realization that societies are not
closed systems with respect to their
neighbors any more than with respect to
their environment and that the develop-
ment of a culture or society may be
constrained or influenced by the broader
social network of which it is a part.
There is also increasing recognition
that the rules governing these processes
are themselves worthy of scientific
investigation. The challenge is to
extend a systemic analysis to incorpo-
rate what used to be called diffusion.
More recently, Schortman and Urban (1987:-
54)
noted that: "(t)he long-dormant debate
concerning
the relation between external
contacts
and local social change has been
reopened." Both of these statements call
attention
to the growing theoretical rumina-
tions
in archaeology generated by an increas-
ing
dissatisfaction with purely endogenous or
local models
of societal change. These models
were
swept into vogue two decades ago with a
new
perspective now referred to as "new ar-
chaeology"
(e.g., Binford and Binford, 1968).
At the
same time, few archaeologists would
welcome
a return to the trait-based diffusion-
ism
that was associated with an earlier era
(see
Willey and Sabloff, 1980; Trigger, 1984,
for
general discussions of theoretical devel-
opments
in archaeology).
In grappling with the organization of a
prehispanic
Mesoamerican social system at a
scale
larger than the site or a tightly de-
fined
region, it is not our intent to add to
or sort
through the burgeoning jargon that
already
includes cluster interactions, bound-
aries
and frontiers, world-systems, and peer--
polity
interactions. Nor is it our aim to
ignore
the importance of local environmental
conditions
for the elucidation of long-term
social
change. Rather, our principal objec-
tive is
to contribute to and expand our under-
standing
of how ancient Mesoamerica was orga-
nized
and interconnected. To do this, we
examine
the long-term and changing interrela-
tionship
between the prehispanic inhabitants
of the
Ejutla Valley and those immediately to
the
north in the larger Valley of Oaxaca
(Figure
8.1), both located in the Southern
Highlands
of Mesoamerica. Soon after the
beginning
of sedentary agricultural settlement
in the
Valley of Oaxaca around 1500 B.C., the
region
was the focus for political and demo-
graphic
centers that were larger than those
found
in neighboring regions (including the
Ejutla
Valley). In this paper, we investigate
the
dynamic interactions between these centers
(first
San Jos‚ Mogote and later Monte Alb n)
and
their surrounding hinterlands (both near
and
far).
Figure
8.1. Map of central and southern
Mexico, with areas mentioned in the
text.
In recent years, macro-regional investiga-
tions
in Mesoamerica have focused primarily on
two
"text-aided" contexts, the structure of
the
Late Postclassic Aztec tribute domain
(e.g.,
Smith 1986, 1987; Berdan, 1987), and
the
relations between the multiple Maya poli-
ties
that inhabited the eastern lowlands
during
the Classic period (e.g., Marcus,
1976a;
Mathews, 1985; Freidel, 1986; Culbert,
1988)
(see Table 8.1). Here, in our long
temporal
focus on the Southern Highlands, we
must
depend largely, although not exclusively,
on the
sketchy outline that can be discerned
from
the archaeological record (e.g., Marcus,
1976b,
1983; Marcus and Flannery, 1983; Pad-
dock,
1983a).
Table
8.1. Chronological Sequence in Valleys of Ejutla and Oaxaca.
Ejutla Valley Valley of Oaxaca
Mesoamer-
ica
1500
1300
Monte Alban V Monte Alban V Late
Postclassic
1100
900
Monte Alban IV Early
Postclassic
700
Monte Alban IIIB/IV
Monte Alban IIIB Late
Classic
500
Monte Alban IIIA Monte Alban IIIA
Early
Classic
300
AD
100Monte Alban IIMonte Alban II Terminal Formative
BC 100
Monte Alban Late I Monte Alban Late I
300 Late
Formative
Monte Alban Early IMonte Alban Early I
500
Rosario
700
Rosario
Middle
Formative
Guadalupe
900
San Jose
1100
Early Formative
Early
Formative
1300
Tierras Largas
In previous studies of precapitalist macro-
-regional
systems, a central concern has been
the
spatial division of labor (Blanton and
Feinman,
1984; McGuire, 1986; Chase-Dunn and
Hall,
Chapter 1; Schneider, Chapter 2). Thus,
in this
analysis, a more specific aim is to
examine
the spatial arrangement of archaeolog-
ically
discernible economic (craft) special-
izations
in prehispanic Ejutla and Oaxaca, as
well as
to evaluate both endogenous and macro-
-regional
factors that might account for their
distribution.
Although these investigations do
not yet
provide definitive answers, the intent
is to
give us a better perspective from which
to
address and assess a series of fundamental
issues. Was agricultural tribute the key
force
behind political expansion? Was the
division
of labor across the Ejutla-Oaxaca
study
region uniform, implying only a thin
veil of
political/elite integration above
intraregional
self-sufficiency? Can the
distribution
of craft specialists be accounted
for by
local agricultural or resource-based
considerations? Was macroregional economic
interdependence
more developed, which by
inference
would justify at least guarded
experimentation
with and modification of the
fundamental
concepts and framework (see Ragin
and
Chirot, 1984; Abu-Lughod, 1989; Chase-Dunn
and
Hall, Chapter 1) advanced by Wallerstein
(1974).
EMPIRICAL
BACKGROUND
Before
preceding to a discussion of our empir-
ical
foundation, it is important to place the
Valley
of Oaxaca and Monte Alb n in a broader
Mesoamerican
context. The Valley of Oaxaca
has
long been recognized as a key region of
prehispanic
political and demographic impor-
tance
(Palerm and Wolf, 1957). Soon after the
advent
of sedentary village life, San Jos‚
Mogote
rose to prominence as one of the larg-
est and
architecturally most elaborate centers
in
Mexico's highlands. Yet, this settlement
was
neither as monumental as several contempo-
raneous
Gulf Coast lowland communities, nor
did it
control areas outside the Valley of
Oaxaca. By 500 B.C., Monte Alb n, a hilltop
community
located at the hub of the Valley of
Oaxaca,
was established (see Blanton et al.,
1981,
for a discussion of the rise of this
early
center). In size, Monte Alb n
rapidly
eclipsed
San Jos‚ Mogote, and the later site
is
generally considered to be one of the
earliest
cities in Mesoamerica. Yet, even at
its
apogee (after 200 B.C.), Monte Alb n
appears
never to have conquered or controlled
areas
outside the bounds of the contemporary
state
of Oaxaca. For most (if not all) of its
history,
Monte Alb n was neither the largest
nor the
most architecturally monumental site
in
Mesoamerica (For general discussions of
Oaxacan
prehistory see Blanton et al., 1981;
Flannery
and Marcus, 1983). In general,
prehispanic
Mesoamerica was a world composed
of
multiple, competing cores and shifting
peripheries
(see ChaseDunn and Hall, Chapter
1).
In this analysis, we rely primarily on the
findings
of the regional archaeological sur-
veys
undertaken by the Valley of Oaxaca (Blan-
ton,
1978; Blanton et al., 1982; Kowalewski et
al.,
1989) and Ejutla Valley (Feinman, 1985;
Feinman
and Nicholas, 1988) Settlement Pattern
Projects. During the last two decades, these
large-scale
projects have systematically
mapped,
recorded, and dated archaeological
remains
over a contiguous 2672 km2 area (Figure
8.2). Although this large study region cer-
tainly
does not represent an entire macro--
regional
system, it does allow for the exami-
nation
of an area larger than the physiograph-
ically
defined Valley of Oaxaca (Welte, 1973).
Comparable pedestrian survey procedures
were
employed over the entire study region.
This
methodology (see Feinman et al., 1985;
Kowalewski
et al., 1989:24-38), which was
borrowed
(with slight modifications) from the
archaeological
surveys of the highland Basin
of
Mexico (Sanders, 1965; Parsons, 1971;
Blanton,
1972; Sanders, Parsons, and Santley,
1979),
entails the systematic coverage of
every
field, knoll, ridge, arroyo, and street
by
crews of three to five people walking 50 to
100 m
apart (depending on terrain and the
visibility
of surface artifacts). Site
dimensions,
environmental variables, earthen
or
rubble mounds (the remnants of prehispanic
platforms
and buildings), pottery, chipped
stone,
ground stone, artifactual indications
of
craft activities, defensive walls, and all
other
important or unusual features were
recorded. Where possible these features were
mapped
directly on 1:5000 aerial photographs
that
each crew carried into the field. Over
time,
all archaeological remains were recorded
on aerial
photographs of the region studied.
These
field procedures were chosen because
they
yield information on a large corpus of
sites
across a broadly defined region at an
affordable
expense in money and time. They
provide,
at least for the highlands of Meso-
america,
the most systematic means available
for
producing an inventory of the sizes and
distributions
of archaeological sites at a
spatial
scale adequate to study long-term
societal
change.
