Is it Agriculture Yet?: Intensified Maize-Use at 1000 cal BC in the Soconusco and Mesoamerica

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 40 (2015) 89–108

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/ locate/ jaa

Is it agriculture yet? Intensified maize-use at 1000 cal BCin the Soconusco and Mesoamerica

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2015.06.0020278-4165/� 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

⇑ Corresponding author at: Department of Anthropology, AS 237, University atAlbany – SUNY, 1400 Washington Ave., Albany, NY 12222, United States.

E-mail address: [email protected] (R.M. Rosenswig).1 Mesoamerica is used in this paper to describe a cultural area. This culture area

cannot really be said to have emerged prior to 1400 cal BC when Olmec styleiconography demonstrates long distance contact (see Pool, 2007; Rosenswig, 2010).Thus defined, the borders of Mesoamerica shifted over time. The geographic zone thatconsists of the southern part of modern day Mexico and the northern part of CentralAmerica is referred to as Middle America.

Robert M. Rosenswig a,⇑, Amber M. VanDerwarker b, Brendan J. Culleton c, Douglas J. Kennett c

a University at Albany – SUNY, United Statesb University of California, Santa Barbara, United Statesc Pennsylvania State University, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 25 August 2014Revision received 27 May 2015

Keywords:MaizeAgricultureFood productionIntensificationMacrobotanical analysisMesoamericaSoconusco

a b s t r a c t

The development of food production in Mesoamerica was a complex and protracted process. We arguethat while maize had been cultivated for many millennia, this cereal grain assumed a markedly moreimportant role in the political economy of the Soconusco (and elsewhere in Mexico, Guatemala andBelize) only after 1000 cal BC. Macrobotanical data from the long-occupied village of Cuauhtémocdocument low-level maize production from 1900 to 1400 cal BC with a significant increase during thefinal centuries of the site’s occupation after 1000 cal BC. Botanical evidence of increased maize consump-tion at this time occurred with evidence for changing groundstone use, intensified exploitation of dog anddeer as well as iconography linking maize with rulership. This was also when monumental architecturewas first built to mark a regional hierarchy of political centers. Changes evident in the Soconusco at1000 cal BC parallel transformations in both highland and lowland regions of Mesoamerica whenceramic-using villagers expanded into new environments, farther away from the permanent watersources favored by Late Archaic and Early Formative peoples. We interpret the changes evident at1000 cal BC in terms of both proximate historical factors as well as ultimate adaptive causes to producea fuller understanding of changing Mesoamerican food production practices.

� 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Middle America is unique among the centers of agriculturebecause plants (e.g., maize [Zea mays], squash [Curcurbita argyros-perma], pumpkin [Cucurbita pepo], common bean [Phaseolusvulgaris], and chile [Capsicum annuum]) were the primary domesti-cates (Piperno and Smith, 2012). Dog (Canis familaris, Leonard et al.,2002) and turkey (Meleagris gallopavo, Speller et al., 2010) were theonly significant animal domesticates and played a minor role in thediet (Bellwood, 2005: 146; Piperno and Pearsall, 1998). Theachievements of Mesoamerican1 civilizations were thus createdwithout pack animals or livestock. Another difference from OldWorld centers of food production is that the founding populations

of Mesoamerica brought domesticated dogs and (possibly) bottlegourds (Lagenaria siceraria) with them from Asia (Erickson et al.,2005) and within a few millennium of their arrival, by 8000 cal BC,peoples inhabiting Middle America had domesticated pumpkins(Smith, 1997) and by 6700 cal BC maize was also domesticated(Piperno et al., 2009; Ranere et al., 2009). The adaptation to whatwe now call Mesoamerica was one of low-level food production froma very early point (Smith, 2001).

Domesticated plants are increasingly documented in MiddleAmerica during the Archaic period. There is evidence of maizeuse between 7000 and 4000 cal BC in both the highlands(Flannery, 1986; Piperno and Flannery, 2001; Piperno et al.,2009) and lowlands (Kennett et al., 2010; Neff et al., 2006; Pohlet al., 2007; Pope et al., 2001; Rosenswig et al., 2014). The Earlyand Middle Archaic periods represent a time when localenvironments were more intensively occupied by humans and her-ald what Flannery (1969, 1986; see also Zeder, 2012: 258–259)defined as a broad spectrum revolution. Considerably moreevidence of Middle American peoples is known from the LateArchaic period (4000–1900 cal BC), and higher population levels,coupled with increased sedentism, are important factors in whythese two millennia are better known (Kennett, 2012; Piperno

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.jaa.2015.06.002&domain=pdf

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2015.06.002

mailto:[email protected]


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02784165

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jaa

2 Recent explorations by Hodgson and Clark (2012) have encountered additionalArchaic period shell mounds. Clark and Hodgson (n.d.) propose that these shellmounds were purposefully built monumental architecture and so represent perma-nent centers of Archaic-period society. We await publication of data to substantiatethe claim that these shell mounds were not specialized resource extraction locales asothers have proposed (Kennett et al., 2006; Lesure and Wake, 2011; Voorhies, 2004).

90 R.M. Rosenswig et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 40 (2015) 89–108

and Pearsall, 1998; Rosenswig, 2015). More people atlonger-occupied sites provide a more substantial archaeologicalrecord. Ascertaining whether the apparent Late Archaic increasein food production is real or simply the result of increased overallpopulation (and if the two are linked) is a difficult task. However, itis clear that most of the domesticated plant species upon whichlater Mesoamerican societies depended were brought undercultivation during the Archaic period. It is equally clear that thesefood sources were initially integrated into foraging subsistencestrategies and did not dramatically alter the lives ofArchaic-period peoples. The origins of food production was there-fore not simply a matter of altering plant and animal physiologybut, more importantly, the cultural purposes to which new foodsources were put.

The earliest ceramic-using villagers in Middle America are doc-umented during the course of the second millennium BC. Thebeginning of village life was less coordinated than once thoughtand the region witnessed a mosaic of differently adapted peoples,with some using ceramics and others not (Clark and Cheetham,2002; Rosenswig, 2011, in press). Even more people inhabitedMiddle America during this millennium than ever before, and theyconsumed maize from cobs of increasing size (Blake, 2006; Evans,2013: 89–90; Kennett et al., 2006). The years from 1900 to 1000 calBC, or what Mesoamerican archaeologists call the Early Formativeperiod, correspond to increased food production compared to ear-lier peoples in the region. However, villagers consumed a similarrange of domesticates as their pre-1900 cal BC ancestors and con-temporary neighbors who maintained a more mobile adaptation(Arnold, 2000, 2009; Clark and Gosser, 1995; Kennett et al.,2006; Killion, 2013; Lesure, 2011; Rosenswig, 2006a,b). It has longbeen proposed that manioc or other root crops could have provideda significant source of carbohydrates (e.g., Bronson, 1966; Coe,1961; Lowe, 1967: 59, 128; Lowe, 1975: 10–14; see also Clarket al., 2007, 2010). This is a likely possibility, especially given theimportance of manioc as a staple crop during the Classic period(Sheets et al., 2011, 2012) and its documentation at someFormative (Hather and Hammond, 1994) and Archaic period(Pohl et al., 1996; Rosenswig et al., 2014) sites in the Maya area.Further, Cyphers et al. (2013; see also Cyphers andZurita-Noguera, 2012) propose that manioc was the primarysource of cultivated carbohydrates for the inhabitants of SanLorenzo during the polity’s late Early Formative period florescence.Many domesticated plants were cultivated during the EarlyFormative period but maize had not yet assumed the importanceit later did as a staple crop. Intensified maize cultivation thereforemay have been the result of early social complexity rather than itscause (Blake et al., 1992a; Smalley and Blake, 2003; VanDerwarker,2006).

The Middle Formative period (1000–400 cal BC) was whenmany of the hallmarks of Mesoamerican civilization are first docu-mented (Pool, 2007: 220–242). Population levels in multipleregions clearly increased, and large conical pyramid mounds wereconstructed for the first time (e.g., Diehl, 1981; Inomata et al.,2013; Love, 1999a: 144–148). Numerous authors working in boththe lowland Soconusco and Gulf Coast regions argue that anincreased level of maize production also began at this time(Arnold, 2000, 2009; Blake, 2006: 67; Blake et al., 1995: 179–180; Blake et al., 1992a; Blake and Neff, 2011; Cyphers andZurita-Noguera, 2012; Clark and Pye, 2000; Clark et al., 2007,2010; Clark and Knoll, 2005: 289; Killion, 2008, 2013; Love,1999b, 2007; Love and Guernsey, 2011; Rosenswig, 2006a,2012a; VanDerwarker, 2006; VanDerwarker and Kruger, 2012).This was also when new forms of social differentiation were docu-mented at the household level in the Soconusco (Love, 1991; Loveand Guernsey, 2011; Rosenswig, 2012a,b and see Lesure and Blake,2002).

In the rest of the paper we focus on changes occurring at1000 cal BC in the Soconusco region and present new macrobotan-ical and dating evidence from the Cuauhtémoc site. We thenreview other lines of evidence for increased maize use and arguethat these local patterns are part of larger regional transformations.In some areas there was an increase in political complexity at1000 cal BC while in other areas this time corresponded to anexpansion of sedentary villages into new environments. Both wereimportant changes in adaptation, and local developments were theresult of local historical circumstances. However, despite localchanges in the Soconusco, we conclude that 1000 cal BC marks athreshold when maize assumed the importance it held for laterMesoamerican peoples as a staple crop. The political economyand political ambitions of local leaders provided the proximatecause of intensified maize production. However, the ultimate causeof adaptive changes at 1000 cal BC was the long-term result ofslowly increasing maize ear size combined with wetter and morestable environmental conditions. The fact that changes occurredacross so much of Middle America at the same time precludes localhistorical processes from fully explaining why the transformationoccurred. However, the different uses to which increased maizeproduction were put necessitates accounting for local historicalprocesses to understand what occurred in each region. We con-clude that consideration of both ultimate and proximate causesthat integrate adaptation, environment and political economy pro-vides a more accurate reconstruction of complex developmentssuch as the origins of agriculture (e.g., Robb, 2013; Rosenswig,2012a, 2015). We return to a fuller discussion of ultimate andproximate causation of this paper, following the presentation ofdata from the broader Soconusco region and Cuauhtémoc sitespecifically.

2. The Soconusco region

The Soconusco region consists of linear estuary, coastal plainand piedmont environments below the southern Sierra Madre(Fig. 1). This relatively small region contains a number of extre-mely rich ecosystems that are closely packed together, resultingin one of the most productive environments in Mesoamerica (Coeand Flannery, 1967: 9–15; Kennett et al., 2006; Lowe et al., 1982:55–62). As Blake and Neff (2011: 47) relate: ‘‘Local residents oftenremark that the countryside is so productive that one would haveto be a fool to go hungry.’’ Middle and Late Archaic period inhabi-tants of the estuaries are comparatively well documented (Kennettet al., 2010; Voorhies, 2004; Voorhies et al., 2002). These prece-ramic peoples altered the local environment and cultivated maize(Kennett et al., 2010; Neff et al., 2006), but left a light imprint, andthus archaeologists have been unable to conclusively locatehypothesized permanent inland settlements (Kennett et al.,2006; Voorhies, 2004).2 This lack of known inland sites is partlydue to the high sedimentation rate and the burial of sites dating toall time periods on this actively prograding coastal plain (Voorhiesand Kennett, 1995).

The Soconusco has one of the most complete records of initialEarly Formative period (1900–1400 cal BC) occupation in MiddleAmerica. Early ceramics (Barra phase, 1900–1700 cal BC) and pre-cocious political hierarchy (Locona phase, 1700–1500 cal BC) arewell known from Paso de la Amada and other Mazatán zone sites(Blake, 2011; Clark, 2004; Clark and Blake, 1994) among

Fig. 1. Map of Mesoamerica and the Soconusco with sites mentioned in the text.

3 This does not mean that no site hierarchy existed, simply that it has not yet beenworked out. Altamira and Aquiles Serdán were likely both secondary centers in theMazatán zone during the Jocotal phase (Pye et al., 2011: 224–225) but neithercontained large conical mounds.

R.M. Rosenswig et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 40 (2015) 89–108 91

‘‘fisher-hunter-horticulturalists’’ (Clark et al., 2010: 217). The lateEarly Formative (1400–1000 cal BC) occupants of the Soconuscocontinued to exploit estuarine resources (Lesure, 2009), whileresidents adopted Olmec iconography that tied them to far-flunginterregional interaction networks (Clark and Pye, 2000;Cheetham, 2010). During the entire Early Formative period the res-idents of the Soconusco participated in a mixed economy of wildand domestic resources with larger sites clustering on the coastalplain (Blake and Neff, 2011; Clark et al., 2007; Rosenswig, 2006a).

The final century or two of the Early Formative period (Jocotalphase) witnessed the beginning of changes that would follow after1000 cal BC. Over half a dozen single, large mounds are knownfrom the Soconusco estuary (Coe and Flannery, 1967; Gomezet al., 2011; Lesure, 2009; Paillés, 1980; Pye, 1995; Pye et al.,2011; Rosenswig, 2010: 249–253) along a system of connectedwaterways (Navarrete, 1978). These sites are frequently inter-preted as special purpose locales to exploit estuarine resources,such as clams and other shellfish, as well as possibly salt. Coeand Flannery (1967) were the first to report such a mound atSalinas la Blanca, where the Cuadros and Jocotal phases were orig-inally defined. Another such estuary mound is at El Varal where the3-m-high Vásquez mound (built on a 200-m-long platform) is cur-rently the best-studied Early Formative estuary mound in theSoconusco (Lesure, 2009). The Vásquez mound consists of fouroccupation episodes during the Cuadros and Jocotal phases(Lesure and Wake, 2011). The artifact assemblage changed duringthe final period of El Varal’s occupation (at the end of the Jocotalphase), when a full range of domestic artifacts and prestige goodsare documented for the first time. At El Mesak, the third and onlyother Jocotal-phase estuary site where excavations have beenundertaken, prestige goods are also documented in excess of whatwould be expected from a specialized resource extraction locale(Pye and Demarest, 1991; Pye et al., 1999).