Figure
8.2. Map of the Valleys of Oaxaca and
Ejutla, with major sites
mentioned
in the text.
Population estimates for each occupation
were
determined as a function of site area,
following
procedures utilized in previous
highland
Mesoamerican survey research (Sand-
ers,
1965). Except in those cases where
residential
features were visible or where
surface
artifact densities were extraordinari-
ly
light or heavy, settlements were calculated
as
having 10-25 people per hectare of occupied
area
(see Kowalewski et al., 1989:35, for a
fuller
discussion). These demographic figures
are
expressed most appropriately and conserva-
tively
as ranges; however, for ease and clari-
ty of
presentation (as well as our sanity), we
manipulate
and refer to mean population values
in most
of our analyses. Although we recog-
nize
the numerous possibilities for error in
these
estimates, we argue that these data are
the
closest approximation to a diachronic
census
of prehispanic settlement that archae-
ologists
can presently achieve--providing
relative
patterns of population change at
broad
spatial and temporal scales.
To examine the role of agricultural produc-
tion
and human-land relations in the regional
division
of labor, data on agricultural strat-
egies
and the spatial variability of agrarian
resources
in ancient Oaxaca was necessary.
For
this information we rely principally on
Anne Kirkby's
(1973) landmark, diachronic
analysis
of the use of land and water resourc-
es in
the past and present Valley of Oaxaca,
Mexico. Kirkby's observations of land quality
and
productivity, which were supplemented by
our own
field-by-field observations, were
compared
with archaeological settlement infor-
mation
for the sequence of prehispanic phases
(Table
8.1). Following Kirkby (1973:124-126)
and
Kowalewski (1980, 1982; see also Feinman
and
Nicholas, 1987a; Nicholas, 1989), these
analyses
take into account the increasing
productivity
of maize during the prehispanic
era. We assume that even the region's earli-
est
farmers had the knowledge and the tools to
implement
the basic water control techniques
that
can be used locally (Kowalewski, 1982:-
150). All available archaeological and ethno-
historic
evidence suggests that the irrigation
and
drainage techniques utilized prehispanic-
ally
were relatively simple (Kirkby, 1973;
Lees,
1973; Flannery, 1983), and most of these
methods
were employed early in the Formative
period
(Flannery et al., 1967; Drennan and
Flannery,
1983). Because we do not know the
specific
cropping practices and rotations
employed
prehispanically on each field, we
have
followed previous investigators (Kirkby,
1973:124-126;
Kowalewski, 1982:149-150) in
adopting
agricultural productivity estimates
based
entirely on maize (using maize yields as
a proxy
for total agricultural production).
Pre-Conquest
maize consumption was presumed
(Kowalewski,
1982:158) to correspond to known
ethnographic
ranges (160-290 kg per person per
annum).
In our examination of economic specializa-
tions,
settlement patterns, and human-land
relationships,
we examine three analytical
scales
smaller than the entire survey block.
To
compare the valley's central hub with a
southern
edge, we contrast the Valley of
Oaxaca
Settlement Pattern Project survey area
with
the Ejutla region (Figure 8.2). For
other
analyses, we compare seven sub-regions,
Ejutla
and six contiguous segments of the
valley
that are internally similar in environ-
ment
and demographic history (Figure 8.3).
For a
finer scale of investigation, we have
broken
the study region into 229 grid squares,
4 km on
a side (see Figure 8.4 below). The
grid
square size roughly corresponds to the
amount
of land in easy walking distance of
sites
situated in each square (see Chisholm,
1968). Use of the grid greatly facilitates
spatial
comparisons and cross-phase analyses.
The remainder of the paper is divided into
two
sections. First, we approach the
question
of the
spatial division of labor through an
examination
of the archaeological evidence for
craft
activities. In so doing, we evaluate
for
Oaxaca-Ejutla several extant models that
endeavor
to explain the distribution of non--
agricultural
production. This discussion of
craft
activities leads us to a consideration
of
prehispanic agricultural production and its
spatial
arrangement. Second, we review long--
term
changes in the relationship between the
Ejutla
and Oaxaca regions. Through the inte-
gration
of these empirical analyses, we gain
insight
into the macro-regional structure of
the
ancient Mesoamerican world as seen through
the
perspective of the Southern Highlands of
Mexico.
THE
SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF ECONOMIC SPECIAL-
IZATION
Numerous
models have been proposed for the
emergence
and distribution of craft special-
ization. Generally, these models emphasize
local
factors, which for prehispanic highland
Mesoamerica
seem an appropriate starting point
given
the limitations of transportation tech-
nology. In archaeology, a frequently used
model
(e.g., Arnold, 1975:192, 1980:147)
implies
that unpredictable or inadequate
agricultural
resources, particularly "popula-
tion
pressures," are likely to promote non--
agricultural
production. This expectation is
exemplified
by Howard (1981:7), who noted
that: "specialization tends to develop as a
necessary
adaptation to population pressure
and
poor agricultural land."
An archaeological examination of this
proposition
is difficult if one wants to
extend
the test beyond individual specialists
and
sites. Yet, such scalar expansion
clearly
is
requisite for an adequate evaluation.
To
gain a
broad spatial perspective, dependence
on
surface remains is necessary, and, as
Spence
(1983:434) so eloquently recognized,
this
entails "the imprecision inevitable when
working
on a regional scale." Furthermore,
as
Paddock
(1983b:433) rightfully has warned,
many
prehispanic Mesoamerican craft special-
izations
may be invisible to the archaeolo-
gist,
particularly when reliant on surface
remains.
Figure
8.3. Sub-regional divisions of the
combined Oaxaca-Ejutla survey block.
Nevertheless, in the combined Oaxaca-Ejutla
survey
block, we have found 268 occurrences of
unusual
surface residues of shell, spindle
whorls
(cloth production), ceramics, obsidian,
other
chipped stone and ground stone (see
Figure
8.4). We are not foolish enough to
assert
that these sites represent the entire
corpus
of production locations for these
materials;
in fact our sample probably is
skewed
toward larger-scale specialization.
Nor do
we believe that every identified loca-
tion
was necessarily a locus of non-agricultu-
ral
production. We also doubt whether even
the
finest-scale archaeological analysis would
be able
to distinguish convincingly and re-
peatedly
between seasonal, half-time, three--
quarter-time,
and full-time specialists. Even
workshops
may not operate year-round. Who can
determine
from archaeological or even archival
sources
what craftsmen did in their off-time
or how
many hours they worked? Despite the
obvious
limitations, these 268 locations
represent
the best regionalscale record for
these
five economic specializations that we
have
(or are likely to have in the nearfuture)
for the
study region.
To examine the proposition advanced by
Howard
(1981) and others, we worked at the
level
of the grid square. The 268 locations
were
located in 94 squares, just under half of
the 201
squares that were inhabited at some
time in
the prehispanic era. At that scale, a
previous
study (Feinman, 1986) has shown that
the
distribution of Monte Alb n I ceramic
production
sites in the Valley of Oaxaca was
not
spatially coterminous with areas in which
the
estimated population would have exceeded
the
available agricultural resources under
average
rainfall conditions (see also Kowalew-
ski and
Finsten, 1983:420). Yet, unlike
pottery,
the other craft specializations are
more
difficult to date, particularly at sites
with
more than one occupational episode.
Consequently, to sidestep the problem of
chronology,
we devised a less demanding,
atemporal
test of association. For the 201
grid
squares, we isolated those squares that
had a
"dependent population" of at least five
people
in any one temporal phase (Figure 8.4).
By
"dependent population," we simply mean a
population
larger than the number of people
that
could have been sustained in that partic-
ular
square by its available land and labor
resources. For example, grid square 1206,
which
includes the site of Monte Alb n, could
not
have provided sufficient maize to feed its
occupants
during much of the sequence, so it
would
be included among those squares with
"dependent
population." By structuring our
analysis
independent of time, we not only
lessened
the interpretive demands on the data,
but we
increased the likelihood of an associa-
tion,
since squares in which population depen-
dence
occurred during a different phase than
economic
specialization would still yield a
positive
association. Yet, a significant
association
was not found (x2=.96, df=1, not
signif.
at .05) as only roughly half of the
squares
with "dependent populations" also had
indications
of economic specialization.
Figure
8.4. Spatial relationship between craft
specialization and dependent
population
in the Valleys of Oaxaca and Ejutla.
Using this grid-based approach, we also
found
that squares with the least productive
agricultural
land did not have greater evi-
dence
of economic specialization. Here, we
limited
the analysis to the 129 squares in
which
1400 hectares or more had been surveyed
(fully
surveyed squares have 1600 ha), and
then
identified the 50 squares with the lowest
agricultural
potentials. This analysis ex-
cluded
partially surveyed squares (primarily
located
in the mountainous zones at the edge
of the
surveyed area) because a dispropor-
tionate
number of them would rank among the
least
productive squares. Most of these edge
squares
also have little occupation and no
evidence
of economic specialization. The
inclusion
of the edge squares in the sample
would
create an artificially strong negative
association
between those squares with the
least
productive land and the presence of
economic
specialization. Nevertheless, even
with
the edge squares eliminated, we found no
significant
association between the loci of
economic
specialization and poor quality land
(x2=3.49,
df=1, not signif. at .05). In fact,
the
opposite tendency was observed.
Although
the
relationship was not statistically signif-
icant,
economic specialization tended to occur
in
those squares with better agricultural
resources. Evidence for craft specialization
was
present in only 24 of the 50 least produc-
tive
squares, yet more than 64% of the remain-
ing squares
(79) had such evidence.
Although recent archaeological models of
craft
production have tended to focus on
population
pressure or agricultural marginali-
ty, a
more traditional perspective (e.g.,
Childe,
1950) viewed subsistence surplus as
the
trigger for craft specialization. To
assess
this factor, we first focused on the 50
grid
squares in the study block with the most
productive
agrarian resources. All but four-
teen of
these squares were spatially cotermi-
nous
with evidence for economic specializa-
tion,
hence the association was statistically
significant
(x2=16.97, df=1, signif. at .01).
Yet,
clearly this factor cannot explain the
relative
abundance of economic specialization
in the
eastern arm of the valley (see Figure
8.4)
where agricultural conditions were gener-
ally
less favorable. A stronger relationship
(x2=30.55,
df=1, signif. at .01) was found
between
high population and economic special-
ization. Here we defined "high population
squares"
as those ranked in the top 15% (by
population)
during any prehispanic phase.
Although
this relationship probably has been
strengthened
by temporal imprecision, the
findings
do conform with two sets of theoreti-
cal
expectations. First, specialists,
partic-
ularly
those producing at a relatively large
scale,
would tend to situate where there is
relatively
high demand (e.g., Feinman, Kowa-
lewski,
and Blanton, 1984:301). Second,
certain
specialists may have been "attached"
(see
Brumfiel and Earle, 1987:5) to particular
sponsors,
either social elite or civic--
ceremonial
institutions, concentrated at the
major
population centers.
Although the spatial arrangement of occupa-
tional
specialization was partially accounted
for by
local socio-political and demographic
factors,
several aspects of the distribution
require
additional discussion and considera-
tion. For example, evidence for economic
specialization
was abundant in the eastern or
Tlacolula
arm, while it is underrepresented at
the
central core of the valley as well as in
distant
Ejutla. Tlacolula's agricultural
marginality
may relate to this apparent densi-
ty of
specialists; however, we already saw
that
population pressure could not account for
the
distribution of specialists at the region-
al
scale. Furthermore, the northern arm or
Etla
had the second-highest concentration of
occupational
specialization, and it is one of
the
region's most fertile agricultural areas.
Significantly,
Tlacolula was densely inhabited
in
Monte Alb n IV and V, and much of the
evidence
for specialization may pertain to
those
phases (Finsten, 1983; Kowalewski et
al.,
1989:348-363). The relative abundance
of
raw
chert sources in both Tlacolula and Etla
(Parry,
1987) also may help account for the
prevalence
of chipped-stone production loca-
tions
in both of those areas. Yet, pottery
and
obsidian production locations were abun-
dant in
those areas respectively (Figure 8.5),
and
good clay sources can be found throughout
the
Valleys of Oaxaca and Ejutla, while no
obsidian
sources are known in the Central
Valleys
of Oaxaca.
Specialized stone tool and ceramic produc-
tion
locations were scarce in Ejutla (Figure
8.5),
and this relative dearth may be account-
ed for
by the generally lower prehispanic
population
densities noted in this region as
compared
to the Valley of Oaxaca (Feinman and
Nicholas,
1987b, 1988). In Ejutla, these
basically
utilitarian goods were more likely
to have
been made by individual households or
at a
smaller scale of manufacture.
Curiously,
the
production of higher status goods, like
shell
and cloth, were more abundant than
expected
in Ejutla. Shell was recorded at
only 20
archaeological locations (out of 2700)
in the
Valley of Oaxaca; whereas in Ejutla,
shell
was found at 21 (of 423) sites. Rela-
tive to
the number of sites in each region,
surface
shell was between six and seven times
more
prevalent in Ejutla than Oaxaca. Of the
three
shell production sites noted in the
combined
survey area, one was found in Ejutla,
while
the other two were at San Jos‚ Mogote
and
Monte Alb n. A fourth shell
working area
was
recorded by Brockington (1973) and Markman
(1981)
just south of the Ejutla region in
Miahuatl n
(Figure 8.1).
Figure
8.5. Distribution of craft activities
and selected exotic items in
the
Oaxaca-Ejutla survey block. Utilitarian craft activities
are
represented by the open symbols.
Spindle whorls were rare items in both
Ejutla
and the Valley of Oaxaca, yet their
greater
prevalence in Ejutla relative to
Oaxaca
was even more marked than the differen-
tial in
the presence of shell. Twice as many
spindle
whorls were found on the ground sur-
face in
Ejutla as in Oaxaca (11 for Ejutla and
six for
Oaxaca, including Monte Alb n), even
though
Ejutla is only one-fourth the areal
size
(Feinman and Nicholas, 1987b).
Based on the three important dimensions of
hole
diameter, total diameter, and weight,
nine of
the 11 Ejutla spindle whorls would fit
neatly
into Mary Parsons' (1972) smallest, or
Type
III, category of Basin of Mexico spindle
whorls,
which she associates with the spinning
of
cotton. The other two spindle whorls
are
similar
in size to her larger Type I whorls
and may
have been used for spinning maguey.
According
to Late Postclassic ethnohistoric
accounts,
cotton did enter the Valley of
Oaxaca
from lowland areas to the south (Ball
and
Brockington, 1978), probably through
Miahuatl n
and Ejutla, and at least some
highland
Oaxacan towns were importing raw
cotton
(Ball and Brockington, 1978). Some
cotton
also may have been grown in Ejutla,
which
is slightly lower in elevation than the
Valley
of Oaxaca. Spinning, whether of cotton
or
maguey, apparently was a more prevalent
activity
among the prehispanic residents of
Ejutla
than Oaxaca, and the finished product
(as
with shell ornaments) may have been traded
north
into the larger valley.
It may be tempting to see the cloth and
shell
working in Ejutla as simply due to the
region's
relative proximity to coastal prod-
ucts,
yet Oaxaca's eastern arm, through Mitla,
provides
almost comparable access to shell and
cotton. Another exotic material, obsidian (a
volcanic
stone that was highly desired for its
cutting
capabilities), could have entered the
Central
Valleys of Oaxaca from any direction
through
either the eastern, northern, or
southern
arms. Yet, it seems to have been
worked
most frequently in Tlacolula (the
eastern
arm), not Ejutla (Feinman and Nicho-
las,
1987b). Consequently, the regional and
sub-regional
division of labor seems neither
entirely
accountable to resource proximity nor
local
environmental conditions. Even demo-
graphic
factors cannot explain the sparse
evidence
for craft specialization in the
central
part of the valley, which often was
settled
very densely in the prehispanic past.
A simulation of potential agricultural
production
provides an interesting alternative
perspective
on this issue (Feinman and Nicho-
las,
1987a; Nicholas, 1989; Feinman, 1989).
For the
purposes of this analysis, we define
potential
production as the quantity of maize
that
could have been produced at a particular
time,
if populations farmed only terrain
(starting
with the best land) within the grid
square
in which they were located. For each
grid, a
maximum surplus can then be estimated
by
subtracting that population's required
maize
consumption from its potential produc-
tion. Although in all phases a surplus could
have
been produced in the majority of squares
(or the
inhabitants at least could have fed
themselves),
a few would have had dependent
populations. We also modeled whether these
grid
square imbalances could have been evened
out
within larger sub-regional units. For
example,
following the foundation of Monte
Alb n,
the site could not have been supported
by the
land available in the grid square in
which
it was located. One might then ask,
could
the site be fed by the immediately
surrounding
population?
By our figuring, even the potential sur-
pluses
produced during average rainfall years
in the
squares of the Central sub-region
(which
includes Monte Alb n) did not compen-
sate
for the deficit incurred by the popula-
tion of
Monte Alb n. From Monte Alb n Early
I
through IV, the Central area had to import
maize
(see Nicholas, 1989:Figure 14.7). As we
saw in
the earlier grid square analysis, we
again
do not see a strong positive relation-
ship
between population resource imbalance and
craft
specialization (at the sub-regional
scale). Whereas the population of the Central
sub-region
seems to have faced a somewhat
recurrent
maize deficit, there is very little
evidence
for prehispanic craft activities in
that
part of the region. Rather, our
alterna-
tive
argument follows Blanton's (1985) more
general
discussion regarding the spatial
structure
of prehispanic highland Mesoamerican
political-economies. We
argue that the
occupants
of the Central area, with the excep-
tion of
the inhabitants of Monte Alb n, were
not
involved in craft activities because they
were
encouraged or coerced to emphasize agri-
cultural
production to help feed the non-prod-
ucers
at the urban center. This hypothesis
makes
sense given the high transportation
costs
for grain (e.g., Lightfoot, 1979, Dren-
nan,
1984a, 1984b).