Although not an estuary mound site, Ojo de Agua is the largestknown Jocotal-phase site. This important center was very large(�200 ha) with long, linear platforms similar to those documented

in the estuary as well as three conical mounds each measuringapproximately 7 m in height (Clark and Hodgson, 2007/2008;Hodgson et al., 2010; Pye et al., 2011: 222–225). These moundsmay be the earliest conical ones built in Mesoamerica. EarlyFormative population in the Soconusco reached its highest levelduring the Jocotal phase, but a regional settlement hierarchy hasyet to be defined (Pye et al., 2011: 224–225; Rosenswig, 2008).3

Conical mounds are not known from any other Jocotal-phase sites,and thus they seem to be a localized experiment at Ojo de Agua.Some of the increases in maize production, described below asoccurring after 1000 cal BC, were likely already underway duringthe Jocotal phase (Rosenswig, 2012a: 39). However, the economicdata required to evaluate the timing of maize production increasesare not yet published. We expect changes in maize use were occur-ring, and there is evidence that cob size doubled between the Loconaand Cuadros phases (Feddema, 1993; see also Blake, 2006).

During the Middle Formative period (1000–400 cal BC), largersites were established with monumental architecture definingeach political center in most parts of Mesoamerica. After 1000 calBC in the Soconusco, the La Blanca polity coalesced in the south-eastern end of the region (Fig. 1), and the surrounding Mazatánand Rio Jesus zones were abandoned as virtually all of the localpopulation was drawn to this newly established society (Blakeand Clark, 1999; Love, 1999b, 2002, 2007; Love and Guernsey,2011; Rosenswig, 2010, 2012a). At the apex of a multi-tiered set-tlement hierarchy, the site of La Blanca covered 300 ha and wasbuilt around a 25 m high central mound (Love, 2002; Love andGuernsey, 2007, 2011). Cuauhtémoc was established as alower-tier center during this time (Rosenswig, 2007, 2010), andalong with La Victoria (Coe, 1961), are the only other sites fromthis period in the Soconusco with published excavation data from


the Conchas phase. A new form of regional organization was estab-lished at this time with formalized hierarchical relations signaledby, among other things, a system of conical mounds defining polit-ical centers. Rosenswig (2012a) has argued that the La Blancapolity was the first stratified society in the Soconusco defined byexploitative economic relations, and Michael Love (2011) contendsthat it was the region’s first urban city. As Love and Guernsey(2011: 172) have recently described it:

‘‘. . .with so little known about Ojo de Agua, it may seem astretch to call the rise of La Blanca a dramatic break from thepast, but it is also hard to characterize it as anything less. Thescale of the site, its monumental constructions, and its regionalpolity vastly exceed local precedents and as such mustrepresent a new order. . .’’

Indeed, the extent of known Conchas-phase sites consists of lessthan a quarter of the area over which Early Formative sites areknown (see Fig. 1). The Conchas phase clearly marks a time ofincreased commitment to a smaller section of the Soconusco thanat any time before or after (see Rosenswig, 2011 for a moredetailed argument of this point). This pattern of nucleation aloneis clear evidence of intensification. Love (1999b, 2002, 2012,2013) has long argued that changing subsistence practices at thistime underwrote the dramatic changes in the political organizationof the Soconusco. However, the La Blanca polity soon collapsed,and the coastal plain was depopulated (Love, 2002; Rosenswig,2008, 2011). As with preceding experiments with complex politiesin the Soconusco (Paso de la Amada, Cantón Corralito, Ojo deAgua), La Blanca lasted only a couple of centuries before a morelong-lasting state was established at the piedmont center ofIzapa (Love, 2011; Lowe et al., 1982, 2013; Rosenswig et al.,2013, 2015).

While much remains to be known, Archaic and Early Formativeperiod subsistence strategies are well studied in the Soconuscocompared to elsewhere in Middle America (e.g., Blake et al.,1992b; Blake and Neff, 2011; Clark, 1994; Clark and Gosser,1995; Clark et al., 2007; Kennett et al., 2010; Love, 1999b, 2013;Lesure, 2009, 2011; Lesure and Wake, 2011; Neff et al., 2006;Rosenswig, 2006a, 2010; Voorhies, 2004; Voorhies et al., 2002).Building upon this body of work, we add new evidence for tempo-ral changes in maize abundance at the Formative period village ofCuauhtémoc. Maize recovered from this site was AMS 14C dated tobetter constrain changes in density evident in the record. In the fol-lowing section, we present these data and review existing regionalpatterns that indicate increased maize use in the Soconuscobeginning at 1000 cal BC.

3. Cuauhtémoc, maize density and AMS dates

Excavations were initiated at the site of Cuauhtémoc (see Fig. 1)to document the effects of Gulf Coast interaction in the Soconuscobefore, during and after the apogee of the early Olmec center of SanLorenzo (Rosenswig, 2010). Cuauhtémoc was a small center duringthe Early Formative period (covering �6 ha) when Paso de laAmada and other communities in the Mazatán zone were largecenters. It was occupied during the late Early Formative period,and a 100-m-long, 25-m-wide, 1-m-high elite residential platform(Mound 2) was built during the Jocotal phase (Rosenswig, 2007,2012b). This pattern of long, low mounds was thus shared by sitesacross the Soconusco during Jocotal times. Cuauhtémoc thenbecame a lower-tier center within the La Blanca polity during theConchas phase at which point the site covered 10 ha with a5-m-high conical central mound (Mound 3), and the residentialplatform (Mound 3) continued to be occupied by the site’s elite(see Fig. 2A). Therefore, unlike sites in the Mazatán zone,

Cuauhtémoc was occupied through the 1000 cal BC transition ofinterest here.

Three seasons of work at Cuauhtémoc allow for the reconstruc-tion of the site’s millennium-long occupation. A 220-m-long sec-tion of a drainage canal cut for current banana production(Trench 1) was mapped where it had cut through the site(Fig. 2B). The profile of the north wall of this trench revealed a100-m-wide section of sterile white sand on top of which manyoccupation levels had been constructed. This sterile sand wasdeposited as a levee from the seasonal river that, until recently,had run by the site. The ancient inhabitants of Cuauhtémoc settledon the sandy high ground that this river discharge had created(Rosenswig, 2010). A total of 57 units were excavated that docu-mented middens off the edge of the village as well as trash-filledpits that together provide a sample of trash disposal practices ofthe site’s ancient residents (Rosenswig, 2009: 10–13).

Trash accumulation at Cuauhtémoc was documented both atvillage-wide, open-air middens around the site’s edges as well asin pit features more closely associated with individual houses.Two excavation blocks (Suboperations 1 and 10) were placed nextto Trench 1 and documented open-air middens descending fromthe east and west sides of the village that contained superimposedremains from the duration of the site’s occupation (Fig. 2A). Thestratigraphic sequence exposed in these profiles was used to care-fully peel back the remains of one temporal phase at a time(Rosenswig, 2012c). These open-air middens developed accretion-ally on the edges of the site and represent village-wide accumula-tions of trash. Ten trash-filled pits were also documented acrossthe site and provide another type of deposit that contains refusein secondary contexts. These pits were located within the settle-ment, and consequently, the trash that filled them was sealedmuch more quickly and was not transported as far as that depos-ited in the open-air middens at the site’s edges. The center ofCuauhtémoc was ploughed down when heavy machinery alsodug drainage canals through the site in the late 1990s as part ofthe creation of a banana plantation. As a result, the remains ofthe Conchas-phase households that generated the trash-filled pitsno longer existed when excavations were undertaken in 2002 and2003. The ploughing did allow domestic features from the Loconaphase to be documented in detail along with associated trash pitand burials (Rosenswig, 2010: 120–122). During the Jocotal andConchas phases the long 1-m-high platform (Mound 2) physicallyelevated an elite residential context above that of the rest of thecommunity. Artifact assemblages recovered from a pit andopen-air midden contexts documented on the edge of this elitesector of the site (Suboperation 7) were compared to trash fromthe rest of the site to help identify this as an elite zone(Rosenswig, 2007).

These different types of depositional contexts allowed for thedocumentation of the refuse management system employed atCuauhtémoc and the recovery of artifacts and ecofacts from care-fully analyzed deposits (see Rosenswig, 2009: 16–26 for detaileddescriptions of these deposits). These deposits are ideal contextsfrom which to document changing dietary patterns overCuauhtémoc’s occupation from 1900 to 850 cal BC. The site isparticularly useful as it allows us to monitor changing subsistencepractices from the inhabitants of a single Soconusco villageoccupied before and after 1000 cal BC.

3.1. Macrobotanical remains

Forty-three flotation samples from single-phase deposits atCuauhtémoc were analyzed (Appendix A); thirty-nine of thesesamples come from contexts that could be clearly associated witha single phase, and fifteen samples produced maize remains(Fig. 3A). Other taxa recovered from the site include avocado

Fig. 2. Map of Cuauhtémoc (A) with photographs of the 220-m long Trench 1 (B).

Fig. 3. An Ocós-phase bell-shaped pit (A), the Cherla-phase pit feature that produced the highest maize density (B) and maize density from fifteen contexts at Cuauhtémoc(C).



(Persea americana), possible bean (Phaseolus spp. cf.), seeds in thegoosefoot/pigweed genera (Chenopodium/Amaranthus spp.), inaddition to seeds from the grass (Poaceae), spurge(Euphorbiaceae), and pokeweed (Phytolaccaceae) families(Table 1); these additional plant types were secondary to maizein term of overall abundance. A total of 104 maize kernels andcupules were identified (Table 2) as well as additional specimensthat were classified as possible maize kernel and cupule fragmentsbut were too fragmented to make clear determinations; weexclude these probable but uncertain specimens from our analysis.Plant remains, including maize, were identified down to 0.7 mmsieve size, indicating a fairly high level of fragmentation.However, this level of fragmentation is consistent with comparableEarly and Middle Formative plant assemblages from the Gulf Coast(VanDerwarker, 2006; VanDerwarker and Kruger, 2012). The factthat cupules were identified suggests that people were shellingears of maize for consumption (as opposed to eating it fresh offthe cob) at the residential site. The act of shelling maize kernelstends to remove some cupules from the cob as part of the process,leaving a depositional pattern quite different from eating greenmaize. As cupules were identified in all time periods, this methodof processing maize appears to have been used consistentlythrough time by the site’s inhabitants.

Table 1Inventory of plants identified at Cuauhtémoc.

Temporal period Early Formative Early Formative E

Temporal phase Locona Ocos CTotal soil volume (l) 17 13.5 1N of samples 11 3 3Total plant wt (g) 0.12 1.3 0Total wood wt (g) 0.11 0.03 0

Count Wt (g) Count Wt (g) C

Avocado, Persea americana 21 0.67Avocado cf., Persea americana cf. 52 0.27Bean cf., Phaseolus spp. cf. 2 0.01 1Bean Family, FabaceaeCheno/Am, Chenopodium/Amaranthus 1 0.00Maize Cupule, Zea mays 1 0.00 9Maize Cupule cf., Zea mays cf. 1 0.00Maize Kernel, Zea mays 6 0.01 13 0.05 1Maize Kernel cf., Zea mays cf. 1 0.00Spurge Family, Euphorbiaceae 1Grass Family, PoaceaePokeweed Family, Phytolaccaceae 5 0.00Unidentified seed 1 0.00 2Unidentified specimen 1 0.00 3

Table 2Maize remains recovered at Cuauhtémoc and listed in the same order as they are present

Sample # Subop Lot Level Ceramic phase Depositional context Maize k

37 1d 67 4 Conchas Midden 172 7 34 6 Conchas Elite pit 55 8a 280 6 Conchas Pit 423 10b 55 20 Conchas Midden 129 2d 211 5 Conchas Pit 938 1d 66 3 Conchas Midden 942 2n 212 6 Conchas Midden 536 1d 69 5 Jocotal Midden 139 3c 52 Cherla Pit 1531 2n 217 8 Cherla Midden 133 2l 231 Ocós Pit 1141 1d 72 7 Ocós Midden 243 1d 76 8 Locona Midden 66 8b 32 3 Locona Midden 110 8e 162 6 Locona Pit

87

The context of deposition can affect the preservation of allarchaeological materials, especially botanical remains. Maize den-sity might therefore be expected to be higher in pit features than inopen-air middens as deposits that were rapidly sealed would havebetter preservation than those exposed to the surface for extendedperiods of time. A previous study of formation processes atCuauhtémoc shows that both ceramic and daub remains weremore densely concentrated and less fragmented in trash pits thanin open-air middens (Rosenswig, 2009: 18–21). However, aLocona-phase pit (Sample 10) had the lowest density of the threecontexts from that phase and two of the Conchas-phase pits(Samples 5 and 29) have lower densities than all but one ofthe midden deposit from that time period (see Table 2). Further,the Conchas-phase deposit with the highest maize density(Sample 37) is from a midden. The fact that there is no clearcorrespondence between depositional context and density ofdocumented maize remains suggests that overall, neither initialexposure to the elements nor subsequent post-depositional pro-cesses (e.g., contraction and expansions of soils) resulted in differ-ential identification of macrobotanical maize remains. In additionto spatial assumptions regarding botanical preservation, there arealso temporal concerns; one can expect that older deposits wouldbe less well-preserved than younger deposits. Given such an

arly Formative Early Formative Total EarlyFormative

MiddleFormative

herla Jocotal – Conchas0.5 5 46 31.5

1 18 21.21 0.01 1.64 0.83.15 0.01 0.3 0.58

ount Wt (g) Count Wt (g) Count Wt (g) Count Wt (g)

21 0.6752 0.27

0.00 3 0.011 0.00

1 0.00 2 0.00 1 0.000.01 10 0.01 7 0.04

1 0.00 3 0.006 0.04 1 0.00 36 0.10 50 0.20

1 0.00 2 0.000.00 1 0.00

18 0.005 0.00

0.00 3 0.00 4 0.000.01 4 0.01 6 0.01

ed in Fig. 3C.

ernel Maize cupule Maize total Soil volume (l) Density (count/volume)

17 5 3.4003 8 3 2.667

4 3 1.3334 5 3 1.667

9 6.5 1.3859 5 1.8005 6 0.8331 5 0.200

9 24 5.5 4.3641 5 0.200

11 8 1.3752 5.5 0.3646 7 0.8571 7 0.143

1 1 3 0.333

17 104 77.5

Fig. 4. Box plots of maize density comparing the Early and Middle Formative perioddeposits at Cuauhtémoc (Note: sample size refers to the number of flotationsamples, not the number of maize fragments).


assumption, any increase in plant density (calculated as total plantweight divided by totally soil volume) through time might simplybe interpreted as a consequence of better preservation (Table 3).The difference between Early Formative (0.036) and MiddleFormative (0.026) plant density, however, is negligible, and evendecreases through time. We therefore infer that density measuresindeed reflect the relative quantity of maize discarded, and byextension consumed, at the site over time.

In addition to densities of maize, we also present maize ubiqui-ties and standardized counts. These different quantitative tech-niques require some explication as to what they actuallymeasure. Densities are calculated as maize counts divided by soilvolume, and thus increases in maize density can be interpretedas an increase in the overall discard of maize relative to the sizeof the deposit; density measures tell us about changes in overallabundance and usage. Standardized counts are calculated as maizecounts divided by total plant weight (summed by context or per-iod), and increases in maize standardized counts would indicatean increase in maize relative to other plants; standardized countstell us about changes in the plant diet itself. Thus, if both densityand standardized counts of maize increase, then respectively peo-ple were: (1) producing/processing/discarding more maize than inearlier periods and (2) producing/processing/discarding moremaize relative to other edible plant foods than they had previously.Ubiquity, by contrast, measures the percentage of samples inwhich maize appears (calculated here according to period), andthus measures the occurrence frequency of maize across a set ofsamples. Whereas density measures and standardized counts tellus about abundance, ubiquity informs us regarding contexts ofproduction, processing, and discard. For example, an increase inmaize ubiquity could indicate that more people were engaging inmaize preparation tasks or that maize preparation acquired morestages of processing, which occurred in multiple areas (e.g., a shiftto nixtamilization would require more steps, possibly leading todiscard/loss in more contexts). On the other hand, a decrease inmaize ubiquity might indicate that maize preparation was becom-ing more spatially restricted; in the context of increasing social andpolitical complexity linked to tribute expectations, maize process-ing may have become a less visible activity (e.g., as non-elitessought to obfuscate the extent of their surplus production, or per-haps reflecting the exemption of elite families from maize produc-tion activities).

Maize densities, standardized counts, and ubiquities are pre-sented in Table 3. Densities and standardized counts are tabulatedby phase and then also by period (e.g., Early and MiddleFormative). Ubiquity values are calculated only by period as thistype of technique requires a minimum sample size of 10(Hubbard, 1976). When calculated by phase, we see higher averagemaize density and standardized counts in the later Conchas-phasedeposits (see also Fig. 3A). When calculated by period, there is aneven clearer increase in both abundance measures, suggesting boththat Middle Formative residents of Cuauhtémoc were producing

Table 3Measures of maize abundance through time at Cuauhtémoc.

Phase Total plantweight (g)

Total soilvolume (l)

Total plantdensity

Totalmaize

Totamai

Conchas 0.83 31.5 0.026 57 7

Middle Formative 0.83 31.5 0.026 57 7

Jocotal 0.01 5 0.002 1 1Cherla 0.21 10.5 0.020 25 2Ocós 1.3 13.5 0.096 13 2Locona 0.12 17 0.007 8 3

Early Formative 1.64 46 0.036 47 8

more maize overall and more maize relative to the other plantsin their diet. Indeed, as shown in box plot format in Fig. 4, this dif-ference between Early Formative and Middle Formative maize den-sities is statistically significant. The one outlier to this pattern isthe extremely high density of maize remains from aCherla-phase deposit (Sample 39; Fig. 3B). This large, open pit fea-ture contained a dense matrix of clam shell and crab exoskeletons,and over 70% of the vertebrate fauna were fish. Fancywhite-rimmed black ware ceramic serving vessels were common,and the feature was interpreted previously as a feasting deposit(Rosenswig, 2010: 140–142). The high density of maize remainsin this Cherla-phase feature corresponds to a specialized type ofpolitical behavior as opposed to daily subsistence debris docu-mented in closed pit features and open-air middens.Consumption of maize and other specialty foods at public eventsis a common cross-cultural pattern (e.g., Hayden, 1990, 2009;Rosenswig, 2007). Clark and Blake (1994; Clark and Gosser,1995; Smalley and Blake, 2003) have long argued that initialEarly Formative period maize was cultivated for its sugary stalksto make fermented beverages such as beer used in public feasts.Carl Wendt (2003: 447) proposes a similar interpretation for lateEarly Formative maize at El Bajío in the San Lorenzo hinterland(see also VanDerwarker and Kruger, 2012). The maize remainsfrom this Cherla-phase pit at Cuauhtémoc are kernels and cupules– evidence that maize was being processed as food, even if stalksugar was also being used to make beer. The large, open shape ofthis Cherla-phase pit is also distinctive when compared to themore typical bell-shaped trash features such as the Ocós-phasepit shown in Fig. 3C.

l samples withze (N)

Totalsamples (N)

Ubiquitymeasure (%)

Maizedensity

Standardizedmaize count

21 1.81 68.67

21 33.3 1.81 68.67

1 0.20 100.003 2.38 119.053 0.96 10.00

11 0.47 66.67

18 44.4 1.02 28.66


Increased maize-use inferred from Cuauhtémoc deposits datingafter 1000 cal BC is best documented in the stratigraphically super-imposed open-air midden sequence of Suboperation 1d (Fig. 5A).Maize density is lower in the Early Formative period depositsand many times higher in the overlying Conchas-phase midden(Fig. 5B). This 2 � 6 m excavation block was placed 2 m north ofTrench 1 to recover a stratigraphically intact sequence from theeastern edge of the site. Arbitrary levels were initially used to exca-vate three units leaving two 1 � 2 m units in between thosealready removed in Fig. 5C. Then, the two remaining 1 � 2 m unitswere excavated from the profiles of the three units already exca-vated. Such an excavation strategy could only be followed oncethe nature of the site’s formation was understood. This excavationtechnique allowed us to recover stratigraphically intact materialsand provides the best sequence at the site showing higher densitiesof maize in Conchas-phase levels compared to the underlying EarlyFormative period deposits.

In contrast to the increases in maize densities and standardizedcounts, the decrease in maize ubiquity between the Early andMiddle Formative periods at Cuauhtémoc suggests that maize pro-cessing and discard became more spatially restricted even asmaize’s dietary abundance increased. This pattern could reflect adecrease in the number of processing or preparation stages thatmaize underwent prior to consumption, but such an interpretationis difficult to reconcile with its increased usage. Alternately, this

Fig. 5. Photograph of Cuauhtémoc’s Suboperation 1 complex (A) that produced a superim1d (C).

decrease in occurrence frequency could indicate an intentionalrestriction in terms of access to maize or a redefinition of appropri-ate locales for maize processing and production.

These maize data also lend insight into Formative period agri-cultural strategies. The identification of maize cupules in theCuauhtémoc assemblage indicates that at least some maize wasgrown nearby the residential area in infield and/or garden loca-tions. As Thomas Killion (1992: 123) states: ‘‘a relationship canbe shown to exist. . . between site structural variation within thehouse lot and the organization of agricultural activity outside thelot’’ (emphasis in original). Specifically, Killion has shown thatwhen outfields (>45 min walk from the residence) are cultivatedintensively, maize is stored on the cob in temporary storage struc-tures in the fields (1990, 1992). When more produce is needed,farmers shell maize ears in the outfields and transport shelled ker-nels back to the residential site, a practice that would result in veryfew cupules in residential deposits; conversely, when infields arecultivated, shelling occurs on-site, leading to elevated numbers ofcupules relative to kernels (see also VanDerwarker, 2006). Giventhe low abundance of cupules relative to kernels during both theEarly and Middle Formative periods at Cuauhtémoc, we speculatethat farmers cultivated maize in both infields and outfields (withan emphasis on outfields), shifting cultivation among fields as soilfertility waned. This was a common agricultural pattern through-out Middle America (see also Alcorn, 1984; Deal, 1983, 1985;

posed sequence of maize density (B) from the intact deposits within Suboperation

Table 4AMS dates of 12 maize remains and 1 charcoal sample from Cuauhtémoc. Modeled ranges are constrained by the boundaries of the Soconusco ceramic chronology.

UCIAMS# Provenience Material 14C age BP 2r cal BC Modeled 2r cal BC

57026 SOP 7, Lot 10, L. 3. Jocotal/Conchas Single maize kernel 2770 ± 15 975–845 975–85557027 SOP 7, Lot 34, L. 6. Conchas/elite Single maize kernel 2745 ± 15 920–835 915–85057036 SOP 8a. Lot 280, L. 6. Conchas/non-elite Single maize kernel 2740 ± 15 915–835 915–850

57028 SOP 1d. Lot 66, L. 3. Conchas Single maize kernel 2730 ± 15 910–830 910–85057029 SOP 1d. Lot 67, L. 4. Conchas Single maize kernel 2750 ± 15 925–835 925–85057030 SOP 1d. Lot 69, L. 5. Jocotal Single maize kernel 2720 ± 15 905–825 905–85057031 SOP 1d. Lot 71, L. 6. Cherla Single charcoal 2705 ± 15 895–815 900–85057032 SOP 1d. Lot 72, L. 7. Ocós Single maize kernel 3185 ± 15 1495–1425 1495–142557033 SOP 1d. Lot 76, L. 8. Locona Single maize kernel 3225 ± 15 1520–1450 1525–1500

57035 SOP 3c. Lot 52, pit. Cherla Single maize kernel 3040 ± 15 1385–126073782 SOP 3c. Lot 52, pit. Cherla Single maize kernel 3060 ± 15 1395–127073783 SOP 3c. Lot 52, pit. Cherla Single maize kernel 3040 ± 15 1385–1260

Mean 3047 ± 9 1385–1265 1385–1300

57034 SOP 2l. Lot 231, pit. Ocós Single maize kernel 3225 ± 15 1520–1450 1500–1450


Folan et al., 1983; Vogt, 1969; West, 1947). Indeed, shifting cultiva-tion among many outfields while maintaining fewer infields is aneffective strategy to mitigate spatial risks of crop failure, especiallyin situations where farmers were becoming increasingly depen-dent on domesticates (Bentley, 1990; Browman, 1987; Goland,1993; Walker and Jodha, 1986; Winterhalder and Goland, 1997).

Finally, a broader consideration of the plant assemblage alsolends insight into increases in maize production documentedduring the Middle Formative period. Early Formative contextsproduced a more diverse array of plants, including taxa that werecompletely absent from the Middle Formative Conchas-phasedeposits; these taxa comprise a high abundance of avocado(n = 21) and possible avocado (n = 52) pit fragments, spurge seeds(Euphorbiaceae), and pokeweed seeds (Phytolaccaceae). Membersof the spurge family are not edible and are adapted to a wide rangeof habitats; the single seed identified to this family likely repre-sents an incidental inclusion, possibly carried to the site as a rideron a human body. The pokeweed seeds may represent Phytolaccarivinoides, a plant which grows in forests or thickets; the youngleaves and stems are edible, and the roots can be processed intoa beverage or used medicinally (Lentz and Dickau, 2005: 69). Thepresence of spurge and pokeweed seeds indicate that EarlyFormative residents of the site foraged for foods in a wide rangeof habitats that were relatively undisturbed by humans. These spe-cies are absent from Middle Formative deposits, in which grassseeds (Poaceae) were recovered in abundance (n = 18). Grassesare well-known weedy invaders of disturbed soils, and their pres-ence in the Conchas-phase samples likely reflect increased forestclearance and cultivation practices, a pattern that supports ourinterpretation of maize intensification occurring during theMiddle Formative period.

3.2. AMS dates of maize remains

We directly AMS 14C dated twelve maize kernels from flotationsamples taken from the intact midden deposits and pit features atCuauhtémoc that we used to track changes in maize densitythrough time (Table 4). Great care was taken in the field to identifydeposits containing single-phase ceramic assemblages and whenthese were identified they were carefully excavated to remove dis-turbed sediments (e.g., animal burrows). Tropical environments inMesoamerica are renowned for producing problematic 14C dates oncharcoal (Webster et al., 2004). This is due in part to the movementof charcoal through sedimentary sequences, displacement ofcharcoal by burrowing animals, and root burns beneath the groundsurface that contaminate older materials that are otherwiseordered stratigraphically. Identified maize kernels were

preferentially targeted to confirm the associations between tempo-rally diagnostic ceramic assemblages and the carbonized maizeremains, but also to avoid the old wood problem (e.g., Schiffer,1986; Kennett et al., 2002). Carbonized maize remains and otherecofacts (e.g., purified animal bone collagen; Kennett et al., 2008)are short-lived organisms and have a greater probability of accu-rately dating the depositional events of interest and, in this case,changes in the density of maize remains through time. Indeed,we AMS 14C dated one wood charcoal sample because of theabsence of suitable short-lived materials in one critical sampleand it returned a date far too late (UCIAMS-57031; 895–815 BC,2r) to be associated with the Cherla phase ceramics with whichit occurred (1400–1300 cal BC). Given this disparity the samplewas removed from our analysis.

Fig. 6 shows the calibrated 1 and 2r ranges for the twelvedirectly dated carbonized maize kernels. Six of these dates comefrom the deepest deposits containing Locona, Ocós, and Cherlaphase ceramic assemblages. Three come from a single Cherla phasepit feature and were combined prior to calibration following Wardand Wilson (1978). The calibrated age of this average (3047 ± 9 BP;1385–1265 BC, 2r) is consistent with the established age forCherla in the region based on ceramic assemblages (1400–1300 cal BC). The two dated Ocós components are also consistentwith ceramic phase estimates (1500–1400 cal BC), but the 14C dateassociated with Locona materials is slightly later (UCIAMS-57033;1520–1450 BC) than expected (1700–1500 cal BC). This suggeststhat this kernel either dates to the latter part of the Locona phaseor is intrusive from an overlying Ocós phase deposit. Regardless, allthree of these earliest levels contain only modest amounts of maizeprocessing debris.

The remaining carbonized maize kernels date between 1000and 800 cal BC and were taken from stratigraphic units with con-sistently higher concentrations of maize processing debris. Mostof these dates fall between 950 and 850 cal BC and are collectivelyconsistent with age estimates based on associated Conchas phaseceramics (1000–850 cal BC). However, one Jocotal-phase ceramicdeposit provided a 2r date range (905–825 cal BC) more consistentwith the Conchas phase. This suggests some downward movementof carbonized maize kernels, but the results are still strongly con-sistent with the hypothesis that maize processing increased after1000 cal BC and, by extension, that people at Cuauhtémoc weremore reliant upon maize production and consumption after thisdate.