In earlier works (Nicholas et al., 1986;
Feinman
and Nicholas, 1987a), we illustrated
that in
Oaxaca the potential to produce large
local
(or grid square) food surpluses general-
ly was
centered around major population cen-
ters. This pattern is significant and would
seem to
relate to the concentration of agri-
cultural
labor around non-food producers. If
we
examine sub-regional surplus from a slight-
ly
different angle (one that eliminates from
consideration
those grid squares with a popu-
lation-maize
imbalance), the gross agricultur-
al
potential of the rural population of the
Central
area is illustrated further. The
cumulative
surpluses of agricultural produc-
tion at
the gridsquare level (if those sur-
pluses
simply were summed rather than shifted
over to
feed deficit squares in the sub--
region)
were not evenly distributed across the
study
region.
Figure
8.6. Surplus production in Monte Alban
Late I. The map displays the
additional population that could be
supported by the gross
maize
surplus of each sub-region
(prior to shifting any produce
to
squares with food deficits).
For
example, in Monte Alb n Late I (as in
other
phases not illustrated here), the poten-
tial
surplus of rural producers in the Central
area
was relatively high (Figure 8.6), despite
the
sub-region's comparatively small areal
size
and average environmental potential.
These
food surpluses, which most likely were
consumed
by the inhabitants of Monte Alb n,
clearly
were a consequence of the relative
abundance
of labor in this central portion of
Oaxaca. If we summarize the spatial arrange-
ment of
economic specialization in Oaxaca,
what we
seem to find is less emphasis on craft
specialization
at the valley core, where food
imports
often were required. Yet, the poten-
tial to
produce sizeable local surpluses was
present
as long as labor was directed toward
agriculture. In contrast, at the edge of the
Central
Valleys of Oaxaca in Ejutla, easily
transportable,
laborintensive, high status
goods
were produced more frequently than
expected. The craft work of bulkier, heavier,
perhaps
less costly items (ceramics, obsidian,
chipped
and ground stone) tended to be concen-
trated
inbetween. Although, an interpretation
of this
pattern is highly speculative, it does
conform
to Blanton's (1985:400-402) scenario
in
which highland Mesoamerican states encour-
aged
intensive food production near their
cores
and craft manufacture in the political
margins
(see also Brumfiel, 1976). A sub-
-regional
division of labor in which status-
related
goods served in part to interdigitate
moredistant
regions is suggested (Blanton and
Feinman,
1984; Schneider, Chapter 2).
The preceding interpretation has glossed
over
significant temporal variation. For
example,
a sizeable number of the economic
specialization
locations in Tlacolula may
pertain
to the Postclassic period, a time when
that
sub-region was also a demographic core.
The
close spatial association between major
Postclassic
Tlacolula centers, like Mitla, and
relatively
high rural densities of craftwork
may
point to another significant organization-
al
difference between Oaxaca during the Post-
classic
period and earlier (500 B.C.-A.D. 700)
when
the region was dominated by Monte Alb n
(see Kowalewski
et al., 1983; Kowalewski and
Finsten,
1983; Marcus, 1989, for discussions
of
organizational differences between the
Classic
and Postclassic periods in Oaxaca).
THE
VALLEY OF OAXACA AND THE EJUTLA VALLEY:
A
DIACHRONIC
PERSPECTIVE
We have
argued that the character of occupa-
tional
specialization was different in Ejutla
than in
the Valley of Oaxaca. In so doing, we
have
suggested that Ejutla was part of a
larger
socioeconomic system. In this section,
we
investigate the long-term interrelationship
between
these two adjoining valleys. Was the
smaller
Ejutla Valley simply a microcosm of
the
larger region, or was its history influ-
enced
by its changing ties to the region to
the
north? How was this relationship struc-
tured
over time? Was the Ejutla Valley simply
an
additional source of agricultural tribute
for
Monte Alb n?
In this discussion of the relationship
between
the Ejutla region and the larger
valley
to the north, we borrow a conceptual
distinction
made previously by Strassoldo
(1980). He distinguishes "frontiers" as
open,
sparselysettled,
almost "virgin" areas of
potential
growth from "peripheries," which are
dependent,
more-closed domains that are dis-
tant,
yet linked, to more developed cores.
The Ejutla region was settled late and
rather
sparsely compared to the Valley of
Oaxaca
(Table 8.2). While sedentary settle-
ments
were present in the Valley of Oaxaca
during
the Tierras Largas phase, the earliest
ceramics
in the Ejutla region resemble valley
ceramics
of the subsequent San Jos‚ phase.
Such
early pottery has been found at only
three
very small sites in Ejutla, all near the
Rˇo Atoyac
(Feinman and Nicholas, 1988). In
comparison,
San Jos‚ Mogote in the Valley of
Oaxaca
extended over 79 ha and included civic-
-ceremonial
structures that were built during
the San
Jos‚ phase (Flannery and Marcus, 1976;
Kowalewski
et al., 1989).
The first village settlements in the Ejutla
survey
region were small pioneering communi-
ties
that extended down from Oaxaca along the
course
of the Rˇo Atoyac. At this time, these
occupations
may have formed a true frontier
for the
Central Valleys of Oaxaca, as no Early
Formative
settlements have been discovered in
the
Miahuatl n Valley directly to the south
(Markman,
1981). In the subsequent Rosario
phase,
the Ejutla region remained a sparsely
inhabited
frontier, occupied by only four
small
communities.
The Rosario-Early I transition in the
Valley
of Oaxaca was characterized by the
emergence
of Monte Alb n, as well as the
foundation
of a series of smaller centers with
nonresidential
architecture. Dozens of Early
I
settlements larger than 2 ha were located in
Oaxaca,
with at least several of these posi-
tioned
in each sub-region (Kowalewski et al.,
1989). As in the Valley of Oaxaca, the popu-
lation
of Ejutla also increased between the
Rosario
and Early I phases. Most of the
Ejutla
settlements still were small farming
hamlets
located along the Atoyac and its
tributaries
(Feinman and Nicholas, 1988). Yet
in
contrast to Oaxaca, none of the Ejutla
settlements
were larger than 2 ha, and no
public
architecture could be linked defini-
tively
with Ejutla's Early I settlements. The
first
settlements also were recorded in the
Miahuatl n
Valley during Monte Alb n I (Mark-
man
1981).
Consequently, at this time when the early
center
of Monte Alb n was founded on a hilltop
at the
center of the larger valley to the
north,
both Ejutla and Miahuatl n remained
sparsely
occupied. Even the two valley sub--
regions
farthest from Monte Alb n, the south-
ern
Valle Grande and eastern Tlacolula, were
settled
more than twice as densely as the
Ejutla
region (Figure 8.7). Since eastern
Tlacolula
has less fine bottomland and is
generally
more agriculturally marginal than
the
Ejutla region, the demographic sparsity of
Ejutla
relative to Oaxaca seems at least
partially
a consequence of its spatial posi-
tion.
The Ejutla region continued to be a lightly
settled
frontier lacking any archaeological
indication
of the emergent hierarchical insti-
tutions
so evident in Oaxaca at this time.
The
absence of large or civic-ceremonially
important
Early I centers in both Ejutla and
along
the southern edge of the Valley of
Oaxaca
survey region (Kowalewski et al.,
1989:103)
leads us to suggest that most
interactions
may have been handled reciprocal-
ly by
individuals at small, relatively autono-
mous
communities along this southern frontier.
The most rapid episode of prehispanic
demographic
increase in the Ejutla region
occurred
between Monte Alb n Early I and Late
I
(Table 8.2). The number of Late I
settle-
ments
in Ejutla increased three-fold, and
these
occupations were increasingly differen-
tiated
in size and architectural complexity.
The
population density was roughly similar to
what it
had been earlier in the Valley of
Oaxaca
during Monte Alb n Early I. Yet
based
on
surface assessments, no Late I settlement
in
Ejutla was comparable in size or architec-
tural
complexity to Late I Monte Alb n or for
that
matter, to Early I Monte Alb n, pre-Monte
Alb n
San Jos‚ Mogote, or even the larger Late
I
secondary centers in the Valley of Oaxaca.
Figure
8.7. Monte Alban Early I population
density by sub-region.