The ceramic assemblages at Cuauhtémoc suggest that the sitewas occupied continuously during the Early Formative and earlyMiddle Formative periods (1900–850 cal BC). While not all phasesare equally well 14C dated, each of the seven phases from Barra

Fig. 6. Chart of the established Soconusco chronology and new AMS dates from Cuauhtémoc. Calibrated distribution ranges are depicted as open for the prior 2r distributionsand filled where ranges are constrained by the Soconusco ceramic chronology.

Table 5Changes in maize use documented at Cuauhtémoc and in the Soconusco at 1000 cal BC.

Archaeological evidence Cuauhtémoc Elsewhere in the Soconusco

Increased density of maize Present studyIncreased consumption of C4 plants Blake et al. (1992a) and Chisholm and Blake (2006)Increased overall density of ground stone Rosenswig (2006a, 2012a) Clark et al. (2007), Lowe (1967) and Love (2002)Increased proportion of manos and metates versus mortars

and pestlesRosenswig (2006a, 2012a) Coe (1961) and Love (2002)

Ceramic graters bowls and round pestles Rosenswig (2010: 155–160) Coe (1961) and Love (2002)Increased dog and deer exploitation Rosenswig (2007, 2012a) Blake et al. (1992b), Love (1999b) and Wake and Harrington (2002)Maize Iconography Rosenswig (2010: 217–222,

2012a)Blake (2006), Killion (2013), Taube (1996, 2000, 2004) and Clark andPye (2000)


through Conchas are documented (Rosenswig, 2009, 2010, 2012c).Well-dated deposits containing macrobotanical materials from theearliest Formative are consistent with low-level production andconsumption of maize within a mixed foraging-farming economy.Consistently higher concentrations of carbonized maize processingdebris come from equally well-dated deposits from the earlyMiddle Formative Conchas phase. This is consistent with thehypothesis that maize production and consumption increased after1000 cal BC and that people exploited more maize withinwell-established systems of early food production. Maize produc-tion may have been increasing during the second part of theEarly Formative period (1300–1000 cal BC) as well, but we donot have sufficient macrobotanical samples at Cuauhtémoc fromthese crucial centuries. However, several additional lines ofevidence from the Soconusco region and elsewhere inMesoamerica are consistent with the hypothesis that 1000 cal BCwas a significant threshold in the use of maize. We summarize thisevidence below (see Table 5).

4. Other evidence for increased maize use in the Soconusco at1000 BC

4.1. Increased C4 plant consumption

Increased reliance on maize at 1000 cal BC was first proposedby Blake et al. (1992a; Chisholm and Blake, 2006) based on theirisotopic analysis of eighteen Early Formative and six Middle

Formative human skeletons from across the Soconusco. Theyreport a reliance on C3 plants throughout the Early Formative per-iod and then, during the Conchas phase at 1000 cal BC, an increasein the consumption of C4 plants, presumably maize, that continuesthrough the subsequent Classic and Postclassic periods. Theseresults were questioned by Ambrose and Norr (1992) on method-ological grounds, but they are consistent with all other lines ofevidence discussed in this paper. Smalley and Blake (2003:Table 2) also observe a lack of published isotopic data fromanywhere in the Americas indicating high C4 consumption priorto 1000 cal BC. This evidence does not preclude an increase inmaize use prior to this time. In fact, various scholars working inthe Soconusco propose that increased maize production was oneof the reasons for the initial increase in sedentism and ceramicuse at the beginning of the second millennium BC (Clark et al.,2007: 37; Lesure and Wake, 2011: 69). However, increased use ofmaize during the latter half of the Early Formative period occurredin ways that did not leave isotopic signatures or evidence offood processing tools. The absence of these data is why Smalleyand Blake (2003) subsequently proposed stalk sugars were thedesired product, not maize cobs.

4.2. Changes in grinding technology

The ground stone tool assemblage at Cuauhtémoc also indicatesa change in food production practices during the Conchas phase(Rosenswig, 2006a, 2012a). First, an overall increase in the quantity

4 Michael Coe (1961: 61) coined the term double-line-break to refer to the post-slipincised decoration on the rim of Conchas-phase white ware serving dishes. However,there is much more variety in this decoration and it can also be depicted as triple- orquadruple-line-breaks (Love, 2002: Fig. 66). Flannery and Marcus (1994: Chap. 12 and19) use the distribution of a wide variety of DLB imagery in the Mexican highlands toargue that groups with more intensive interaction have more stylistic similarities thatthose with less interaction.


of ground stone tools is documented in contexts deposited after1000 cal BC. The composition of the ground stone tool assemblagealso changed at the same time; mortars and pestles predominatedduring the Early Formative period but were largely replaced bymanos and metates after 1000 cal BC (Rosenswig, 2006a, 2012a).Manos and metates have a larger grinding surface, and like theincrease in the overall number of tools, are consistent with agreater focus on processing a grain like maize as a dietary staple.This shift in ground stone technology is a broad regional pattern;few grinding stones have been documented at Early Formativesites (Clark, 1994; Clark et al., 2007), with larger quantities appar-ent at the subsequently occupied early Middle Formative periodsites of La Blanca and La Victoria (Coe, 1961; Love, 2002).

Ceramic grater bowls also appear in the Soconusco sequencearound 1000 cal BC. These bowls have a distinctive composite sil-houette profile with either three or four small supports and incisedlines that create a grinding surface on their interiors (Coe, 1961:Fig. 26, 52q-s, 53; Love, 2002: Fig. 51; Rosenswig, 2010:Fig. 5.12). These ceramic vessels expanded the array of grindingtools used to process softer materials (e.g., chili peppers, pigments,etc.). Grater bowls were likely used in combination with smallrounded pestles that also initially appear in the ground stoneassemblage at this time. These pestles fit comfortably into mostgrater bowls, and their diameters generally correspond to theunworn area of incisions at the edges of the internal base of thevessels (Rosenswig, 2010: Fig. 5.13). Together, grater bowls andround pestles form a tool kit that is functionally analogous to themortar and pestle. Why such an analogous ceramic technologywas used at the same time as stone mortars and pestles isunknown, as is why these grater bowls were not used during thepreceding Jocotal phase, nor during any of the subsequentMiddle Formative phases when composite silhouette vesselsbecame increasingly popular (Lowe et al., 2013). Equally intriguingis that other grater bowls known from this time are documented atPanuco in the Huasteca region of northern Veracruz (MacNeish,1954: 568–570). While a similar composite silhouette form withsupports was documented (MacNeish, 1954: Figs. 14.10, 16.17),those at Panuco also include flat-bottomed examples and a widerrange of support styles (MacNeish, 1954: Figs. 13.14, 14.13).These Panuco vessels, however, show no grinding damage, sug-gesting that they are not functionally analogous to those in theSoconusco. Henderson (1979: 66–69) also notes that‘‘pseudo-grater fondos’’ are found in the Tehuacán Valley, atChalcatzingo in Morelos and Atopula in Guerrero (see Henderson,1979: Fig. 24). Why vessels were decorated as grater bowls yetnot used as such and why grater bowls were used in theSoconusco is unknown at present. Nevertheless, an increase inthe overall quantity of ground stone, the increase in the relativeproportion of manos and metates, as well as the novel use ofceramic grater bowls and round pestles in the Soconusco all appearto be part of a reorganization of food preparation technologyoccurring after 1000 cal BC.

4.3. Intensified animal exploitation

Faunal assemblages from the Soconusco spanning the Early andMiddle Formative periods also indicate that hunters increasinglytargeted fewer mammal species after 1000 cal BC. A variety of fish,birds, and reptiles were consumed at Cuauhtémoc throughout theEarly Formative period and approximately half of the vertebratespecies consumed were mammals (Rosenswig, 2012a: Fig. 4a).However, the mammalian assemblage documented in thepost-1000 cal BC deposits at Cuauhtémoc was comprised of 80%dog and deer. This figure is compared to 37% during the precedinglate Early Formative period (Rosenswig, 2007). These results areconsistent with faunal analysis conducted elsewhere in the

Soconusco reflecting a regional pattern of changing subsistencepractices. In the Mazatán zone, Early Formative period faunalassemblages from various sites indicate a wide range of specieswere consumed with an emphasis on those founds in estuaries(Blake et al., 1992b; Lesure and Wake, 2011). In contrast, faunalremains from early Middle Formative period La Blanca indicate amore specialized focus on dog, deer, and turtle during theConchas phase (Love, 1999b, 2012; Wake and Harrington, 2002).What is unique about the Cuauhtémoc data is that the change tointensification of dog and deer exploitation is documented fromwithin a single community over time. A similar diachronic patternof narrowing faunal species exploited from the Early to the MiddleFormative period is also reported from the Gulf Coast (Peres et al.,in press; VanDerwarker, 2006). A narrowing range of exploitedfaunal resources and an increased reliance on dog and deer bothsuggest greater use of more localized resources. The increasedfocus on dog and deer suggests that Conchas-phase peoples werespending more time in and around their agricultural fields, asopposed to hunting in more distant ecotones. Deer are edge speciesknown to eat disturbance flora and maize directly from farmers’fields (Piperno and Pearsall, 1998: 76; Smith, 2011;VanDerwarker, 2006: 148–152), and dogs live in and aroundvillages, scavenging human food refuse. Increased exploitation ofmeat sources that would have been close at hand suggests thatfarmers spent less time hunting away from their villages and moretime intensively exploiting their immediate territory.

4.4. Artistic depictions of maize

Abstract ‘‘Olmec-style’’ iconography first appeared in theSoconusco region during the second half of the Early Formativeperiod and continued to be employed during the MiddleFormative period. Depictions of maize-related images areubiquitous in Soconusco iconography dating to the Conchas phase(Rosenswig, 2010, 2012a). This is consistent with thepan-Mesoamerican pattern of maize imagery characterizing theMiddle Formative period (Coe, 1962; Joraleman, 1971: 59–66;Taube, 1996, 2000, 2004: 25–29). In its most explicit form, a maizeear was depicted emerging from the head of a ruler as was clearlydepicted on an axe from the El Sitio site (Fig. 7A; see Killion, 2013:575; Taube, 2004: 26) that was a secondary center of the Izapapolity during the subsequent late Middle and Late Formative peri-ods (600–50 cal BC) after the La Blanca polity had collapsed. Thisimagery was stylized to varying degrees in the representation ofa V-shaped cleft that in some cases had an oval axe or ear emergingfrom it (Fig. 7B). If axes and maize ears are accepted as ‘‘conflatedequivalents’’ (Taube, 2004: 37), then the cleft motif itself is associ-ated with maize. Rosenswig (2006a, 2010: 218–220, 2012a) hasfurther proposed that the double-line-break (DLB) motif is an evenmore abstracted version of cleft imagery (Fig. 7C). Clear examplesof clefts used as DLB are published by Love (2002: 121) from theSoconusco (Fig. 7D) and by Flannery and Marcus (1994: 147) fromthe Valley of Oaxaca (Fig. 7E). What is striking about thearchaeological record from the Soconusco is that the Conchasphase marks the time when both the cleft and DLB motifs werevery commonly used to decorate ceramic serving vessels.4

The DLB motif was ubiquitous in Mesoamerica at the beginningof the Middle Formative period, and we propose that it

Fig. 7. Cleft and double-line-break (DLB) motifs as maize imagery. A – El Sitio axe (after Soustelle, 1985: 184). B – Cleft motif (after Benson and de la Fuente, 1996: 267). C –Cleft and DLB motives from Cuauhtémoc (from Rosenswig, 2010: Fig. 6.20). D – Soconusco cleft as DLB on Cuca Red-on-Buff dish (after Love, 2002: Fig. 68e1). E – Oaxaca cleftas DLB on Atoyac Yellow-white dish (after Flannery and Marcus, 1994: Fig. 12.17).


was a stylized referent to the newly established importance ofmaize.

The DLB generally appears in four places around the rim ofout-leaning and out-flaring serving dishes, thus creating aquatrefoil design (Guernsey, 2010). Mesoamerican iconography ismultivalent and can refer to various things simultaneously. AsTaube (2004: 35) observes: ‘‘Olmec imagery is rarely the same,and usually appears in a variety of subtly changing combinations. . .[and] the most important convention is that of substitution, inwhich otherwise distinct objects can substitute for one another,thereby implying a close relationship or equivalence betweenforms’’ (emphasis in original). Quatrefoils were associated withballcourts, caves, and the underworld (Guernsey, 2010). Cleftswere associated with maize and rulership (Taube, 1996, 2000).Together, both clefts and quatrefoil designs can be seen as referringto related aspects of a ruler’s role in the political and cosmologicalrealms, making an association between entering caves to the

underworld and bringing rain and agricultural fertility (Guernsey,2010: 78–79; Taube, 1996). The clearest artistic juxtaposition ofclefts and quatrefoils from the time is found on a roller seal fromTlatilco in the Valley of Mexico where the images are placed nextto each other (Fig. 8). While this association persists into theClassic and Postclassic periods, Guernsey (2010: 75) notes that:‘‘While the antecedents for many of the symbolic associations ofquatrefoils can be traced to the Early Preclassic [aka Formative],it appears that it was not until the Middle Preclassic that these con-cepts coalesced into the symbol of the quatrefoil, which could beexpressed as curvilinear or rectilinear, complete or partial, hori-zontal or vertical, of clay or stone. . .’’ The same seems to be trueof the DLB which was a simplified iconographic element thatbecame ubiquitous on Conchas-phase serving dishes in theSoconusco region. The DLB was widely found in Mesoamerica atthis time: across Chiapas (Clark and Cheetham, 2005: 348–358),in the Nacaste ceramics of San Lorenzo (Coe and Diehl, 1980:


195–198), and in Oaxaca, Tehuacán, Morelos and the Basin ofMexico (see review by Flannery and Marcus, 1994: Chap. 12 and19). Following Henderson’s (1979: 66–70) definition of an earlyMiddle Formative ‘‘Whiteware Horizon,’’ Lowe’s (1989: 55)‘‘Intermediate Olmec Period’’ and especially Tolstoy et al. (1977:98) advocacy for a ‘‘Double Line Break tradition’’ at this time,Rosenswig (2010: 67–71) also proposed a pan-Mesoamerican hori-zon that is most clearly evidenced by the DLB motif incised onwhiteware serving dishes. But this style horizon represented morethan just esthetic information useful for cross-dating. Such icono-graphic changes also reflect new subsistence and political realitiesin Mesoamerica that followed both the collapse of San Lorenzo inthe Gulf Coast region and political realignments in various regionsof Mesoamerica (see below).

If we accept the DLB as a simplified depiction of the cleft motiffrom which maize sometimes emerges, then it is important to notethat this imagery first appears in the Soconusco on Jocotal-phaseXquic Red and Tacaná White vessels (Clark and Cheetham, 2005:335–336; Coe and Flannery, 1967: Figs. 17, 22, 23; Lesure, 2009:125, 130; Pye et al., 1999: Figs. 14 and 15; Rosenswig, 2010:101). The cleft motif is also depicted on Monument 10 and 52 atSan Lorenzo (Cyphers, 2004: 62–64, 112–114), as well asMonument 1 and 3 from the Jocotal-phase center of Ojo de Aguain the Soconusco (Clark and Hodgson, 2007/2008; Milbrath,1979: 26). The changes in symbolic referents to maize were there-fore already underway during the final century or two of the EarlyFormative period, as presumably was the changing role of maize inpeoples’ diets. Maize was important enough that its associationwith rulership was already beginning to be depicted artisticallyin public contexts by the close of the Early Formative era.

4.5. Summary

Each of these lines of evidence suggests that a change occurredin the diet of the Soconusco residents at the beginning of theMiddle Formative period. Along with increases in maize densityand standardized counts, six additional lines of evidence(Table 5) support the case for an increased use of maize after1000 cal BC. As Wylie (1999: 308) notes: ‘‘if several lines of evi-dence based on different ranges of background theory convergein supporting a given hypothesis, its credibility is enhanced muchbeyond a simple additive function insofar as it is implausible thatsuch a coherence could arise accidentally.’’ We thus consider itimplausible that these seven lines of evidence, based on botany,zoology, chemistry, archaeology and art history, would providean accidental coherence. These patterns clearly do not imply a lackof maize use prior to 1000 cal BC as it was consumed during theArchaic and Early Formative periods. However, the nature of maizeconsumption changed at 1000 cal BC – more of it was consumedand it acquired more prominent cultural and artistic importance.Further, the change was not sudden. As reviewed above, DLB andcleft imagery are first observed during the Jocotal phase and threeconical mounds were built at Ojo de Agua, suggesting that changesin labor organization and symbolic referents to maize were alreadyunderway a century or so before 1000 cal BC when the La Blancapolity emerged. Ultimately, the intensified production of maizeoccurring after 1000 cal BC was only possible due to long-termpractice of maize cultivation dating back many thousands of years.

5. Changes at 1000 cal BC across Mesoamerica

Dietary reconstructions from Cuauhtémoc and elsewhere in theSoconusco indicate that maize was cultivated at low levels duringthe Archaic and Early Formative periods. The Archaic and Early

Formative use of maize was part of a stable and long-lasting horti-cultural subsistence strategy that persisted for many millennia.Then, around 1000 cal BC, the intensity of maize production inthe Soconusco increased as part of an overall intensification of foodproduction. The organization of society was transformed by a reli-ance on domesticates as much as the morphology of these domes-ticates was changed by human selection. In fact, changes inSoconusco social organization at 1000 cal BC (with the establish-ment of the La Blanca polity) are argued by Rosenswig (2012a) tohave been much more dramatic than any incremental increase inthe caloric value of maize.

Although not highlighted in discussions regarding the origins offood production in the Tehuacán Valley, 1000 cal BC also corre-sponds to a significant transition in the intensity of domesticateuse. After his reassessment of the Coxcatlán cave stratigraphy,and the direct dating of domesticated plant species, Smith (2005:9440) observes that: ‘‘domesticated plants represent �45% of thefood plants recovered from ceramic contexts and only 2% ofthe plant assemblage from preceramic cultural zones.’’ As in theSoconusco, domesticates were present in low levels from a veryearly date, but their use changed and their dietary importanceincreased many millennia after initial adoption. The most dramaticincrease in domesticated plant use (and decrease in wild plantremains) is documented in Tehuacán during the period from1000 to 750 cal BC, the end of the Ajalpan phase (MacNeish,1967: Fig. 186; with revised phase dating from MacNeish, 2001).The timing of increased food production therefore was coeval inboth the Tehuacán Valley and the Soconusco – two areas ofMesoamerica that could not be more different in terms of theirrespective environments (arid highland valley versus tropical low-land jungle) or the types of sites from which dietary evidence wasrecovered (cave versus large village).

One thousand cal BC also corresponds to major settlementshifts in numerous areas of Middle America after which sedentaryvillagers expanded into nearby environments where they had beenabsent during the second millennium BC. On Mexico’s Gulf Coast,all settlement projects independently document an increase inthe occupation of upland environments by ceramic-using villagersat this time (e.g., Arnold, 2009; Borstein, 2001: 189; Killion andUrcid, 2001; Kruger, 1996: 112–7; Symonds et al., 2002: Fig. 4.3).As ceramic-using villagers had only inhabited the nearby rivermargins and other lower-lying zones during the centuries priorto 1000 BC, Arnold (2009: 398) suggests that increased maize pro-ductivity at this time resulted in ‘‘[p]ermanent settlements andpolitico-economic relationships that did not rely on floodplainresources [and] became increasingly viable, undermining the con-trol exerted by the extant leadership and their dominant ideology.’’A similar expansion of ceramic-using villagers into upland zones at1000 BC is documented in Tlaxcala (Lesure et al., 2006). On theOaxacan coast, Joyce and Goman (2012) report a similar patternwhere the first evidence of occupation in the uplands is docu-mented during the Middle Formative period. Exploitation of moremarginal environments using new technology (or plant species) isa classic measure of Boserupian intensification (Boserup, 1965) andreflects a significant change in human use of their environment.

The central Depression of Chiapas, located between theSoconusco and Gulf Coast, also experienced a significant popula-tion increase after 1000 cal BC. Lowe (2007a) summarizes theEarly Formative occupation along the upper and middle GrijalvaRiver as being sparse, with the tributaries of this river only occu-pied by ceramic using peoples after 1300 cal BC. He reports thepresence of late Early Formative occupation through much of thearea from 1300 to 1000 cal BC with ceramics (resembling thosefrom the Gulf Coast) found at many sites as part of MiddleFormative construction fill (Lowe, 2007a,b). Lowe (1998) also

Fig. 8. Tlatilco seal (after Soustelle, 1985: 174).


reports that the region around San Isidro was sparsely occupiedbeginning in the late Early Formative and that after 1000 cal BCmonumental architecture was built and a series of burials contain-ing green stone axes were documented. Sullivan (2009) has under-taken systematic survey in a 107 sq km area around Chiapa deCorzo and quantitatively documents similar patterning of sparseEarly Formative occupation followed by population increase andmonumental construction after 1000 cal BC.

Changes at 1000 cal BC are also evident in the lowland Mayaarea. It is only after this date that ceramic-using villagers areclearly documented in Belize and the neighboring Petén region ofGuatemala (Lohse, 2010). Rather than expanding from lowlandzones of fertile fluvial and alluvial soils into adjacent upland envi-ronments (as with the Gulf Coast, Soconusco, Central Chiapas,Tlaxcalan and Oaxacan cases), 1000 cal BC was a time when largeswaths of the Maya lowlands were first inhabited byceramic-using villagers (Clark and Cheetham, 2002). The persis-tence of a non-ceramic using adaptation in Mesoamerica is bestdocumented in northern Belize where sedentary villagers wereabsent throughout the entire second millennium BC, even thoughmaize and a variety of other species, including manioc, were culti-vated by these mobile foragers (e.g., Pohl et al., 1996; Rosenswiget al., 2014). Recent work at Ceibal documents the firstceramic-using villagers in the southwestern edge of the Maya low-lands slightly earlier but nevertheless identifies 1000 cal BC as animportant turning point when the first 2-m-high platform wasbuilt (Inomata et al., 2013, 2015). At Cival, ceremonial architecturewas also first built at roughly the same time (Estrada-Belli, 2006:63; Estrada-Belli, 2011). Ceramic-using villagers are therefore firstdocumented in much of the Maya lowlands of Guatemala andBelize at approximately the same time as previously unoccupiedupland zones were settled in various parts of Mexico. Together,these settlement patterns reflect a pan-regional adaptive shiftand population expansion that occurred at the same time as maizeconsumption increased. It is improbable that this co-occurrencewas not causally linked.

6. Proximate and ultimate causation

Dietary, settlement and architectural changes occurredthroughout Mesoamerica after 1000 cal BC. Such contemporaneouschanges in widely dispersed locations and in different environ-ments mean that local conditions alone cannot fully explain thistransformation. One important factor in explaining the increasedcommitment to food production was that maize yields increasedat this time. Increased maize consumption could due to

morphological changes such as larger ear size as well as simplyplanting and harvesting more maize. This probable change inmaize productivity would have created a nutritional ‘‘push’’ as agreater proportion of nutritional requirements were provided bythis grain. Political motivation (e.g., high status feasting foods[Hayden, 1990, 2009]) provides an equally viable explanation forincreased consumption of maize at this time. Such a cultural inter-pretation for increased maize consumption would therefore notnecessarily have been a response to a change in maize physiology.Politically motivated changes could have resulted in a ‘‘pull’’toward increased maize consumption and provide a proximateexplanation. Kennett et al. (2006) have previously adopted the for-mer explanation and Rosenswig (2007, 2012a) the latter, but noneof us believe that the two perspectives are irreconcilable. Instead,mutually reinforcing changes in subsistence practices and sociopo-litical organization reached a critical threshold at 1000 cal BC thatpromoted greater dependence upon maize-focused foodproduction.

Favoring adaptive ‘‘push’’ or cultural ‘‘pull’’ explanations canresult from focusing on ultimate versus proximate causation.John Robb (2013) recently referred to this dichotomy astop-down versus bottom-up explanations and proposes that theserepresent explanations viewed at different temporal scales of anal-ysis. Ultimate adaptive causes operate at a longer time scalewhereas proximate causes operate at the ethnographic scale oflifetimes, years and moments at which individual experiences aredetectable (as Braudel (1958) long ago argued). Ultimate and prox-imate causes therefore both need to be considered to provide abelievable interpretation of the past.

The interplay of ultimate and proximate causation is best illus-trated with concrete examples from the recent past. Davis (2002)presents a detailed account of late 19th-century British colonialrule where El Niño events created drought conditions and led towidespread famine in India, China, and Brazil. The ultimate causeof these famines was decadal climatic cycling that periodicallyresulted in reduced agricultural productivity. That explanation,however, fails to explain what happened. In each case of19th-century famine described by Davis, intervention by Britishcolonial administrators undermined indigenous interregionalexchange networks so that food was not imported from neighbor-ing regions unaffected by crop failure. British colonial authoritiesactually exported grain from some of the same regions that wereexperiencing famine to be sold on the international grain market,so starvation in those areas was not caused simply by adrought-induced lack of food. In addition to economic motives,the same colonial officials also used food shortages to destabilizerebellious local rulers by intentionally depriving their followers


of food. Famine among rebellious indigenous groups facilitatedmilitary domination in newly conquered colonial territories andwas thus a weapon of British colonial subjugation. Withholdingof food as a military strategy also caused the Potato Famine to sub-jugate rebellious Irish territories (Coogan, 2012). The proximatecause of 19th-century famines in India and China, as well as inIreland, was British political and military strategy, motivated byeconomic gain. The ultimate cause (or subtle catalyst) was theperiodic El Niño climate fluctuations that resulted in drought andcrop failure. Ultimate and proximate explanations are thus each‘‘correct,’’ and both are equally incomplete.

Subsistence and settlement changes in Middle America duringthe first millennium BC are widely observed and require explana-tion. Whichever form of causation one is inclined to favor, some-thing significant happened across Middle America at (or justprior to) 1000 cal BC that led to greater maize production, settle-ment changes, larger populations, increased construction of monu-mental architecture and changing social organization. One benefitof intensified maize production for early food producers is the pos-sibility of maintaining a sedentary existence without dependenceon aquatic resources (Killion, 2013: 574). In the Soconusco andGulf Coast regions, maize can be multi-cropped to harvest twoand even three crops per year. Therefore, intensive use of estuarineresources (and possibly manioc) would have been sufficient in andaround San Lorenzo or on the coastal plain of the Soconusco butless feasible in upland areas or the landlocked expanses of theMaya lowlands. Expansion of environments in which sedentaryvillagers can be maintained could have been an adaptive ‘‘push’’to increase maize production in tropical forest environments withlow availability of carbohydrates. In this scenario, intensifiedmaize production can be seen as an adaptive potential waitingfor regionally specific proximate reasons to occur.

Pragmatic political ambitions and motivations of early elitescan provide sufficient proximate cause to explain immediate moti-vations for subsistence practices to change. The collapse of the SanLorenzo polity at �1000 cal BC might have been foreshadowed byan increase in the cost of the center’s elite staying in power due toincreased internal factionalism (Pool, 2007: 195). Clark and Pye(2000; Clark, 2007: 24) propose a decline in the regional promi-nence of San Lorenzo began at �1100 cal BC prior to the polityactually falling apart at the end of the Early Formative. They arguethat this decline ‘‘. . .created a local power vacuum for nearly a cen-tury. And this was a time of florescence in the highlands and alongthe Pacific coast’’ (Clark and Pye, 2000: 241). A centuries-longpolitical hiatus on the Gulf Coast after the collapse of SanLorenzo and prior to the rise of La Venta is favored by Rosenswig(2010: 286–289, 2012a: 38–40) and others (Cheetham, 2010;Inomata et al., 2013; Killion, 2013). Such a political hiatus on theGulf Coast has its strongest support when settlement data fromthe San Lorenzo area (Borstein, 2001; Symonds et al., 2002) arecompared to those from the La Venta region (Rust, 2008). This pro-posed hiatus on the Gulf Coast corresponds temporally to thechanges discussed in this paper that are evident in various regionsof Mesoamerica between 1000 and 800 cal BC.