In Late I, the Ejutla study area was not
dominated
by one or two centers as was the
Valley
of Oaxaca (Kowalewski et al., 1989:113-
-152). While almost 20% of the Late I Ejutla
sites
had estimated mean populations greater
than
100, none had more than 350 people.
Mounds
are associated with 16 Late I compo-
nents;
however, most of these sites had no
more
than four structures, and most of the
mounds
were very small. Later, larger occupa-
tions
also were present at the four sites
where
Late I ceramics were associated with
more
monumental or more numerous structures,
and the
larger, more substantial construction
almost
certainly pertains to these later
phases. At four sites where Late I was the
sole
ceramic phase associated with the struc-
tures,
the single mounds or plaza groups were
low and
very small. Pending excavations at
several
of these sites, we suspect that Late I
architectural
construction generally was
internally
similar and simple in plan. The
settlements
with civic-ceremonial buildings
were
welldispersed along the region's rivers
and
tributaries, suggesting that Ejutla was
not
dominated by one principal settlement.
In Monte Alb n II, the number of small
hamlets
occupied in Ejutla remained roughly
constant,
yet most of the small Late I Ejutla
centers
diminished considerably in size or
were
abandoned entirely. Concurrently, three
strategically
positioned Late I centers in-
creased
in extent and most probably in archi-
tectural
elaboration. The two smaller and
southernmost
of these sites grew to their
maximum
sizes in Monte Alb n II. Both were
associated
with 13 comparatively large struc-
tures. Although this construction cannot be
placed
securely in time, these settlements
clearly
were much larger in Monte Alb n II
than
they had been earlier.
Figure
8.8. Distribution of Monte Alban Late I
cremas in Ejutla.
The third Monte Alb n II center,
placed in
the
middle of the Rˇo Ejutla drainage and
positioned
underneath the contemporary dist-
rito
head town of Ejutla (Figure 8.2), grew to
roughly
twice the size of any prior Ejutla
settlement
or other contemporaneous community.
During
two summers of houselot-by-houselot
survey,
nine very large structures were re-
corded
and measured, and these have a total
volume
of approximately 80,000 m3, more than
four
times the estimated volume of the con-
structions
at the other two large sites.
Several
of these mounds were built up more
than 12
m, and observations of mound fill
indicated
a Monte Alb n II construction date.
Earthen
platforms of this scale were unprece-
dented
in Ejutla prior to this date.
Other factors also point to a significant
Monte
Alb n II transition in the Ejutla region
and a
change in the region's interconnection
with
Oaxaca. The number of small low-lying
hamlets
in northern Ejutla and the southern
Valle
Grande decreased, indicating a drop-off
in the
kinds of open, horizontal communica-
tions
that are expected along a more open
frontier. Instead, for the first time, sever-
al
Ejutla sites were positioned in defendable
locations. However, unlike later defendably
situated
localities that tended to face out-
side
the valley, the phase II sites were
inward
looking, positioned over the most
direct
route between Monte Alb n and the
Ejutla
site. A shift in the nature of inter-
actions
between Oaxaca and Ejutla also is
suggested
by the changing distribution in the
latter
region of Monte Alb n I and II cream
paste
pottery. These distinctive painted
crema
serving bowls, which were produced (and
were
recorded) most abundantly in the central
and
northern parts of the Valley of Oaxaca
(Feinman,
1980), were very rare in Ejutla in
phase I
contexts. The few definitive Monte
Alb n
I cremas found were distributed rather
randomly
in terms of site size and location
(Figure
8.8). Yet, the temporally specific
and highly
decorated Monte Alb n II cremas
were
found more frequently and are particular-
ly
abundant at the three aforementioned cen-
ters
(Figure 8.9). Hence, interactions be-
tween
the two regions may have been handled
more
directly through elite individuals living
at the
major centers. Suggestively, prior
studies
by Spencer (1982) and Redmond (1983)
in the
Cuicatl n Ca¤ada, a canyon area north
of
Oaxaca where tropical fruits are grown,
document
a contemporary episode of local
conquest
that they relate to Monte Alb n
expansionism. Marcus' (1980) analysis of the
glyphic
record on Building 'J,' an arrowhead--
shaped
structure on the Main Plaza at Monte
Alb n,
led her to a similar hypothesis, that
the
hilltop center exerted force against other
external
domains in the state of Oaxaca during
Monte
Alb n II.
Figure
8.9. Distribution of Monte Alban II
cremas in Ejutla.
Given the apparent transition of Ejutla
from a
sparsely settled frontier to a nearp-
eriphery
of the Valley of Oaxaca, it is worth
returning
to the sub-regional modeling of
agricultural
surplus potential that we dis-
cussed
above. Through Monte Alb n Early
I,
the
small Ejutla population precluded the
production
of any significant maize surplus.
Yet, by
Late I, a rather large maize surplus
could
have been produced, equal to or greater
than
the surplus potential of three valley
sub-regions,
western Tlacolula, eastern Tlaco-
lula,
and the southern Valle Grande (Figure
8.6). Whether the demand for tributary agrar-
ian
surplus was a factor in the southern
expansion
of the Monte Alb n-centered polity
remains
unknown; however, our figures suggest
that if
bulk agricultural surplus was their
goal,
Monte Alb n's incorporation of Ejutla
may not
have been immediately successful. In
Monte
Alb n II, with the concentration
and
decline
of the sub-regional population, Ejut-
la's
potential for production of maize surplus
declined
by almost 50% (Figure 8.10).
Figure
8.10. Surplus production in Monte Alban
II. The map displays the
additional population that could
be supported by the
gross
maize surplus of each sub-region
(prior to shifting any
surplus
to squares with food deficits).
Ejutla's
potential surplus was roughly compa-
rable
to that of eastern Tlacolula, yet the
latter
sub-region was closer to the valley
core,
lessening necessary transportation
costs. Although some bulk maize could have
been
sent to Monte Alb n from Ejutla in Monte
Alb n
II, the quantities had to have been
small. More likely, Ejutla was incorporated
as a
link to exotic raw materials and craft
goods
and to solidify defensive and communica-
tion
networks. In addition, certain tropical
plants
that could not have been produced in
the
Valley of Oaxaca may have been grown with
greater
success in Ejutla's slightly lower
elevations.
During Monte Alb n IIIA, the great
emphasis
on new
settlement in the southern arm of the
Valley
of Oaxaca (Kowalewski et al., 1989:201-
-250)
apparently extended into the Ejutla
region,
where there was a proliferation of
many
small hamlets, especially in northern
Ejutla
and in the central part of the study
area
along the Rˇo Ejutla drainage. Perhaps
this
greater exploitation of the southern
reaches
of the Central Valleys of Oaxaca was
interrelated
with Monte Alb n's loss, between
Monte
Alb n II and IIIA, of more distant
northern
peripheries, such as Cuicatl n (Spen-
cer
1982). The extension of the demographic
patterns
observed in the southern Valle Grande
into
Ejutla during Monte Alb n IIIA suggests
that
the two regions remained interconnected,
with
perhaps a basic continuation of the
core/periphery
relationship that developed in
Monte
Alb n II.
In IIIA, much of the Valley of Oaxaca
population
was concentrated in several large
sites,
such as Monte Alb n, and Jalieza in the
Valle
Grande, and this pattern also was ob-
served
in Ejutla with the establishment of a
large
center near San Joaquˇn, in central
Ejutla
(Feinman and Nicholas, 1987b, 1988).
This
site had almost four times the population
of the
next largest contemporary Ejutla set-
tlement. While the old Monte Alb n II center,
situated
under modern Ejutla, increased in
extent,
it was completely overshadowed in size
by the
new center 5 km to the northwest (San
Joaquˇn). In Ejutla, the number of sites with
nonresidential
architecture also increased,
and
their distribution became more spatially
widespread. The ring of hilltop defendable
sites
that flanked the eastern and southern
arms of
the Valley of Oaxaca (Elam, 1989:389)
extended
well into Ejutla. Thus, the incorpo-
ration
of Ejutla into the Valley of Oaxaca
polity
appears to have been more complete by
Monte
Alb n IIIA (Feinman and Nicholas, 1987-
b).
Although several factors point to Ejutla's
continuation
as an important communication and
military
link, as well as a source for exotic
craft
goods in IIIA (Feinman and Nicholas,
1987b),
the region could have contributed more
than
twice the maize surplus of the prior
phase. Yet, potential surplus maize was still
far
less in Ejutla than in any valley sub--
region
with the exception of eastern Tlacolula
(Figure
8.11). For Monte Alb n, grain
tribute
from
Ejutla may have been more of an adminis-
trative
consideration than it was earlier, yet
we
doubt that the three to four day round-trip
movement
costs and the relatively limited
potential
returns would have made such bulk
tribute
the central rationale for continued
incorporation.