To fully understand the transition that occurred at 1000 cal BC,long-term adaptive patterns need to be integrated with local his-torical developments. We propose that a new economic base wasbuilt with intensified maize-use as the ‘‘mortar’’ but that subsis-tence changes were manifested differently in different regions.Common to all regions was that after many millennia of smallincreases in maize productivity (as well as a possible environmen-tal shift to wetter and more stable environmental conditions [Neffet al., 2006]), sedentary populations across Mesoamerica capital-ized on maize varieties that yielded more calories per plant. The

proximate motivation for increased maize production was likelypolitical in areas of established population centers like theSoconusco and Gulf Coast regions. In regions with limited sourcesof carbohydrates, like the jungles of the Maya lowlands, maize useallowed population levels to increase and sedentary communitiesto emerge for the first time. The overall result was more people liv-ing in greater concentrations over wider ranges of environmentsacross Mesoamerica after 1000 cal BC than ever before.

7. Conclusion

The development of societies dependent on food productionmarks an important change in the relationship between humansand their environments. In this paper, we do not present a gener-alized model to explain the intensification of food production,decreased residential mobility or increased social stratification.Instead, we describe various historical changes in MiddleAmerica including the intensified use of maize around 1000 calBC. The millennium-long occupation of Cuauhtémoc makes the sitean insightful locale from which to observe broader social changesin the Soconusco region of southern Mexico. Maize was cultivatedand consumed at this village within a mixed foraging-farmingeconomy beginning with its founding at 1900 cal BC. Then, a fun-damental shift occurred after 1000 cal BC when maize became afocal crop. Cuauhtémoc maize remains provide evidence of higherproduction after this time, a pattern supported by parallel changesin tool use, faunal exploitation, and iconography at the site andacross the Soconusco (Table 5). These archaeological proxies sup-port the inference that the inhabitants of Cuauhtémoc intensifiedtheir reliance on maize production at, or just before, 1000 cal BC.

The Soconusco record reflects a larger pattern across MiddleAmerica when maize use increased and supplanted mixedforaging-farming economies. This increased reliance on maize isevident in both the Soconusco region and the Tehuacán Valley,an observation that highlights the environmental versatility of thisplant. Sedentary, ceramic-using villagers moved into unsettledlands for the first time at 1000 cal BC – including the upland envi-ronments surrounding the Gulf Coast and higher elevation zones inCentral Chiapas, Tlaxcala and Oaxaca. Sedentary, ceramic-using vil-lagers also first appeared in much of the Maya lowlands at thistime. Low-level food production is well documented in MiddleAmerica during most of the Holocene, but the increase in maizeuse after 1000 BC corresponds with dramatic societal changes thatMesoamerican archaeologists have long recognized through themacro-temporal separation of the Early and Middle Formativeperiods.

One can argue whether the food production practices prior to1000 cal BC should be referred to as agriculture. However, afterthis time, Mesoamerican peoples were clearly engaged in intensivecultivation of maize in a manner qualitatively similar to practicesreported by the Spanish in the 16th century. New levels of socialstratification, political hierarchy, the wide-spread construction ofmonumental architecture and ideology that featured maize allassume increased importance after 1000 cal BC. We observe that,after being domesticated in the seventh millennium BC, maizewas long consumed at low levels as part of a mixed andbroad-based subsistence economy. Then, food production patternschanged and maize was consumed more intensively at the begin-ning of the first millennium BC. The proximate causes of the1000 cal BC subsistence change were likely political and motivatedby short-term goals of local elites to maintain and consolidatepower. Earlier flirtations with political hierarchy in theSoconusco had each lasted a century or two at the centers of


Paso de la Amada, Cantón Corralito and Ojo de Agua. However, thewill of rulers alone is impotent without an economic foundationupon which to build a political edifice. The La Blanca polity wasqualitatively more complex than anything the Soconusco had pre-viously seen, and maize was the base of the new political economy.Changes in subsistence practices provide only a vague understand-ing of the ultimate causes of cultural change (in a manner similarto other ultimate causes like climate change or optimized adapta-tion). A complete reconstruction of intensive maize production inMesoamerica is more fully explained by accounting for both ulti-mate and proximate causes so that human action and innovationis understood within environmental and adaptive parameters.The changes that occurred after 1000 cal BC were a long time com-ing but the intensification of maize production appears to havebeen the result of social complexity rather than its cause.

Acknowledgments

The excavations at Cuauhtémoc were undertaken with permitsfrom Mexico’s Consejo de Arqueología, INAH. Excavations andanalyses were funded by the Albers Fund, Department ofAnthropology, Yale University, the Yale Council of Internationaland Area Studies, the New World Archaeological Foundation, theFoundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc.as well as by a Social Science and Humanities Council of Canadadoctoral fellowship and a Fulbright-Hays Research fellowship.Comments on earlier versions of this paper by John Clark,Takeshi Inomata, Michael Love and a number of anonymousreviewers are all greatly appreciated.

Appendix A


Appendix B. Supplementary material

Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, inthe online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2015.06.002.These data include Google maps of the most important areasdescribed in this article.

References

Alcorn, Janis B., 1984. Huastec Maya Ethnobotany. University of Texas Press, Austin.Ambrose, S.H., Norr, L., 1992. On stable isotopic data and prehistoric subsistence in

the Soconusco region. Curr. Anthropol. 33, 401–404.Arnold III, Philip J., 2000. Sociopolitical complexity and the Gulf Coast Olmecs: a

view from the Tuxtla Mountains, Veracruz, Mexico. In: Clark, J.E., Pye, M.E.(Eds.), Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica. National Gallery of Art,Washington, DC, pp. 117–136.

Arnold III, Philip J., 2009. Settlement and subsistence among the early formativeGulf Olmec. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 28, 397–411.

Bellwood, Peter., 2005. First Farmers: The Origins of Agricultural Societies.Blackwood, Oxford.

Benson, Elizabeth P., de la Fuente, Beatriz, 1996. Olmec Art of Ancient Mexico.National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC.

Bentley, Jeffrey, 1990. Wouldn’t You Like to Have All of Your Land in One Place?Land Fragmentation in Northwest Portugal. Hum. Ecol. 18 (1), 51–79.

Blake, Michael, 2006. Dating the initial spread of Zea maize. In: Staller, J.E., Tykot,R.H., Benz, B.F. (Eds.), Histories of Maize: Multidisciplinary Approaches to thePrehistory, Linguistics, Biogeography, Domestication and Evolution of Maize.Elsevier, Amsterdam/Boston, pp. 55–72.

Blake, Michael, 2011. Building history in domestic and public space at Paso de laAmada: an examination of mounds 6 and 7. In: Lesure, R.G. (Ed.), SociopoliticalTransformation in Early Mesoamerica: Archaic to Formative in the SoconuscoRegion. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp. 97–118.

Blake, Michael, Clark, John E., 1999. The emergence of hereditary inequality: thecase of Pacific Coastal Chiapas. In: Blake, M. (Ed.), Pacific Latin America inPrehistory. Washington State University Press, Seattle, pp. 55–73.

Blake, Michael, Neff, Hector, 2011. Evidence for the diversity of Late Archaic andEarly Formative plant use in the Soconusco region of Mexico and Guatemala. In:Lesure, R.G. (Ed.), Sociopolitical Transformation in Early Mesoamerica: Archaicto Formative in the Soconusco Region. University of California Press, Berkeley,pp. 7–66.

Blake, Michael, Chisholm, Brian, Clark, John E., Mudar, Karen, 1992a. Non-agricultural staples and agricultural supplements: early formative subsistencein the Soconusco region, Mexico. In: Transitions to Agriculture. Prehistory Press,Madison, WI, pp. 133–151.

Blake, Michael, Chisholm, B.S., Clark, John E., Voorhies, Barbara, Love, Michael W.,1992b. Prehistoric subsistence in the Soconusco region. Curr. Anthropol. 33, 83–94.

Blake, Michael, Clark, John E., Voorhies, Barbara, Michaels, George, Love, Michael W.,Pye, Mary E., Demarest, Arthur A., Arroyo, Barbara, 1995. Radiocarbonchronology for the Late Archaic and formative periods on the Pacific Coast ofSoutheastern Mesoamerica. Ancient Mesoamerica 6, 161–183.

Borstein, Joshua A., 2001. Tripping Over Colossal Heads: Settlement Patterns andPopulation Development in the Upland Olmec Heartland. Unpublished Ph.D.Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, StateCollege, Pennsylvania.

Boserup, Ester., 1965. The Conditions of Agricultural Growth: The Economics ofAgrarian Change under Population Pressure. Aldine, Chicago.

Braudel, Fernand, 1958. Histoire et sciences sociales: La longue durée. Annales 13,725–753.

Bronson, Bennet, 1966. Roots and the subsistence of Ancient Maya. Southwest. J.Anthropol. 22, 607–615.

Browman, David L., 1987. Agro-Pastoral risk management in the Central Andes. Res.Econ. Anthropol. 8, 171–200.

Cheetham, David, 2010. America’s First Colony: Olmec Materiality and Ethnicity atCanton Corralito, Chiapas, Mexico. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, ArizonaState University, Tempe.

Chisholm, Brian, Blake, Michael, 2006. Diet in prehistoric Soconusco. In: Staller, J.,Tykot, R., Benz, B. (Eds.), Histories of Maize: Multidisciplinary Approaches to thePrehistory, Linguistics, Biogeography, Domestication, and Evolution of Maize.Academic Press, New York, pp. 55–68.

Clark, John E., 1994. The Development of Early Formative Rank Societies in theSoconusco, Chiapas, Mexico. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department ofAnthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Clark, John E., 2004. Mesoamerica goes public: early ceremonial centers, leaders andcommunities. In: Hendon, J.A., Joyce, R.A. (Eds.), Mesoamerican Archaeology:Theory and Practice. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 43–72.

Clark, John E., 2007. Mesoamerica’s first state. In: Scarborough, V.L., Clark, J.E. (Eds.),The Political Economy of Ancient Mesoamerica: Transformations during theFormative and Classic Periods. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque,pp. 11–46.

Clark, John E., Blake, Michael, 1994. The power of prestige: competitive generosityand the emergence of rank societies in Lowland Mesoamerica. In: Brumfiel,E.M., Fox, J.W. (Eds.), Factional Competition and Political Development in theNew World. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 17–30.

Clark, John E., Cheetham, David, 2002. Mesoamerica’s tribal foundations. In:Parkinson, W. (Ed.), The Archaeology of Tribal Societies. InternationalMonographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor, pp. 278–339.

Clark, John E., Cheetham, David, 2005. Cerámica del Formativo de Chiapas. In:Merino Carrión, B.L., Garcia Cook, A. (Eds.), La Producción Alfarera en el MéxicoAntiguo I. INAH, Mexico City, pp. 285–431.

Clark, John E., Gosser, Dennis, 1995. Reinventing Mesoamerica’s first pottery. In:Barnett, W.K., Hoopes, J.W. (Eds.), The Emergence of Pottery: Technology andInnovation in Ancient Societies. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington andLondon, pp. 209–221.

Clark, John E., Hodgson, John G., 2007/2008. Olmec Sculpture from Coastal Chiapas,Mexico. THULE 22/23–24/25, pp. 41–99.

Clark, John E., Hodgson, John G., n.d. Settling down in Middle America. In:Sedentism-Worldwide Research Perspectives for the Shift of Human Societiesfrom Mobile to Settled Ways of Life. Commission for the Archaeology of Non-European Cultures, German Institute of Archaeology, Berlin.

Clark, John E., Knoll, Michelle, 2005. The American formative revisited. In: White,N.M. (Ed.), Gulf Coast Archaeology: The Southeastern United States and Mexico.University Press of Florida, Gainesville, pp. 281–303.

Clark, John E., Pye, Mary E., 2000. The Pacific Coast and the Olmec question. In:Clark, J.E., Pye, M.E. (Eds.), Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica. NationalGallery of Art, Washington, DC, pp. 217–251.

Clark, John E., Pye, Mary E., Gosser Dennis, C., 2007. Thermolithics and corndependency in Mesoamerica. In: Lowe, L.S., Pye, M.E. (Eds.), Archaeology, Art,and Ethnogenesis in Mesoamerican Prehistory: Papers in Honor of Gareth W.Lowe, Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation, 68. Brigham YoungUniversity, Provo, pp. 23–42.

Clark, John E., Gibson, Jon L., Zeidler, James, 2010. First towns in the Americas:searching for agriculture, population growth and other enabling conditions. In:Bandy, M.S., Fox, J.R. (Eds.), Becoming Villagers: Comparing Early VillageSocieties. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 205–245.

Coe, Michael D., 1961. La Victoria: an early site on the Pacific Coast of Guatemala.Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 53, PeabodyMuseum, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Coe, Michael D., 1962. An Olmec design on an Early Peruvian vessel. Am. Antiq. 27,579–580.

Coe, Michael D., Diehl, Richard A., 1980. In The Land of the Olmec: The Archaeologyof San Lorenzo Tenochtitlán, vol. 1. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Coe, Michael D., Flannery, Kent V., 1967. Early cultures and human ecology in SouthCoastal Guatemala. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology, vol. 3.Smithsonian Institute, Washington, DC.

Coogan, T.P., 2012. The Famine Plot: England’s Role in Ireland’s Greatest Tragedy.Palgrave Macmillian, New York.

Cyphers, Ann, 2004. Escultura Olmeca de San Lorenzo Tenochtitlán. UNAM, MexicoCity.

Cyphers, Ann, Zurita-Noguera, Judith, 2012. Early Olmec wetland mounds:investing energy to produce energy. In: Burger, R.L., Rosenswig, R.M. (Eds.),Early New World Monumentality. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, pp.138–173.

Cyphers, Ann, Zurita, Judith, Rodriguez, Marcianna Lane, 2013. Comment onKillion’s Nonagricultural Cultivation and Social Complexity. Curr. Anthropol.54, 594–595.

Davis, Mike, 2002. Late Victorian Holocaust: El Niño Famines and the Making of theThird World. Verso, New York.

Deal, Michael, 1983. Pottery Ethnoarchaeology among the Tzeltal Maya.Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Archaeology, Simon FrazerUniversity, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada.

Deal, Michael, 1985. Household pottery disposal in the Maya Highlands: anethnoarchaeological interpretation. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 4, 243–291.

Diehl, Richard A., 1981. Olmec architecture: a comparison of San Lorenzo and LaVenta. In: Benson, E.P. (Ed.), The Olmec and their Neighbors: Essays in Memoryof Mathew W. Sterling. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC, pp. 69–82.