Figure
8.11. Surplus production in Monte Alban
IIIA. The map displays the
additional population that could be
supported by the gross
maize
surplus of each sub-region (prior to shifting any surplus
to
squares with food deficits).
After IIIA, Monte Alb n's hegemony
over the
Ejutla
region began to wane. By Monte
Alb n
IV,
both the Valley of Oaxaca and the Ejutla
region
were politically fragmented (Kowalewski
et al.,
1989:251-305). The population of
Ejutla
declined, and no Ejutla settlement was
markedly
dominant in size or architectural
complexity. Ejutla's population was clustered
into
several similarly sized settlement con-
centrations
that were separated by sparsely
settled
zones. We found a relative abundance
of
imitation fine gray and fine orange pottery
at the
easternmost Ejutla settlement clusters.
These
wares, rare in the Central Valleys of
Oaxaca,
are thought to signal affiliation with
lowland
areas to the south and east. Their
relative
abundance in Ejutla suggests that the
region
may have developed its own, more direct
ties
with Mesoamerican populations situated
outside
the Oaxacan highlands.
During Monte Alb n V, the relative
politi-
cal
fragmentation of the Central Valleys of
Oaxaca
was maintained (Flannery and Marcus,
1983:
Chapter 8; Kowalewski et al., 1989:307-
-366). The Ejutla region contained settlement
clusters,
perhaps representing semiautonomous
petty
states, that were roughly comparable in
size to
smaller settlement concentrations in
Oaxaca. In both Oaxaca and Ejutla, these
settlement
clusters often were separated by
unoccupied
or sparsely settled shatter zones.
The presence
of these zones indicates that the
entire
region was not well integrated politi-
cally
in this last prehispanic phase, a point
borne
out in ethnohistoric records (Flannery
and
Marcus, 1983: Chapter 8; Marcus, 1989).
The
relative autonomy of the Ejutla population
also is
suggested by changes in the propor-
tions
of obsidian derived from different
sources. Ejutla's procurement network for
this
desirable stone material appears to have
been
more independent in the Late Postclassic
period
than it had been during the Early
Classic
(Feinman and Nicholas, 1987b).
During the Postclassic period, the popula-
tion
densities in Ejutla remained below those
in the
valley (Feinman and Nicholas, 1987b).
Yet,
they were closest to the demographic
densities
observed for the Etla sub-region, an
area
markedly superior in agricultural poten-
tial. However, with Valley of Oaxaca popula-
tion
concentrations now densest in Tlacolula,
Etla
also was spatially wellremoved from the
areal
core (as was Ejutla), suggesting a basis
for
their relative demographic (as well as
architectural)
marginality. In sum, in the
Late
Postclassic, the extent of IIIA politi-
cal
incorporation of Ejutla by Oaxaca was not
repeated,
and the degree of economic autonomy
of the
Ejutla region appears to have been
somewhat
greater.
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSION
This
paper has approached the macro-regional
organization
of the prehispanic Southern
Highlands
of Mexico from two analytical direc-
tions. The first examined the spatial distri-
bution
of economic specialization, while the
second
focused on the diachronic relationship
between
the Ejutla Valley and the Valley of
Oaxaca. Perhaps we should have listened to
the old
saying that "to do two things at once
is to
do neither." Yet, the dual
examination
has
afforded us the opportunity to draw to-
gether
a series of related observations and
inferences
that may not have emerged from
either
investigation alone.
We have seen that large-scale differences
in
economic specialization existed in the
Central
Valleys of Oaxaca. This diversity and
its
spatial arrangement could not be explained
by
either local resource distributions or
agricultural
conditions alone. Yet these
economic
divisions may have contributed to the
integration
and interdependence of the larger
socioeconomic
system. Clearly, by implica-
tion,
the notion of relatively uniform, self--
sufficient
households bound together by a thin
political
or economic veneer seems much too
simple,
as does the traditional redistributive
model
that envisions that the major intercom-
munity
linkages were merely environmentally
induced.
The complexity of ancient Oaxaca's regional
and
macro-regional connections is further
implied
by the diachronic transitions and
transformations
that occurred in and between
sub-regional
cores and margins. Even Ejutla,
always
demographically marginal to the valley
core, underwent
major organizational shifts.
Episodes
of political fragmentation and cen-
tralization
in Ejutla were roughly concurrent
with
similar cycles of change in the valley.
Yet, at
the same time, demographic processes
were
certainly not coterminous in the two
regions.
Luxury goods and craft items apparently had
as
important a role in the interconnection of
the
Southern Highland communities and polities
as they
did in the Central Mexican Aztec world
(e.g.,
Blanton and Feinman, 1984). It seems
doubtful
that the peripheralization of Ejutla
was
spurred by Monte Alb n's demand for bulk
agricultural
surplus alone. The food needs of
the
ancient Oaxacan capital could have been
supported
from much closer at hand and at much
reduced
transport costs. Access to shell,
cloth,
certain varieties of obsidian, and a
range
of lowland products not presently visi-
ble in
the archaeological record, as well as
to
labor to work those goods, and defensive
considerations
appear more likely factors
behind
valley expansionism.
In ancient Mesoamerica, the production,
exchange,
and consumption of ritually impor-
tant
and luxury items should not be divorced
entirely
from the consideration of more basic
necessities. In the pre-Columbian world,
where
extractive technology was simple and
transportation
costs high, labor was a criti-
cal
variable in food production. Yet,
symbol-
ically
imbued items and non-local products may
have
played a critical role (through ritual
and
patron-client transactions) in attracting
and
integrating the labor necessary to support
major
centers like Monte Alb n. While we
would
not want to extend these arguments
blanketly
to other continents and eras, where
beasts
of burden and wheeled vehicles made
grain
transport a more efficient proposition,
it is
our view that systemically significant
(as
opposed to epiphenomenal) long-distance
relations
in ancient Mesoamerica were rarely
accountable
to food and fuel considerations
alone.
Although the inhabitants of prehispanic
Oaxaca
relied on local natural resources,
their
regional and macro-regional organiza-
tions
were not simple reflections or conse-
quences
of such "natural" factors.
Rather,
ancient
Oaxaca had a much more complex politi-
cal
economy, distinguished by civic-ceremonial
cores
and peripheries, shifting economic
linkages
at various scales, uneven demographic
change,
and a spatial division of labor. As
in
Colonial and more recent times, inequality,
interdependence,
and economic differentiation
were
integral (yet changing) aspects of Oaxa-
ca's
archaeological past. In sum, our find-
ings,
though tentative, lead us to support
Kohl
(1987:5) when he argues that "a position
that
altogether rejects any correspondences
between
capitalist and precapitalist or west-
ern and
non-western societies often tends to
distort
our vision of the present and idealize
that of
the past."
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We are
grateful for the National Science
Foundation
support given to both the Valley of
Oaxaca
Settlement Pattern Project (GS-28547,
GS-388030,
BNS19640 to Richard E. Blanton;
BNS-7914124
to Stephen A. Kowalewski) and the
Ejutla
Valley Settlement Pattern Project
(BNS-84-06229,
BNS-85-42668 to Gary M. Fein-
man). The permission and assistance of the
Instituto
Nacional de Antropologˇa e Historia
and the
Centro Regional de Oaxaca are recog-
nized
with great appreciation. Joaquˇn Garcˇa
B rcena
and Manuel Esparza have been particu-
larly
supportive over the years. We also
would
like to thank the Rota project and Apple
Computer
for granting us the equipment on
which
most of our figures were prepared.
The initial draft of this paper was pre-
sented
at the 46th International Congress of
Americanists
in Amsterdam, Holland, in July,
1988. We would like to thank Peter Druijven
and Jan
Hardeman for the invitation to par-
ticipate
in their stimulating session. Ste-
phen A.
Kowalewski, Scott Cook, Richard E.
Blanton,
and Joseph Whitecotton read earlier
versions
of this paper, and we thank them for
their
useful and provocative comments. Chris-
topher
Chase-Dunn and Thomas D. Hall offered
insightful
suggestions that we incorporated
into
the published manuscript. The final
draft
of this paper was prepared while the
senior
author was a resident scholar at the
School
of American Research. We thank Douglas
W.
Schwartz and the SAR staff for providing
such a
wonderful atmosphere for productive
research.
REFERENCES
Abu-Lughod,
Janet 1989. Before European Hege-
mony:
The World System A.D. 1250-1350. New
York:
Oxford University Press.
Arnold,
Dean E. 1975. "Ceramic ecology of the
Ayacucho
Basin, Peru: implications for
prehistory."
Current Anthropology 16:183-205.
______
1980. "Localized exchange: an ethno-
archaeological
perspective." Pp. 147-156 in
R.E.
Fry (ed.) Models and Methods in Regional
Exchange. Society for American Archaeolo-
gy,
Papers 1.
Ball,
Hugh G. and Donald L. Brockington 1978.