Erickson, David L., Smith, Bruce D., Clarke, Andrew C., Sandweiss, Daniel H., Tuross,Noreen, 2005. An Asian origin for a 10,000-year-old domesticated plant in theAmericas. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102, 18315–18320.

Estrada-Belli, Francisco, 2006. Lightning sky, rain, and the maize god. AncientMesoamerica 17, 57–78.

Estrada-Belli, Francisco, 2011. The First Maya Civilization: Ritual and Power beforethe Classic Period. Routledge, New York.

Evans, Susan T., 2013. Ancient Mexico and Central America: Archaeology andCulture History, third ed. Thames and Hudson, London.

Feddema, Vicki L., 1993. Early Formative subsistence and agriculture inSoutheastern Mesoamerica. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Department ofAnthropology and Sociology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

Flannery, Kent V., 1969. Origins and ecological effects of early domestication in Iranand the Near East. In: Ucko, P.J., Dimbley, G.W. (Eds.), The Domestication andExploitation of Plants and Animals. Duckworth, London, pp. 73–100.

Flannery, Kent V., 1986. Guila Naquitz: Archaic Foraging and Early Agriculture inOaxaca, Mexico. Academic Press, Orlando.

Flannery, Kent V., Marcus, Joyce, 1994. Early formative pottery of the valley ofOaxaca, Mexico. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology, vol. 27. University ofMichigan, Ann Arbor.

Folan, William J., Kintz, Ellen R., Fletcher, Laraine A., 1983. Coba: A Classic MayaMetropolis. Academic Press, New York.

Goland, Carol, 1993. Field scattering as agricultural risk management: a case studyfrom Cuyo Cuyo, Department of Puno, Peru. Mt. Res. Dev. 13, 317–338.


http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4165(15)00043-4/h0005








































































































































Gomez, Josue, Kennett, Douglas J., Neff, Hector, Glascock, Michael D., Voorhies,Barbara, 2011. Early formative pottery production, mobility, and exchange onthe Pacific Coast of Southern Mexico. J. Island Coast. Archaeol. 6, 333–350.

Guernsey, Julia, 2010. A consideration of the Quatrefoil Motif in PreclassicMesoamerica. RES 57/58, 75–96.

Hather, Jon, Hammond, Norman, 1994. Ancient maya subsistence diversity: Roo andTuber remains from Cuello. Antiquity 68, 330–335.

Hayden, Brian, 1990. Nimrods, piscators, pluckers, and planters: the emergence offood production. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 9, 31–69.

Hayden, Brian, 2009. The proof is in the pudding: feasting and the origins ofdomestication. Curr. Anthropol. 50, 597–601.

Henderson, John S., 1979. Atopula. Guerro and the Olmec Horizon in Mesoamerica,vol. 77. Yale University Publications in Anthropology, New Haven.

Hodgson, John G., Clark, John E., 2012. Bajo el Sol de Teodomiro: Cincuenta Años deReconocimientos de Superficie Impulsados por La Fundacion Arquelogica NeuvoMundo en el Soconusco Chiapaneco (1961–2011). In: Lowe, L.S., Pye, M.E. (Eds.),Arqueología Reciente de Chiapas: Contribuciones del Encentro Celebrado en el60 Aniversario de la Fundación Arqueológica Nuevo Mundo, Papers of the NewWorld Archaeological Foundation, 72. Brigham Young University, Provo, pp.183–194.

Hodgson, John G., Clark, John E., Murrieta, Emiliano Gallaga, 2010. Ojo de AguaMonument 3: a new Olmec-style sculpture from Ojo de Agua, Chiapas, Mexico.Mexicon 32, 139–144.

Hubbard, R.N.L.B., 1976. On the strength of evidence for prehistoric crop processingactivities. J. Archaeol. Sci. 3, 257–265.

Inomata, Takeshi, Triadan, Daniela, Aoyama, Kazuo, Castillo, Victor, Yonenobu,Hitoshi, 2013. Early ceremonial constructions at Ceibal, Guatemala, and theorigins of lowland Maya civilization. Science 340, 467–471.

Inomata, Takeshi, MacLellan, Jessica, Triadan, Daniela, Munson, Jessica, Burham,Melissa, Aoyama, Kazuo, Nasu, Hiroo, Pinzón, Flory, Yonenobu, Hitoshi, 2015.Development of sedentary communities in the Maya lowlands: coexistingmobile groups and public ceremonies at Ceibal, Guatemala. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.USA 112, 4268–4273.

Joraleman, Peter D., 1971. A study of Olmec iconography. Studies in PrecolumbianArt and Archaeology. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC.

Joyce, Arthur A., Goman, Michelle, 2012. Bridging the theoretical divide in Holocenelandscape studies: social and ecological approaches to ancient Oaxacanlandscapes. Quatern. Sci. Rev. 55, 1–22.

Kennett, Douglas J., 2012. Archaic-period foragers and farmers in Mesoamerica. In:Nichols, D.L., Pool, C.A. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of MesoamericanArchaeology. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 141–150.

Kennett, Douglas J., Lynn Ingram, B., Southon, John R., Wise, Karen, 2002.Differences in 14C age between stratigraphically associated charcoal andmarine shell from the archaic period site of kilometer 4, southern Peru: oldwood or old water? Radiocarbon 44, 53–58.

Kennett, Douglas J., Voorhies, Barbara, Martorana, Dean, 2006. An evolutionarymodel for the origins of agriculture on the Pacific Coast of Southern Mexico. In:Kennett, D.J., Winterhalder, B. (Eds.), Behavioral Ecology and the Transition toAgriculture. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Kennett, Douglas J., Stafford, Tom, Southon, John, 2008. Standards of evidence andPaleoindian demography. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105, E107.

Kennett, Douglas J., Piperno, Dolores R., Jones, John G., Neff, Hector, Voorhies,Barbara, Walsh, Megan K., Culleton, Brendan J., 2010. Pre-pottery farmers on thePacific coast of southern Mexico. J. Archaeol. Sci. 37, 3401–3411.

Killion, Thomas W., 1990. Cultivation intensity and residential structure: anethnoarchaeological examination of peasant agriculture in the Sierra de losTuxtlas, Veracruz, Mexico. Lat. Am. Antiq. 1, 191–215.

Killion, Thomas W., 1992. Residential ethnoarchaeology and ancient site structure:contemporary farming and prehistoric settlement agriculture at Matacapan,Veracruz, Mexico. In: Killion, T.W. (Ed.), Gardens of Prehistory: The Archaeologyof Settlement Agriculture in Greater Mesoamerica. University of Alabama Press,Tuscaloosa, pp. 119–149.

Killion, Thomas W., 2008. Cultivating, farming, and food containers: reflections onformative subsistence and intensification in the Southern Gulf Coast lowlands. J.Anthropol. Res. 64, 367–381.

Killion, Thomas W., 2013. Nonagricultural cultivation and social complexity. Curr.Anthropol. 54, 569–606.

Killion, Thomas W., Urcid, Javier, 2001. The Olmec legacy: cultural continuity andchange in Mexico’s southern gulf coast lowlands. J. Field Archaeol. 28, 3–25.

Kruger, Robert P., 1996. An Archaeological Survey in the Region of the Olmec:Veracruz, Mexico. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department ofAnthropology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.

Lentz, David L., Dickau, Ruth, 2005. Seeds of Central America and Southern Mexico:The Economic Species. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, New York.

Leonard, J.A., Wayne, R.K., Wheeler, J., Valadez, R., Guillen, S., Vila, C., 2002. AncientDNA evidence for Old World origin of New World dogs. Science 298, 1613–1616.

Lesure, Richard G. (Ed.), 2009. Settlement and Subsistence in Early FormativeSoconusco: El Varal and the Problem of Inter-Site Assemblage Variation. CotsenInstitute of Archaeology Press, University of California, Los Angeles.

Lesure, Richard G. (Ed.), 2011. Early Mesoamerican Social Transformations: Archaicand Formative Lifeways in the Soconusco Region. University of California Press,Berkeley.

Lesure, Richard G., Blake, Michael, 2002. Interpretive challenges in the study of earlycomplexity: economy, ritual and architecture at Paso de la Amada, Mexico. J.Anthropol. Archaeol. 21, 1–24.

Lesure, Richard G., Wake, Thomas A., 2011. Archaic to formative in the Soconusco:the adaptive and organizational transformation. In: Lesure, R.L. (Ed.),Settlement and Subsistence in Early Formative Soconusco: El Varal and theProblem of Inter-Site Assemblage Variation. University of California Press,Berkeley, pp. 67–97.

Lesure, Richard G., Borejsza, Aleksander, Carballo, Jennifer, Frederick, Charles,Popper, Virginia, Wake, Thomas A., 2006. Chronology, subsistence, and theearliest formative of central Tlaxcala, Mexico. Lat. Am. Antiq. 17, 474–492.

Lohse, Jon C., 2010. Archaic origins of the lowland Maya. Lat. Am. Antiq. 21, 312–352.Love, Michael W., 1991. Style and social complexity in formative Mesoamerica. In:

Fowler, W.R., Jr. (Ed.), The Formation of Complex Society in SoutheasternMesoamerica. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp. 47–76.

Love, Michael W., 1999a. Ideology, material culture and daily practice in pre-classicMesoamerica: a Pacific Coast perspective. In: Grove, D.G., Joyce, R.A. (Eds.),Social Patterns in Pre-Classic Mesoamerica. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC,pp. 127–154.

Love, Michael W., 1999b. Economic patterns in the development of complex societyin Pacific Guatemala. In: Blake, M. (Ed.), Pacific Latin America in Prehistory: TheEvolution of Archaic and Formative Cultures. Washington State UniversityPress, Pullman, pp. 89–100.

Love, Michael W., 2002. Early complex society in Pacific Guatemala: settlementsand chronology of the Rio Naranjo, Guatemala. Papers of the New WorldArchaeological Foundation, 66. Brigham Young University, Provo.

Love, Michael W., 2007. Recent research in the southern Highlands and Pacific Coastof Mesoamerica. J. Archaeol. Res. 15, 275–328.

Love, Michael W., 2011. Critical issues in the Late Preclassic Southern Maya region.In: Love, Michael, Kaplan, Jonathan (Eds.), The Southern Maya in the LatePreclassic: The Rise and Fall of an Early Mesoamerican Civilization. ColoradoUniversity Press, Boulder, pp. 3–23.

Love, Michael W., 2012. Early social complexity in the highlands and Pacific Coast.In: Deborah, Pool, Christopher (Eds.), Oxford Encyclopedia of MesoamericanPrehistory. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 200–214.

Love, Michael W., 2013. Domestication and the formative period in Mesoamerica.In: Renfrew, Colin, Bahn, Paul (Eds.), The Cambridge Encyclopedia of WorldPrehistory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Love, Michael, Guernsey, Julia, 2007. Monument 3 from La Blanca, Guatemala: amiddle preclassic earthen sculpture and its ritual associations. Antiquity 81,920–932.

Love, Michael, Guernsey, Julia, 2011. La Blanca and the Soconusco Middle formativeperiod, 900–600 BC. In: Lesure, R.L. (Ed.), Sociopolitical Transformation in EarlyMesoamerica: Archaic to Formative in the Soconusco Region. University ofCalifornia Press, Berkeley, pp. 207–223.

Lowe, Gareth W., 1967. Discussion. In: Green, D.F., Lowe, G.W. (Eds.), Altamira andPadre Piedra, Early Preclassic Sites in Chiapas, Mexico. Papers of the New WorldArchaeological Foundation, 20. Provo, Utah, pp. 53–79.

Lowe, Gareth W., 1975. Early Preclassic Barra Phase of Altamira, Chiapas. Papers ofthe New World Archaeological Foundation, 38. Provo, Utah.

Lowe, Gareth W., 1989. The Heartland Olmec: evolution of material culture. In:Sharer, R.J., Grove, D.C. (Eds.), Regional Perspectives on the Olmec. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, pp. 33–67.

Lowe, Gareth W., 1998. Los olmecas de San Isidro en Malpaso, Chiapas. ColecciónCientífica, vol. 371. UNAM, San Cristóbal de las Casa.

Lowe, Gareth W., 2007a. Early formative Chiapas: the beginnings of civilization inthe central depression of Chiapas. In: Lowe, L.S., Pye, M.E. (Eds.), Archaeology,Art, and Ethnogenesis in Mesoamerican Prehistory: Papers in Honor of GarethW. Lowe, Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation, 68. BrighamYoung University, Provo, pp. 63–108.

Lowe, Gareth W., 2007b. Contemplating the dawn of the Middle Formative Periodalong the Grijalva River and its environs. In: Lowe, L.S., Pye, M.E. (Eds.),Archaeology, Art, and Ethnogenesis in Mesoamerican Prehistory: Papers inHonor of Gareth W. Lowe, Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation,68. Brigham Young University, Provo, pp. 357–362.

Lowe, Gareth W., Lee Jr., Thomas A., Espinoza, E.M., 1982. Izapa: An Introduction tothe Ruins and Monuments. Papers of the New World ArchaeologicalFoundation, 31. Provo, Utah.

Lowe, Gareth W., Ekholm, Susanna M., Clark, John E., 2013. Middle and LatePreclassic Izapa: Ceramic Complexes and History. Papers of the New WorldArchaeological Foundation, 73. Provo, Utah.

MacNeish, Richard S., 1954. An early archaeological site near Panuco, Vera Cruz.Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, vol. 44, part 5. AmericanPhilosophical Society, Philadelphia, pp. 539–641.

MacNeish, Richard S., 1967. A summary of subsistence. In: Byers, D.S. (Ed.), ThePrehistory of the Tehuacán Valley: Environment and Subsistence, vol. I.University of Texas Press, Austin, pp. 290–309.

MacNeish, Richard S., 2001. Tehuacán region. In: Evans, S.T., Webster, D.L. (Eds.),Archaeology of Ancient Mexico and Central America: An Encyclopedia. GarlandPublishing, New York, pp. 705–710.

Milbrath, Susan, 1979. A study of Olmec sculptural chronology. Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC.

Navarrete, Carlos, 1978. The Prehispanic system of communication betweenChiapas and Tabasco. In: Lee Jr., T.A., Navarrete, C. (Eds.), MesoamericanCommunication Routes and Cultural Contacts. Papers of the New WorldArchaeological Foundation, 40, Provo, Utah, pp. 75–106.