"Trade
and travel in prehispanic
Oaxaca."
Pp.
107-114 in T.A. Lee, Jr. and C. Navarette
(eds.) Mesoamerican Communication Routes
and
Cultural Contacts. New World Archaeolog-
ical
Foundation, Papers 40.
Berdan,
Frances, F. 1987. "Cotton in Aztec
Mexico:
production, distribution and
uses."
Mexican
Studies/Estudios Mexicanos 3:235-262.
Binford,
Lewis R. and Sally R. Binford (eds.)
1968.
New Perspectives in Archeology.
Chicago:
Aldine.
Blanton,
Richard E. 1972. Prehispanic Settle-
ment
Patterns of the Ixtapalapa Peninsula
Region,
Mexico. University Park: Pennsylvania
State
University, Department of Anthropolo-
gy,
Occasional Papers 6.
______
1978. Monte Alb n: Settlement Patterns
at the
Ancient Zapotec Capital. New York:
Academic
Press.
______
1985. "A comparison of early market
systems."
Pp. 399-416 in S. Plattner (ed.)
Markets
and Marketing. Monographs in Economic
Anthropology 4. Lanham, MD: University
Press
of America.
Blanton,
Richard E. and Gary M. Feinman 1984.
"The
Mesoamerican world-system: a compara-
tive
perspective." American Anthropologist
86:673-82.
Blanton,
Richard E., Stephen A. Kowalewski,
Gary M.
Feinman, and Jill Appel 1981.
Ancient
Mesoamerica: A Comparison of Change in
Three Regions. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity
Press.
______
1982. Monte Alb n's Hinterland, Part 1:
The
Prehispanic Settlement Patterns of
the
Central
and Southern Parts of the Valley of
Oaxaca,
Mexico. Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan,
Museum of Anthropology, Memoir
15.
Brockington,
Donald L. 1973. Archaeological
Investigations
at Miahuatl n, Oaxaca.
Nashville:
Vanderbilt University, Publications
in
Anthropology 7.
Brumfiel,
Elizabeth M. 1976. Specialization
and
Exchange at the Late Postclassic
(Aztec)
Community of Huexotla, Mexico. Ph.D.
Dissertation, Anthropology, University of
Michigan.
Brumfiel,
Elizabeth M. and Timothy K. Earle
1987.
"Specialization, exchange, and
complex
societies:
an introduction." Pp. 1-9 in E.M.
Brumfiel
and T.K. Earle (eds.) Specializa-
tion,
Exchange, and Complex Societies. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Childe,
V. Gordon 1950. "The urban revolu-
tion."
The Town Planning Review 21:3-17.
Chisholm,
Michael 1968. Rural Settlement and
Land
Use: An Essay in Location. 2nd ed.
London:
Hutchinson University Library.
Culbert,
T. Patrick 1988. "Political history
and the
decipherment of Maya glyphs."
Antiq-
uity
62:135-152.
Drennan,
Robert D. 1984a. "Long-distance
transport
costs in pre-hispanic Meso-
america."
American Anthropologist 86:105-112.
______
1984b. "Long-distance movement of goods
in the
Mesoamerican Formative and Clas-
sic."
American Antiquity 49:27-43.
Drennan,
Robert D. and Kent V. Flannery 1983.
"The
growth of site hierarchies in the
Valley
of Oaxaca: part II." Pp. 65-71 in K.V.
Flannery and J. Marcus (eds.) The Cloud
People:
Divergent Evolution of the Zapo-
tec and
Mixtec Civilizations. New York: Aca-
demic
Press.
Elam,
J. Michael 1989. "Defensible and forti-
fied
sites." Pp. 385-407 in S.A. Kowal-
ewski,
G.M. Feinman, L. Finsten, R.E. Blanton,
and
L.M. Nicholas Monte Alb n's
Hinterland,
Part
II: The Prehispanic Settlement Patterns
of Tlacolula, Etla, and Ocotl n, the
Valley
of
Oaxaca, Mexico. Ann Arbor:
University
of
Michigan, Museum of Anthropology, Memoirs 23.
Feinman,
Gary M. 1980. The Relationship be-
tween
Administrative Organiza- tion and
Ceramic
Production in the Valley of Oaxaca,
Mexico.
Ph.D. Dissertation, Anthropology,
City
University of New York.
______
1985. "Investigations in a near--
periphery:
regional settlement pattern survey
in the
Ejutla Valley, Oaxaca, Mexico." Mexicon
7:60-68.
______
1986. "The emergence of specialized
ceramic
production in Formative Oaxaca."
Pp.
347-373 in B.L. Isaac (ed.) Economic
Aspects
of Prehispanic Highland Mexico.
Research
in Economic Anthropology. Supplement
2.
______
1989. "Demography, surplus, and in-
equality:
early political formations in
highland
Mesoamerica." Forthcoming in T. Earle
(ed.)
Chiefdoms and their Evolutionary
Significance.
Feinman,
Gary M., Stephen A. Kowalewski, and
Richard
E. Blanton 1984. "Modelling
ceramic
production and organizational change
in
the pre-hispanic Valley of Oaxaca,
Mexico."
Pp. 297-333 in S.E. van der Leeuw
and
A.C. Pritchard (eds.) The Many Dimensions
of
Pottery. Amsterdam: University of Am-
sterdam.
Feinman,
Gary M., Stephen A. Kowalewski, Laura
Finsten,
Richard E. Blanton, and Linda M.
Nicholas
1985. "Long-term demographic change:
a perspective from the Valley of Oaxaca,
Mexico."
Journal of Field Archaeology
12:333-362.
Feinman,
Gary M. and Linda M. Nicholas 1987a.
"Labor,
surplus, and production: a region-
al analysis
of Formative Oaxacan socio--
economic change." Pp. 27-50 in S. Gaines
(ed.)
Coasts, Plains and Deserts: Essays
in Honor of Reynold J. Rupp‚. Tempe: Arizo-
na
State University, Anthropological
Research
Papers 38.
______
1987b. "Prehispanic interregional
interaction
in southern Mexico: the Valley
of
Oaxaca and the Ejutla Valley." Forthcoming
in E.M.
Schort man and P.A. Urban (eds.)
Resources,
Power, and Interregional Interac-
tion.
______
1988. "The prehispanic settlement
history
of the Ejutla Valley, Mexico: a
preliminary
perspective." Mexicon 10:5-13.
Finsten,
Laura 1983. The Classic-Postclassic
Transition
in the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexi-
co: A
Regional Analysis of the Process of
Political
Decentralisation in a Prehistoric
Complex
Society. Ph.D. Dissertation, Anthro-
pology, Purdue University.
Flannery,
Kent V. 1983. "Precolumbian farming
in the
Valleys of Oaxaca, Nochixtl n,
Tehuac n,
and Cuicatl n: a comparative study."
Pp.
323-339 in K.V. Flannery and J.
Marcus
(eds.)
The Cloud People: Divergent Evolu-
tion of
the Zapotec and Mixtec Civilizations.
New
York: Academic Press.
Flannery,
Kent V., Anne V.T. Kirkby, Michael
J.
Kirkby, and Aubrey W. Williams, Jr.
1967.
"Farming systems and political growth in
ancient Oaxaca." Science 158:445-453.
Flannery,
Kent V. and Joyce Marcus 1976.
"Evolution
of the public building in Forma-
tive
Oaxaca." Pp. 205-221 in C.E. Cleland
(ed.)
Culture Change and Continuity:
Essays
in Honor of James Bennett Griffin. New
York: Academic Press.
Flannery,
Kent V. and Joyce Marcus (eds.)
1983.
The Cloud People: Divergent Evolution
of the
Zapotec and Mixtec Civilizations. New
York:
Academic Press.
Freidel,
David A. 1986. "Maya warfare: an
example
of peer polity interaction." Pp.
93-108
in C. Renfrew and J.F. Cherry (eds.)
Peer
Polity Interaction and Socio-Political
Change.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Howard,
Hilary 1981. "In the wake of distribu-
tion:
towards an integrated approach to
ceramic
studies in prehistoric Britain."
Pp.1-30
in H. Howard and E.L. Morris
(eds.)
Production and Distribution: A Ceramic
Viewpoint. British Archaeological Reports,
International
Series 120.
Kirkby,
Anne V.T. 1973. The Use of Land and
Water
Resources in the Past and Present
Valley
of Oaxaca, Mexico. Ann Arbor: Universi-
ty
of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology,
Memoirs
5.
Kohl,
Philip L. 1987. "The use and abuse of
world
systems theory: the case of the
pristine
West Asian state." Pp. 1-35 in M.B.
Schiffer
(ed.) Advances in Archaeological
Method
and Theory, Volume 11. San Diego:
Academic
Press.
Kowalewski,
Stephen A. 1980. "Population--
resource
balances in period I of Oaxaca,
Mexico."