Neff, H., Pearsall, D.M., Jones, J.G., Arroyo, B., Collins, S.K., Freidel, D.E., 2006. EarlyMaya adaptive patterns: mid-late Holocene Paleoenvironmental evidence fromPacific Guatemala. Lat. Am. Antiq. 17, 287–315.



























































































































































Paillés, Maricruz H., 1980. Pampa El Pajón, An Early Estuarine Site, Chiapas, Mexico.Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation, No. 44 Brigham YoungUniversity, Provo.

Peres, Tanya M., VanDerwarker, Amber M., Pool, Christopher A., 2013. Thezooarchaeology of Olmec and epi-Olmec foodways along Mexico’s Gulf Coast.In: Emery, Kitty, Goetz, Christopher (Eds.), The Archaeology of MesoamericanAnimals. David Brown Book Company (in press).

Piperno, Dolores R., Flannery, Kent V., 2001. The earliest archaeological maize (Zeamays L.) from highland Mexico: new accelerator mass spectrometry dates andtheir implications. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98, 2101–2103.

Piperno, Dolores R., Pearsall, Deborah M., 1998. The Origins of Agriculture in theLowland Neotropics. Academic Press, San Diego.

Piperno, Dolores R., Smith, Bruce D., 2012. The origins of food production inMesoamerica. In: Nichols, D.L., Pool, C.A. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook ofMesoamerican Archaeology. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 151–164.

Piperno, Dolores R., Ranere, Anthony J., Holst, Irene, Iriarte, Jose, Dickauc, Ruth,2009. Starch grain and phytolith evidence for early ninth millennium B.P. maizefrom the Central Balsas River Valley, Mexico. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106,5019–5024.

Pohl, Mary D., Pope, Kevin O., Jones, John G., Jacob, John S., Piperno, D.R., deFrance,S.D., Lentz, David L., Gifford, J.A., Danforth, Mary E., Josserand, J.K., 1996. Earlyagriculture in the Maya Lowlands. Lat. Am. Antiq. 7, 355–372.

Pohl, Mary E.D., Piperno, Dolores R., Pope, Kevin O., Jones, John G., 2007. Microfossilevidence for pre-Columbian maize dispersals in the neotropics from SanAndres, Tabasco, Mexico. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104, 6870–6875.

Pool, Christopher A., 2007. Olmec Archaeology and Early Mesoamerica. CambridgeUniversity Press, New York.

Pope, Kevin O., Pohl, Mary E.D., Jones, John G., Lentz, David L., von Nagy,Christopher, Vega, F.J., Quitmyer, I.R., 2001. Origins and environmental settingof ancient agriculture in the lowlands of Mesoamerica. Science 292, 1370–1373.

Pye, Mary E., 1995. Settlement, Specialization, and Adaptation in the Rio JesusDrainage, Retalhuleu, Guatemala. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Departmentof Anthropology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville.

Pye, Mary E., Demarest, Arthur A., 1991. The evolution of complex societies insoutheastern Mesoamerica: new evidence from El Mesak, Guatemala. In:Fowler, William R., Jr. (Ed.), The Formation of Complex Societies in SoutheasternMesoamerica. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp. 77–100.

Pye, Mary E., Demarest, Arthur A., Arroyo, Barbara, 1999. Early formative societies inGuatemala and El Salvador. In: Blake, Michael (Ed.), Pacific Latin America inPrehistory. Washington State University Press, Seattle, pp. 75–88.

Pye, Mary E., Hodgson, John, Clark, John E., 2011. Jocotal settlement patterns, saltproduction and Pacific Coast interaction. In: Lesure, R.G. (Ed.), SociopoliticalTransformation in Early Mesoamerica: Archaic to Formative in the SoconuscoRegion. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Ranere, Anthony J., Piperno, Dolores R., Holst, Irene, Dickau, Ruth, Iriarte, Jose, 2009.The cultural and chronological context of early Holocene maize and squashdomestication in the Central Balsas River Valley, Mexico. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.USA 106, 5014–5018.

Robb, John., 2013. Material culture, landscapes of action, and emergent causation: anew model for the origins of the European Neolithic. Curr. Anthropol. 54, 657–683.

Rosenswig, Robert M., 2006a. Sedentism and food production in early complexsocieties of the Soconusco, Mexico. World Archaeol. 38, 329–354.

Rosenswig, Robert M., 2006b. Northern Belize and the Soconusco: a comparison ofthe Late Archaic to formative transition. Res. Rep. Belizean Archaeol. 3, 59–71.

Rosenswig, Robert M., 2007. Beyond identifying elites: feasting as a means tounderstand early middle formative society on the Pacific Coast of Mexico. J.Anthropol. Archaeol. 26, 1–27.

Rosenswig, Robert M., 2008. Prehispanic settlement in the Cuauhtémoc region ofthe Soconusco, Chiapas, Mexico. J. Field Archaeol. 33, 389–411.

Rosenswig, Robert M., 2009. Early Mesoamerican garbage: ceramic and daubdiscard patterns from Cuauhtémoc, Soconusco, Mexico. J. Archaeol. MethodTheory 16, 1–32.

Rosenswig, Robert M., 2010. The Beginnings of Mesoamerican Civilization: Inter-Regional Interaction and the Olmec. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Rosenswig, Robert M., 2011. An Early Mesoamerican archipelago of complexity. In:Lesure, R.G. (Ed.), Sociopolitical Transformation in Early Mesoamerica: Archaicto Formative in the Soconusco Region. University of California Press, Berkeley,pp. 242–271.

Rosenswig, Robert M., 2012a. Materialism, Mode of production and a millennium ofchange in southern Mexico. J. Archaeol. Method Theory 19, 1–48.

Rosenswig, Robert M., 2012b. Agriculture and Monumentality in the SoconuscoRegion of Chiapas, Mexico. In: Burger, R.L., Rosenswig, R.M. (Eds.), Early NewWorld Monumentality. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, pp. 111–137.

Rosenswig, Robert M., 2012c. The first 1000 years of ceramic use in the Soconusco:evidence from the Cuauhtémoc Site. In: Lowe, L., Pye, M. (Eds.), ArqueologíaReciente de Chiapas. Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation, No.72. Provo, Utah, pp. 223–235.

Rosenswig, Robert M., 2015. A mosaic of adaptation: the archaeological record forMesoamerica’s archaic period. J. Archaeol. Res. 23 (2), 115–162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10814-014-9080-x.

Rosenswig, Robert M., 2015b. Olmec Globalization: a Mesoamerican archipelago ofcomplexity during the second millennium BCE. In: Hodos, T. (Ed.), Handbook ofGlobalization and Archaeology. Routledge, London (in press).

Rosenswig, Robert M., López-Torrijos, Ricardo, Antonelli, Caroline E., Mendelsohn,Rebecca R., 2013. Lidar mapping and surface survey of the Izapa state on thetropical Piedmont of Chiapas, Mexico. J. Archaeol. Sci. 40, 1493–1507.

Rosenswig, Robert M., Pearsall, Deborah M., Masson, Marilyn A., Culleton, BrendonJ., Kennett, Douglas J., 2014. Archaic period settlement and subsistence in theMaya Lowlands. J. Archaeol. Sci. 41, 308–321.

Rosenswig, Robert M., López-Torrijos, Ricardo, Antonelli, Caroline E., 2015. Lidardata and the Izapa polity: new results and methodological issues from tropicalMesoamerica. Anthropol. Archaeol. Sci. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12520-014-0210-7 (in press).

Rust, W.F., 2008. A Settlement Survey of La Venta, Tabasco, Mexico, UnpublishedPh.D. Dissertation. Department of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University,College Station, PA.

Schiffer, Michael B., 1986. Radiocarbon dating and the ‘‘Old Wood’’ problem: thecase of the Hohokam chronology. J. Archaeol. Sci. 13, 13–30.

Sheets, Payson, Dixon, Christine, Guerra, Mónica, Blanford, Adam, 2011. Manioccultivation at Ceren, El Salvador: occasional kitchen garden plant or staplecrop? Ancient Mesoamerica 22, 1–11.

Sheets, Payson, Lentz, David, Piperno, Dolores, Jones, John, Dixon, Christine, Maloof,George, Hood, Angela, 2012. Ancient manioc agriculture south of the Cerenvillage, El Salvador. Lat. Am. Antiq. 23, 259–281.

Smalley, John, Blake, Michael, 2003. Sweet beginnings: stalk sugar and thedomestication of maize. Curr. Anthropol. 44, 675–703.

Smith, Bruce D., 1997. The initial domestication of Cucurbita pepo in the Americas10,000 years ago. Science 276, 932–934.

Smith, Bruce D., 2001. Low-level food production. J. Archaeol. Res. 9, 1–43.Smith, Bruce D., 2005. Reassessing Coxcatlan Cave and the early history of

domesticated plants in Mesoamerica. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 102, 9438–9445.Smith, Bruce D., 2011. General patterns of niche construction and the management

of ‘wild’ plant and animal resources by small-scale pre-industrial societies.Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. 366, 836–848.

Soustelle, Jacques, 1985. The Olmecs: The Oldest Civilization in Mexico. Translatedby Helen R. Lane. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Speller, Camilla F., Kemp, Brian M., Wyatt, Scott D., Monroe, Cara, Lipe, William D.,Arndt, Ursula M., Yang, Dongya Y., 2010. Ancient mitochondrial DNA analysisreveals complexity of indigenous North American turkey domestication. Proc.Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107, 2807–2812.

Sullivan, Timothy D., 2009. The Social and Political Evolution of Chiapa de Corzo,Chiapas, Mexico: An Analysis of Changing Strategies of Rulership in a MiddleFormative through Early Classic Mesoamerican Political Center. UnpublishedPh.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh,Pittsburgh.

Symonds, Stacey C., Cyphers, Ann, Lunagomez, Roberto, 2002. AsentamientoPrehispánico en San Lorenzo Tenochtitlán. Universidad Nacional Autónoma deMéxico, México, DF.

Taube, Karl, 1996. The Olmec Maize God: The faces of corn in formativeMesoamerica. RES: Anthropol. Aesthet. No. 29/30, 39–81.

Taube, Karl, 2000. Lighting celts and corn fetishes: the Formative Olmec and thedevelopment of maize symbolism in Mesoamerica and the AmericanSouthwest. In: Clark, J.E., Pye, M.E. (Eds.), Olmec Art and Archaeology inMesoamerica. National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, pp. 297–337.

Taube, Karl, 2004. Olmec Art at Dumbarton Oaks. Dumbarton Oaks,Washington, DC.

Tolstoy, Paul, Fish, Suzanne K., Boksenbaum, Martin W., Vaugh, Kathryn Blair, EarleSmith Jr., C., 1977. Early sedentary communities of the Basin of Mexico: asummary of recent investigations. J. Field Archaeol. 4, 92–106.

VanDerwarker, Amber M., 2006. Farming, Hunting and Fishing in the Olmec World.University of Texas Press, Austin.

VanDerwarker, Amber M., Kruger, Robert P., 2012. Regional Variation in theImportance and Uses of Maize in the Early and Middle Formative OlmecHeartland: New Archaeological Data from the San Carlos Homestead, SouthernVeracruz. Lat. Am. Antiq. 23, 509–532.

Vogt, Evon Z., 1969. Zinacantan. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Voorhies, Barbara, 2004. Coastal Collectors in the Holocene: The Chantuto People of

Southwest Mexico. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.Voorhies, Barbara, Kennett, Douglas J., 1995. Buried sites on the Soconusco coastal

plain. J. Field Archaeol. 22, 65–79.Voorhies, Barbara, Kennett, Douglas J., Jones, John G., Wake, Thomas A., 2002. A

Middle Archaic archaeological site on the west coast of Mexico. Lat. Am. Antiq.13, 179–200.

Wake, Thomas A., Harrington, Lady R., 2002. Appendix II: vertebrate faunal remainsfrom La Blanca, Guatemala. In: Love, Michael W. (Ed.), Early Complex Society inPacific Guatemala: Settlements and Chronology of the Rio Naranjo, Guatemala,Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation, 66. Brigham YoungUniversity, Provo, pp. 237–252.

Walker, Thomas S., Jodha, N.S., 1986. How small farm households adapt to risk. In:Hazell, P., Pomareda, C., Valdes, A. (Eds.), Crop Insurance for AgriculturalDevelopment: Issues and Experiences. Johns Hopkins University Press,Baltimore, pp. 17–34.

Ward, G.K., Wilson, S.R., 1978. Procedures for comparing and combiningradiocarbon age determination: a critique. Archaeometry 20, 19–31.

Webster, David, Freter, Ann Corrine, Storey, Rebecca, 2004. Dating Copan culture-history: implications for the terminal classic and the collapse. In: Demarest, A.,Rice, P.M., Rice, D.S. (Eds.), The Terminal Classic in the Maya Lowlands: Collapse,Transition, and Transformation. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.

Wendt, Carl J., 2003. Early Formative Domestic Organization and CommunityPatterning in the San Lorenzo Tenochtitlán Region, Veracruz, Mexico.Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, ThePennsylvania State University, University Park.
































































http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10814-014-9080-x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10814-014-9080-x







http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12520-014-0210-7

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12520-014-0210-7





































































West, Robert C., 1947. Cultural Geography of the Modern Tarascan Area. GreenwoodPress, Westport, CT (Publication No. 7. Institute of Social Anthropology,Smithsonian Institution).

Winterhalder, Bruce, Goland, Carol, 1997. An evolutionary ecology perspective ondiet choice, risk, and plant domestication. In: Gremillion, K.J. (Ed.), People,Plants, and Landscapes: Studies in Paleoethnobotany. University of AlabamaPress, Tuscaloosa, pp. 123–160.

Wylie, Alison., 1999. Rethinking unity as a ‘‘working hypothesis’’ for philosophy ofscience: how archaeologists exploit the disunities of science. Perspect. Sci. 7,293–317.

Zeder, Melinda A., 2012. The broad spectrum revolution at 40: resource diversity,intensification and an alternative to optimal foraging explanations. J. Anthropol.Archaeol. 31, 241–264.














Is it Agriculture Yet?: Intensified Maize-Use at 1000 cal BC in the Soconusco and Mesoamerica

Documents

Transcript of Is it Agriculture Yet?: Intensified Maize-Use at 1000 cal BC in the Soconusco and Mesoamerica