American Antiquity 45:151-165.
______
1982. "Population and agricultural
potential:
Early I through V." Pp. 149--
180 in
R. Blanton, S. Kowalewski, G. Feinman,
and J.
Appel Monte Alb n's Hinterland,
Part
I: The
Prehispanic Settlement Patterns of the
Central and Southern Parts of the Valley of
Oaxaca,
Mexico. Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan,
Museum of Anthropology, Memoirs 15:
.
Kowalewski,
Stephen A., Richard E. Blanton,
Gary M.
Feinman, and Laura Finsten 1983.
"Boundaries,
scale, and internal organiza-
tion."
Journal of Anthropological Archaeolo-
gy
2:32-56.
Kowalewski,
Stephen A., Gary M. Feinman, Laura
Finsten,
Richard E. Blanton, and Linda M.
Nicholas
1989. Monte Alb n's Hinterland, Part
II: The Prehispanic Settlement Patterns of
Tlacolula,
Etla, and Ocotl n, the Valley of
Oaxaca,
Mexico. Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan,
Museum of Anthropology, Memoirs
23.
Kowalewski,
Stephen A. and Laura Finsten 1983.
"The
economic systems of ancient Oaxaca:
a
regional perspective." Current
Anthropology
24:413-441.
Lees,
Susan H. 1973. Sociopolitical Aspects of
Canal
Irrigation in the Valley of Oaxaca. Ann
Arbor:
University of Michigan, Museum of
Anthropology, Memoirs 6.
Lightfoot,
Kent G. 1979. "Food redistribution
among
prehistoric Pueblo groups."
Kiva
44:319-339.
Marcus,
Joyce 1976a. Emblem and State in the
Classic
Maya Lowlands: An Epigraphic
Approach
to Territorial Organization. Washing-
ton,
D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research
Library
and
Collections.
______
1976b. "The iconography of militarism
at
Monte Alb n and neighbor ing
sites in the
Valley
of Oaxaca." Pp. 123-139 in H.B. Nichol-
son
(ed.) Origins of Religious Art and
Iconography
in Pre-Classic Mesoamerica. Los
Angeles: UCLA Latin American Center.
______
1980. "Zapotec writing." Scientific
American
242:50-64.
______
1983. "The conquest slabs of Building
J,
Monte Alb n." Pp. 106-108 in
K.V. Flannery
and J.
Marcus (eds.) The Cloud People: Diver-
gent Evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec
Civilizations.
New York: Academic Press.
______
1989. "From centralized systems to
city-states:
possible models for the Epi-
classic."
Pp. 201-208 in R.A. Diehl and J.C.
Berlo
(eds.) Mesoamer ica after the Decline
of
Teotihuacan A.D. 700-900. Washington, D.C.:
Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collec-
tions.
Marcus,
Joyce and Kent V. Flannery 1983. "The
Postclassic
balkanization of Oaxaca." Pp.
217-226
in K.V. Flannery and J. Marcus (eds.)
The
Cloud People: Divergent Evolution
of
the
Zapotec and Mixtec Civilizations. New
York: Academic Press.
Markman,
Charles W. 1981. Prehispanic Settle-
ment
Dynamics in Central Oaxaca, Mexico:
A View
from the Miahuatl n Valley. Nashville:
Vanderbilt University, Publications in
Anthropology
26.
Mathews,
Peter 1985. "Maya early Classic
monuments
and inscriptions." Pp. 5-54 in
G.R.
Willey and P. Mathews (eds.) A Consider-
ation
of the Early Classic Period in the Maya
Lowlands.
Albany: Institute for Mesoamerican
Studies, State University of New York at
Albany,
No. 10.
McGuire,
Randall H. 1986. "Economies and modes
of
production in the prehistoric south-
western
periphery." Pp. 243-269 in F.J. Math-
ien
and R.H. McGuire (eds.) Ripples in the
Chichimec
Sea: New Considerations of South-
western-Mesoamerican
Interactions. Carbondale:
Southern
Illinois University Press.
Nicholas,
Linda M. 1989. "Land use in prehis-
panic
Oaxaca." Pp. 449-505 in S.A.
Kowal-
ewski,
G.M. Feinman, L. Finsten, R.E. Blanton,
and
L.M. Nicholas Monte Alb n's
Hinterland,
Part
II: The Prehispanic Settlement Pat-
terns
of Tlacolula, Etla, and Ocotl n, the
Valley
of Oaxaca, Mexico. Ann Arbor:
University
of Michigan, Museum of Anthropolo-
gy,
Memoirs 23.
Nicholas,
Linda M., Gary M. Feinman, Stephen
A.
Kowalewski, Richard E. Blanton, and
Laura
Finsten 1986. "Prehispanic colonization
of the
Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico." Human
Ecology
14:131-162.
Paddock,
John 1983a. Lord 5 Flower's Family.
Nashville:
Vanderbilt Univer sity, Publica-
tions
in Anthropology 29.
______
1983b. "Comment on 'The economic
systems
of ancient Oaxaca: a regional per-
spective,'
by Stephen A. Kowalewski and Laura
Finsten." Current Anthropology 24:433.
Palerm,
Angel and Eric R. Wolf 1957. "Ecologi-
cal
Potential and Cultural Development in
Mesoamerica."
Pan American Union Social Sci-
ence Monograph 3:1-37.
Parry,
William J. 1987. Chipped Stone Tools in
Formative
Oaxaca, Mexico: Their Procure-
ment,
Production and Use. Ann Arbor: Universi-
ty of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology,
Memoirs
20.
Parsons,
Jeffrey R. 1971. Prehistoric Settle-
ment
Patterns in the Texcoco Region, Mexi-
co. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan, Museum
of
Anthropology, Memoirs 3.
Parsons,
Mary Hrones 1972. "Spindle whorls
from
the Teotihuac n Valley,
Mexico." Pp.
45-79
in M.W. Spence, J.R. Parsons, and M.H.
Parsons Miscellaneous Studies in Mexican
Prehistory.
Ann Arbor: University of Michi-
gan,
Museum of Anthropology, Anthropological
Papers
45.
Ragin,
Charles and Daniel Chirot 1984. "The
world
system of Immanuel Wallerstein:
sociology
and politics as history." Pp. 276--
312 in
T. Skopol (ed.) Vision and Method in
Historical
Sociology. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Redmond,
Elsa M. 1983. A Fuego y Sangre: Early
Zapotec
Imperialism in the Cuicatl n
Ca¤-
ada,
Oaxaca. Ann Arbor: University of Michi-
gan,
Museum of Anthropology, Memoirs 16.
Sanders,
William T. 1965. "The cultural ecolo-
gy of the
Teotihuacan Valley." University
Park:
Department of Sociology and Anthropolo-
gy,
Pennsyl vania State University.
Sanders,
William T. and Deborah L. Nichols
1988.
"Ecological theory and cultural
evolu-
tion in
the Valley of Oaxaca." Current Anthro-
pology 29:33-80.
Sanders,
William T., Jeffrey R. Parsons, and
Robert
S. Santley 1979. The Basin of Mexico:
Ecological
Processes in the Evolution of a
Civilization. New York: Academic Press.
Schortman,
Edward M. and Patricia A. Urban
1987.
"Modeling interregional
interaction
in
prehistory." Pp. 37-95 in M.B. Schiffer
(ed.)
Advances in Archaeological Method and
Theory,
Volume 11. San Diego: Academic Press.
Smith,
Michael E. 1986. "The role of social
stratification
in the Aztec empire: a view
from
the provinces." American Anthropologist
88:70-91.
______
1987. "Archaeology and the Aztec econo-
my: the
social scientific use of archaeo-
logical
data." Social Science History 11:237--
259.
Spence,
Michael W. 1983. "Comment on 'The
economic
systems of ancient Oaxaca: a re-
gional
perspective,' by Stephen A. Kowalewski
and
Laura Finsten." Current
Anthropology
24:433-34.
Spencer,
Charles S. 1982. The Cuicatl n Ca¤ada
and
Monte Alb n. New York: Academic
Press.
Strassoldo,
Raimondo 1980. "Centre-periphery
and
system-boundary: culturological per-
spectives."
Pp. 27-61 in J. Gottmann (ed.)
Centre
and Periphery: Spatial Variation in
Politics.
London: Sage Publications.
Trigger,
Bruce G. 1984. "Archaeology at the
crossroads:
what's new?" Annual Review of
Anthropology
13:275-300.
Wallerstein,
Immanuel 1974. The Modern World--
System
I. New York: Academic Press.
Welte,
Cecil R. 1973. "Ready reference release
No.
2." Oaxaca.
Willey,
Gordon R. and Jeremy A. Sabloff 1980.
A
History of American Archaeology. San
Francisco:
W.H. Freeman.